For a record of this discussion in full, see also

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/nyms/dthomas/diesel-retreat-01.html






Path: szdc2!newsp.zippo.com!clmx10.dial.voyager.net!user
From: jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The "Rudolph Report": Yet More "Revisionist" Nonsense
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 01:14:07 -0400
Organization: None
Lines: 101
Message-ID: 
References:  <19970521020400.WAA05652@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Xref:   szdc2 alt.revisionism:105191

dvdthomas@aol.com (DvdThomas) wrote:

> And, in summary, that a
> diesel engine versus any other kind of internal combustion engine would be
> an idiot's choice for a murder weapon, particularly given the ready
> availability of the wood burners.  You know all this of course.  Why then
> don't you want to share it with your readers?  A bit biased, are we? 
> Little bit of old-fashioned flim-flam, maybe? Sure as heck looks that way
> to me.

Oh, my.  Deja vu!

I'm going to try to make this summary as brief as possible.  Here's a
record of the discussion so far.  DT is "DvdThomas."  JM is myself.

Jan  2:  DT:  "Diesel engines are an extremely inefficient way to
              generate carbon monoxide."  etc.  Producer gas
              vehicles, support of Berg, and so on.

Jan  5:  DT:  "Daniel, you know as much about engines as you do about
              other technical matters you attempt to address. [...]
              Jeez, get a clue guy."

Jan  9:  JM:  "I'll go through your article point-by-point."

               * CAN DIESEL ENGINES KILL?
                  + Is high carbon monoxide necessary?
                  + Is a high fuel-air ratio possible?
                     - Would particulate exhaust ruin the engine?
                     - Would a load be required?
               * WAS THERE ANYTHING BETTER?
                  + Were gasoline engines better?
                  + Was producer gas better?
               * MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS
               * SUMMARY

Jan 10:  DT:  "Some points I'm going to be able to reply to quickly,
              others will require some research, and this will
              determine the order of address."

[a month of silence from DvdThomas on the subject]

Feb 11:  JM:  "out of curiosity, are you still working on your reply
              to the diesel article of early January?"

Feb 19:  JM:  "It's been six weeks now and I haven't seen any response
              from him regarding the diesel issues."

Feb 21:  DT:  "Patience, patience.  You jump too far with too little."

Feb 21:  DT:  "I have not replied to your article yet because I do not
              wish to do so with off the cuff remarks [...] I will at
              some point, later rather than sooner, address the diesel
              issues you raise."

[three months of silence from DvdThomas on the subject]

May 20:  DT:  Diesel engines are inefficient.  Producer gas vehicles,
              support of Berg, etc.  "You know all this of course.  Why
              then don't you want to share it with your readers?  A bit
              biased, are we?  Little bit of old-fashioned flim-flam,
              maybe? Sure as heck looks that way to me."

I stand in awe, "DvdThomas," at the facile way you attack your
opponents.  You have utterly failed to address the points raised in
January.  You have been reminded several times, and each time you have
said you will get around to responding eventually.

Yet, after all this artful dodging, you return to your original claims
after four and a half months.  You raise all the same old stuff which I
debunked in January (and which Mike Stein et al. had debunked in 1994). 
You repeat all the same old errors as if they were still fresh.

And then -- this is the crowning touch -- you have the cojones to accuse
your _opponents_ of engaging in "flim-flam," and of not sharing
pertinent information with the reader.  Whew!  There aren't enough "o"s
in the word "smooth" to describe that tactic.  You must have nerves of
steel to think you were going to get away with that one.

How about just addressing the subject?

Four and a half months ago, I gave a point-by-point refutation of the
Berg-rehash which you posted.  I deliberately dropped as many details as
I could, leaving only the most crucial points, so that it would be as
easy as possible for you to reply.

After promising a reply, several times, all you have offered is "get a
clue," "patience," and "old-fashioned flim-flam."

And my guess is that is all you _can_ offer.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

A record of this attempt at discussion will be archived at
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/nyms/dthomas/diesel-retreat-01 .

Posted;  not emailed by request.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy          http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
 jamie@nizkor.org     Director of Operations, The Nizkor Project
                                          http://www.nizkor.org/

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