🚀 go-pugleaf

"ataturkey" <ataturkey@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1143874552.992750.5750@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Patrick Keenan wrote:
>> "ataturkey" <ataturkey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1143841989.809315.95040@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> > Patrick Keenan wrote:
>> >> "ataturkey" <ataturkey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1143817003.201500.138700@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Roger wrote:
>> >> >> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> >> >>    (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> >> >>       someone claiming to be ataturkey wrote
>> >> >>          in message
>> >> >> <1143772744.649871.133480@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Roger wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Dare say, this looks a whole lot like defamation of
>> >> >> >> >> >> character.
>> >> >> >> >> >> And I don't
>> >> >> >> >> >> even agree with McVay on the core issues of Nizkor.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >It is a shame that people resort to garbage like this and it 
>> >> >> >> >> >is
>> >> >> >> >> >even a
>> >> >> >> >> >bigger shame that it goes on on both sides.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> No, the shame is that I don't think you even realize that 
>> >> >> >> >> your
>> >> >> >> >> lie
>> >> >> >> >> that "it goes on on both sides" is exactly that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >I know for a fact that your side does call people from pay 
>> >> >> >> >phones
>> >> >> >> >to
>> >> >> >> >harass the families of those your side does not agree with.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And your proof that anyone here has done this is ... ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >"Nazihunter" was recently exposed for doing exactly that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And by that act, demonstrated that zie was *not* on "my side."
>> >> >
>> >> > He was harassing those who disagreed with the propaganda put out by
>> >> > your side.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And the identity of "nazihunter" has never been determined.
>> >> >
>> >> > He was recently exposed. He is making his obscene and threatening 
>> >> > calls
>> >> > from Canada.
>> >>
>> >> Was he, now.   By whom was he exposed?    If you're thinking it was 
>> >> Mr.
>> >> Bradbury, Mr. Bradbury has insisted that "nazihunter" was one person,
>> >> then
>> >> when shown to be wrong,  insisted it was another person.   So which 
>> >> one,
>> >> and
>> >> why dou think your idenfiication is reliable?
>> >
>> > Far too many people were victimized by the slime that goes by the name
>> > "nazihunter".
>>
>> And do you have any real idea who that person is?    You claim that the
>> person was exposed recently.   By whom, and as whom?   And what makes you
>> sure that the identification is correct?
>>
>> I notice that you have carefully gone around the point that Mr. Bradbury,
>> who I suspect you think "exposed" Nazihunter,  is also known to have been
>> wrong about it.   He's wrong about a lot of other things too, but we'll 
>> set
>> those aside for just now.
>>
>> So since Mr. Bradbury does *not* know who "Nazihunter" is or was, how can
>> you, or he, be sure of what "side" he (or she) is on, if any?
>>
>> > The calls came from pay phones in Canada.
>>
>> You know, Canada's a very big place and there are lots of people here.
>> "The guy who called from a pay phone in Canada"  is *not* enough 
>> information
>> for an identification.
>>
>> We have lots of phones here, too.   In fact, the very first telephones 
>> were
>> made here.
>>
>> Similarly, "you know the guy, he wears jeans a lot" is not sufficient
>> information to identify an adult male.
>>
>> And, we have a fairly open border.   It's very easy for American citizens 
>> to
>> simply walk across the border and pick up a phone.  Visitors from other
>> countries can do this, too.    All that's required is local currency.
>>
>> Many major Canadian cities are well within a couple of hours drive of the
>> border.   Some are within a few minutes walk.
>>
>> > Do you approve or disapprove of making obscene and threatening calls to
>> > the families of people
>>
>> I absolutely disapprove.   There is no question of this: it's wrong. 
>> We
>> have police to deal with such things, and the matter should be referred 
>> to
>> them, and to the courts.
>>
>> Now, let's get back to my  point:   Do you approve or disapprove of 
>> publicly
>> *and wrongly* making claims that a specific, named person is doing such
>> things?
>>
>> Certainly, the person "Nazihunter" was incorrectly identified by Mr.
>> Bradbury, who for some time threw around  the name of the person he 
>> thought
>> it was.    Do you think that was honorable?
>>
>> So, on what, exactly,  do you base your claim that the person 
>> "nazihunter"
>> was ever *correctly* identified?
>
> I will not go into details because the reason why (and many others) I
> do not use my real name is because I was also victimized by your
> "nazihunter".

I'm not remotely interested in your real name.

If you have received such calls, contact the police.    That's why we pay 
them.

Now, I asked you on what you base your idea  that the person "nazihunter" 
was ever *correctly* identified.

Your source is Mr. Bradbury, isn't it?   And you should be aware that he was 
wrong and published the name and personal details of the wrong person.

Do you think that was honorable for him to do?

> The calls came from the general area that was recently
> identified.

Guess what.   There are *millions* of people in "the general area that was 
recently identified".    A significant number of people pass through that 
area every day, so just how have you narrowed the field down to one?

And yet, you insist that you have and that the identity has been posted 
recently.    The problem is, at least one, possibly all,  of the identities 
that were posted are known to be *wrong*.

How do you think these mis-identified people will feel?    Do you suppose 
they might feel wronged - by you?    How will that make your position more 
honorable?

>You can dance around this all you want

I'm not dancing around it.   The practice is wrong.

What *you* are "dancing around" is the question of false identification and 
the effects of it on the people falsely identified.

And since you are a person who is claiming that identifications have been 
made, that question is quite legitimately posed *to you*.

Will you now answer it?    Or continue to avoid it?

> and pose all the
> clever little questions you like

I'm sorry you find these questions clever.   They aren't.

The questions are simple and clearly targeted:   You are inferring that 
identifications are correct.   We know that what was probably your source 
for this is known to have been wrong.

You're providing plenty of clues that will lead to re-publication of names 
and personal information *of the wrong persons*.

Will that not place you in exactly the position you are condemning?

How, exactly, is that honorable?

> but there is nothing that compares to
> personal experience.

Regarding your personal experience, in no way do I approve of it, and I 
recommend you contact legal authorities.

And for your information, I, too, have been the target of such activities, 
so you have little to tell me of personal experience.

The question remains, and continues to be avoided by you:   On what basis do 
you claim that this person was "exposed"?

If there is the remotest possibility the "exposure" was of the wrong person, 
and that possibility is rather more than remote,  you do not know if the 
"exposure" is of the correct person, or of their point of view.

But you do claim that the "exposure" was of the correct person, and in doing 
so you place yourself in line with the people who post lists of what they 
think is people's personal contact information.       And regarding personal 
experience,  my information - which is incorrect, btw - is on some of those 
lists.

Please explain to me how this puts you in any kind of honorable position.


> These calls helped me decide that there is little
> (or no) difference between Nazis and Zionazis.

Well, you appear to be making a rather large leap here.    There are 
*millions* of potential callers,  and you say you have identified one person 
and know their point of view.    I'm suggesting that you do *not* know with 
any certainty the identity or the point of view.

I'm suggesting that it's just as likely that your caller was the same as any 
of mine, and that their ideological bent may not be related to Nazism or 
Zionism or any other ism.

> It is a disgusting and
> cowardly thing to harass people and their families because of their
> opinions

I have no disagreement with this statement whatsoever.

What I do disagree with is your endorsement of false identifications.

> and both sides should stop it.

I certainly agree that such things should not start, and if they did, should 
stop.

But if you think that referring to public identifications *of the wrong 
person* is helpful or honorable, aren't you contributing to the same 
problem?

That is the issue you continue to dance around.    Will you now address it?

-pk


>>
>> -pk
>>
>> > who express an opinion contrary to Zionist
>> > propaganda from pay phones in a cowardly and disgusting manner?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> -pk
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When those posts were being made, "my side" routinely condemned 
>> >> >> them
>> >> >> -- can you point to any such from deniers about these "lisa"
>> >> >> forgeries?
>> >> >
>> >> > I think that these "lisa" posts are disgusting and so is 
>> >> > "nazihunter".
>> >> > There are only a handful of people on these lists who are able to
>> >> > handle differences of opinions without name calling. The only one 
>> >> > who
>> >> > comes to mind is Al Smith. There could be one or two others.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >It is a
>> >> >> >> >disgusting and cowardly thing to do and is the main cause of
>> >> >> >> >people
>> >> >> >> >no
>> >> >> >> >longer posting under their real names. You should be ashamed 
>> >> >> >> >for
>> >> >> >> >shameful conduct of your side just as the other side should be
>> >> >> >> >ashamed
>> >> >> >> >for the shameful conduct of their side.
>> >> >
>> >
>