From mkelley@U.Arizona.EDU Wed Dec 13 19:34:25 PST 1995
Article: 15925 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.eas.asu.edu!noao!news.Arizona.EDU!kitts.u.arizona.edu!mkelley
From: Marty Kelley 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Debby's specifications; her own words.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:58:15 -0700
Organization: The University of Arizona
Lines: 99
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: kitts.u.arizona.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <4af9ct$cji@zippy.cais.net> 

Hey, everyone! Tom Moran really IS a "revisionist scholar"! And here's an 
example of his selective quoting to prove it:

On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, tom moran wrote:

[oblique reference to another _NY Times_ story snipped--I'll check this 
one later]

> 	Nov. 8, 1993, New York Times, Letter to the Editor;
> 
> "Need to Refute the Deniers of the Holocaust"
>                                                  by Deborah Lipstadt.
> 
> 	"Jean Claude Pressac's book detailing how the Nazis gas chambers at
> Auschwitz actually worked has elicited condemnation from a variety of
> sources contending that '"genocide was possible because it happened"'.
> Deborah didn't fill the readers in on the first part of the quote for
> some reason, but as it appears, her part of the quote elicits the idea
> the quoter is agreeing with the story.
> 	Anyway, the gist of her mentality and criteria for historical accuracy
> lies in her statement "They argue Pressac's book is superfluous; the
> tears of the survivors should be sufficient proof."
> 	Let me reiterate Deborahs terse statement on historical accounting;
> 
>      ; THE TEARS OF THE SURVIVORS SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT PROOF".

Ah, but that's NOT the "gist of her mentality" at all--it is, in fact, a 
position that she explicitly argues AGAINST, as the full text of her 
letter shows.  Let's compare the full text of Dr. Lipstadt's letter with 
Mr. Moran's characterization of it, shall we? 

To the Editor:
	Jean Claude Pressac's book detailing how the Nazi gas chambers at 
Auschwitz actually worked (news article, Oct. 28, Week in Review Oct 31) 
has elicited condemnation from a variety of sources contending that 
"genocide was possible because it happened." They argue that Pressac's 
work is superfluous; the tears of the survivors should be sufficient proof.
	In the best of all possible worlds they would be right.  The 
testimony of those who suffered as well as the corroboration of the 
perpetrators themselves would be the ultimate proof.  But eventually the 
survivors will pass on and future generations will seek this 
documentation.  Moreover, we live in a world where a small group of 
people, many of whom have an anti-Semitic and neo-fascist agenda, labor 
assiduously to convince future generations that the Holocaust was a 
hoax.  Irrespective of their motives, their claims are utter nonsense.
	But as recent polls have shown, some people have been confused by 
them.  They see the deniers as the "other side" of a debate.  Mr. 
Pressac's book adds to the pre-existing mound of documentary evidence and 
testimony which describes how such a horror happened.  
	I too have been challenged as to why I had to write a book 
exposing the background and methodology of the deniers.  Had they been 
ignored from the outset, my book would also be superfluous.  But too many 
people, including naive students and talk show hosts, treat them as an 
other "point of view." So a comprehensive analysis of the deniers was 
necessary.

Deborah E. Lipstadt
Atlanta, Nov. 2, 1993

(_NY Times_, Nov 8, 1993, p. A-18)

It's rather different when you read the whole letter, isn't it?  The line 
"the tears of the survivors should be sufficient proof" is NOT 
Lipstadt's "terse statement on historical accounting," as Mr. Moran puts 
it.  The line is, instead, a position which Lipstadt attributes to 
critics of Pressac's book (and of her own work), and a position which she 
then goes on to argue is insufficient.  The rest of her letter explains 
that physical documentary works such as Pressac's are vital supplements 
to the eyewitness testimony of both survivors and the perpetrators.

So, congratulations, Mr. Moran. You have engaged in one of the very 
tactics which are the mark of Holocaust denial at its finest: quoting 
someone misleadingly and out of context.  Will you now acknowledge that 
you have mischaracterized the contents of Dr. Lipstadt's letter? And will 
you perhaps apologize for that mischaracterization?

Oh, and by the way, in a recent post, you said that "name-calling is 
childmindness."  In reference to the heading you gave to this thread, 
wouldn't you agree that calling someone by a diminutive version of their 
name (and one that they don't themselves use) is a rather childish 
example of name calling? For example, calling Deborah Lipstadt "Debby"?  
I don't recall any opponents of Holocaust denial calling David Irving 
"Davy" or Arthur Butz "Artie."   The usual convention is to refer to 
writers by their last names.  

>>>Posted and E-mailed.  Followups to alt.revisionism, please.  E-mailed 
replies to this message will be posted to Usenet unless otherwise 
requested by sender<<<


----------------------
Marty Kelley  (mkelley@U.Arizona.EDU)

"When Zsa Zsa Gabor represents a dose of reality,
can madness be far behind?" --Griffy

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor