🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BtnxAx.9nv@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>
>Here are just some of the things Irving has claimed:
>	
>	* that the Holocaust never took place.
>	
>	* that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were built by the Poles
>	during the second world war as a "tourist attraction".
>
>	* that the diaries of Anne Frank are a forgery.

			       [ ... ]

So, now I know. My wife's grandfather lost his life in one of these
"tourist attractions" and my grandfather was for four years on
"vacations".-(

>P. S.  Although I detest Irving and his views, I nevertheless
>support his right to speak.  But the Hotel Bayrischer Hof and
>European Sound Import are not compelled to give him a forum,
>and I have every right to express my displeasure at their choices.
>So do you.

I completely agree that he has all right speak, but does he has right
to spread lies? Somehow I can't understand this.

Best regards,

Andrej

shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:

>I have just learned that David Irving, notorious holocaust denier and
>Hitler apologist, is scheduled to speak in our area in November.
>To make it worse, a store on King Street in Kitchener is promoting his
>talk in their store window, and selling tickets.
                                 ^^^^^^^
People are actually going to PAY REAL MONEY to listen to this hoser? 
I hope he's underestimating the intelligence of the lowest common 
denominator here. Be wonderfully amusing if his costs exceeded his
take.

Eric

In article <Btp3FJ.95z@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca>, ejdavies@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Davies) writes:
> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
> 
> >I have just learned that David Irving, notorious holocaust denier and
> >Hitler apologist, is scheduled to speak in our area in November.
> >To make it worse, a store on King Street in Kitchener is promoting his
> >talk in their store window, and selling tickets.
>                                  ^^^^^^^
> People are actually going to PAY REAL MONEY to listen to this hoser? 
> I hope he's underestimating the intelligence of the lowest common 
> denominator here. Be wonderfully amusing if his costs exceeded his
> take.

Though your sentence would undoubtly apply in Waterloo, it may not be
the same for Kitchener.

According to sources that shall remain unnamed, European Sound claims to 
have a sizable mailing list of neo-nazi german emigrees in Kitchener.




-- 
Alex Lopez-Ortiz                              alopez-o@maytag.UWaterloo.ca
Deparment of Computer Science                       University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario                                                   Canada

In article <Btp3FJ.95z@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca> ejdavies@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Davies) writes:
>shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>
>>I have just learned that David Irving, notorious holocaust denier and
>>Hitler apologist, is scheduled to speak in our area in November.
>>To make it worse, a store on King Street in Kitchener is promoting his
>>talk in their store window, and selling tickets.
>                                 ^^^^^^^
>People are actually going to PAY REAL MONEY to listen to this hoser? 
>I hope he's underestimating the intelligence of the lowest common 
>denominator here. Be wonderfully amusing if his costs exceeded his
>take.
>
>Eric

Don't underestimate Irving--he's more dangerous than you might think.

He last spoke in Canada in 1989.  According to the Globe & Mail
for March 6, 1989, his talk "sparked spontaneous cheering and
clapping from 450 people who packed a Toronto hall".  He testified
for the defense in the Zundel case in 1988 (which was
overturned by yesterday's Supreme Court decision).  At that time, the
"$10 tickets for the speech were advertised in community newspapers such
as the Deutsche Press, a German-language newspaper".  

He had been invited to speak to the Carleton University history department
in 1989, but that invitation was cancelled when they found out who
he really was.  Similarly, a talk before the Royal Military Institute 
in Toronto was cancelled when they found out his real message.
According to the Globe & Mail (March 8, 1989), "Col. Hardie said
the institute was unaware of Mr. Irving's controversial [sic] views."

Irving masquerades as an historian, even though he has no historical
training.  This has fooled several organizations into taking him seriously
and inviting him to speak.  At $10 a person, that can be real money.

Jeff Shallit

In article <BtnxAx.9nv@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>I have just learned that David Irving, notorious holocaust denier and
>Hitler apologist, is scheduled to speak in our area in November.
>	* that the Holocaust never took place.
>	* that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were built by the Poles
>	during the second world war as a "tourist attraction".
>	* that the diaries of Anne Frank are a forgery.
>	[etc]

	Hmmm.  Sounds interesting.  I think I'll go.  Thanks for bringing this
to my attention.

Brett Maraldo



-- 
               --------     Unit 36 Research     ---------
	                "Alien Technology Today"
  	 	      bmaraldo@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca
  	           {uunet!clyde!utai}!watserv1!bmaraldo

In article <BtpD25.44u@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>Don't underestimate Irving--he's more dangerous than you might think.
>Irving masquerades as an historian, even though he has no historical
>training.  This has fooled several organizations into taking him seriously
>and inviting him to speak.  At $10 a person, that can be real money.

	This has nothing directly to do with Irving.  I had to post something
about this last statement because it really made me angy.  Just because someone
hasn't had 'training' doesn't mean they aren't legitimate at what they do.  I,
for one, learn more on my own and without opportunity for certificate.  I am
a musician and composer with no training.  I study General Relativity with
no formal training.  I repair digital electronics, with no training.  I have
successfully written a string quartet, repaired numerous electronics and written
a thesis on General Relativity... with no formal training.  Can I not claim
that I am a composer, electronics repair person and Relativist?  
	On the other hand, it is possible that by training you include that
which is learned through independent study (not necessarily through 'formal'
training or human-assisted training).  If this is the case, ignore me :-)


Brett Maraldo

-- 
               --------     Unit 36 Research     ---------
	                "Alien Technology Today"
  	 	      bmaraldo@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca
  	           {uunet!clyde!utai}!watserv1!bmaraldo

shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:

>P. S.  Although I detest Irving and his views, I nevertheless
>support his right to speak.  But the Hotel Bayrischer Hof and
>European Sound Import are not compelled to give him a forum,
>and I have every right to express my displeasure at their choices.
>So do you.

Sure, express your displeasure, but leave him alone.  Parade
outside his talk, if you want.  Admit at least that some people
have a legitimate curiosity toward what this person has to say.


abrodnik@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca writes:

>I completely agree that he has all right speak, but does he has right
>to spread lies? Somehow I can't understand this.

Oh, come now.  Lie-spreading is the bread-and-butter of many activist
groups.  I don't think he's more dangerous than, say, some of the
views promoted by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
-- 

-- Frank Ch. Eigler -- Comp Eng -- <eigler@ecf.toronto.edu> --

In article <BtpFE7.71s@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, bmaraldo@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Commander Brett Maraldo) writes:
> In article <BtnxAx.9nv@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
> >I have just learned that David Irving, notorious holocaust denier and
> >Hitler apologist, is scheduled to speak in our area in November.
> >	* that the Holocaust never took place.
> >	* that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were built by the Poles
> >	during the second world war as a "tourist attraction".
> >	* that the diaries of Anne Frank are a forgery.
> >	[etc]
> 
> 	Hmmm.  Sounds interesting.  I think I'll go.  Thanks for bringing this
> to my attention.

If you want to go, fine. But be sure to catch the fallacies of his arguments.
Irvnig's an accomplished speaker and he may make you believe the most outrageoues
lies if you don't keep your mind sharp.

All of this is added by pscological denial. The human mind sometimes
tries to find ways to convince itself that some horrible happenings
never tool place.

As an example of the type of fallacies put forward by revisionists, I'm
reposting this parody of their arguments. In this context their fallacies
are self-evident. But replace Idaho by Holocaust and you may notice that
it SEEMS to make more sense, even though is equally wrong. 

--begin posting---


From: alu@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (Alan Lustiger)
Subject: THE "STATE" OF IDAHO: THE CASE FOR OPEN DEBATE
Date: 20 May 92 15:15:40 GMT

THE "STATE" OF IDAHO: THE CASE FOR OPEN DEBATE

If you would ask any schoolchild how many states there are in the
United States, you will get the same answer: 50. Fifty states
in the Union. It is simply an accepted "fact." If you would
disagree with this supposed "fact," you would be branded insane
or worse.

However, mounting evidence shows that there are in fact only 49
states in the US, and the "state" of Idaho is a baseless myth.

We have been trying to distribute and publish this information
for over *two years*, but our scholarship has not been given
any respect. We have been censored, vilified, ridiculed and
spat upon by the "traditional" geographers and historians, but
WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED! 

All we ask is that the existence of the state of Idaho be debated, 
as every other historical and geographic "fact" can be debated.
Time after time, our opponents have refused to debate us on the
FACTS. This alone should tell you something about the people who
support the "existence" of this "43rd state."

Please read the following evidence VERY CAREFULLY, and you will be 
astonished at the veracity of our cause. 

THE POPULATION MYTH

Do you know anybody from Idaho? Do you know anybody *who knows
anybody* from Idaho? According to the 1990 "census," there are
over one million (1,000,000, or 1 x 10^6) people living in
Idaho. But if there are so many Idahoers, where are they?

Some people have come forward and claimed that they were born
and raised in "Idaho." But *every single person* who made this
claim have been shown to be frauds and charlatans. These "Idahoan
wannabes" are invariably inconsistent with each other about the 
size (in square miles or square kilometers) of "Idaho," about
various town and village names, and even about the names
of "Idaho's mighty rivers." 

THE SIZE FARCE

According to traditional geographic sources (created entirely
by people who believe in the existence of Idaho, and probably
the Tooth Fairy, also) the "State" of Idaho is more than twice
the size of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, 
Connecticut and Massachusetts *combined.* Isn't it strange that
a state with such vast land resources has so few people?  And
even of you look at a map (created by the Idaho-centric 
cartographers) the "State" of "Idaho" is dwarfed by its much
larger neighbor, Montana. 

SATELLITE EVIDENCE

Recently declassified weather satellite information, showing
the entire continental United States, shows absolutely *no
evidence* that there is any state where "Idaho" is supposedly
located. Noted experts in the field of interpreting these
pictures unanimously agree that, from outer space, it is
impossible to determine the borders of this elusive "state."
Yet meteorologists and cartographers routinely overlay
these satellite pictures with the outline of states that
would seem to indicate Idaho's existence.

PHOTOGRAPHIC "EVIDENCE"

Many people, skeptical of the clear evidence that Idaho
does not and never did exist, point to photographs that they've
seen in encyclopedias and postcards seeming to show parts of the 
state of Idaho. 

It is important to note that a photograph without a caption
is often meaningless. A picture of people in boats surrounded
by mountains could have been taken in Colorado or Nevada, 
but when the holy *caption* says that this is a picture of
the "Salmon River" in "Idaho," gullible readers tend to
swallow this information whole *without any further examination.*

We have examined literally hundreds of these "photographs," and
the ones that are not outright fakes are all clearly taken in
other parts of the nation.

ASK THE JAPANESE

It is well known that Americans are woefully ignorant about
geography, which is one reason why it is so easy to fake an
entire state here. Not surprisingly, most of the effort to
create the illusion of Idaho has been expended in the USA.

But if you would ask a typical Japanese or French schoolchild
about what he/she knows about Idaho, you will usually get a
blank stare. People who are much better at geography than 
Americans have never heard to this "great state." 

THE POTATO MYTH 

Any given supermarket in the United States has sacks of potatoes
clearly marked "Idaho Potatoes." People make the assumption, that
when they are buying these potatoes, that they were *grown* in
the "state" of "Idaho." 

Actually, "Idaho" is a type of potato, just like "McIntosh" is
a type of apple. The FACT is that *many* states have potato crops,
as well as foreign countries, and potatoes that say "Idaho" on
them are no more from Idaho than Baltimore Orioles all come 
from Maryland.

SO, WHAT'S THERE?

Nothing. THERE IS NOTHING THERE. We have been so brainwashed
by the traditional mapmaking community to think that if Idaho
doesn't exist, then there must be some sort of vacuum there
instead. This is nonsense.

The very shapes and positions of the states, and indeed of
every nation on the planet, is only known through "information"
provided by cartographers. It is akin to asking "if Santa's
house isn't at the North Pole, then what's there instead?"

THE CARTOGRAPHER CONSPIRACY

The *only evidence* that there is a state called Idaho comes from
maps. Everybody has maps, in almanacs, in encyclopedias, and
on the walls of every elementary school classroom in America.

Astonishingly, *over 99%* of all maps are created by *cartographers!*
If any clearly defined set of people would control any other
important industry to that degree, everybody would be up in arms
about the undue influence given to a meager few. However, for
some reason, Cartographers are immune to such criticism. Any
mention about the Cartographer influence over the mapmaking
industry (and, as a natural extension, OUR VERY THOUGHTS!) is 
dismissed as "lunacy." 

As an indication of how insidious is this influence, just think:
have you ever questioned a map? Maps, being graphical objects,
require much less effort to assimilate into our very psyches. 
Behavioral studies show that people can much more readily understand
maps than printed descriptions of geographical areas; in fact,
the images on maps tend to go directly into the subconsciousness
of Man (Homo Sapiens) without the critical thinking that accompanies
reading. In a very real way, Cartographers are the *real* Thought
Police. 

But they do not work in a vacuum. There are much too few of them 
to do their real damage unaided. Mapmakers have conspired with the
editors of almanacs and encyclopedias to create a fantastic illusion
of space where there is none, people where there aren't any, and 
ski resorts where none exist. 

ONLY THE BEGINNING

This is only the tip of the iceberg. We have much more material
on this conspiracy, and we have yet to uncover one iota of evidence
that Idaho has ever existed. All of the so-called "evidence" is
a mixture of falsifications, coersions, lies and exaggerations.

The Cartographers would like nothing better than to silence us.
If you do not see any more postings on this subject, then you 
have clear evidence that their Conspiracy of Silence on Idaho 
has succeeded, and that Freedom of Speech has been curtailed by
the Cartographical Thought Police. 

What can you do? All we ask is that you be open minded. Of course,
you cannot trust any of the second-hand evidence that you would
find in libraries, maps (!), airline schedules or street signs.
All you can trust is what we have written here. We are confident
that once you evaluate all of the valid evidence, you will be
angered by this conspiracy, and motivated to do something about
the scum who perpetated this hoax. 

{ed A parody of holocaust revisionism, if you didn't notice.}

---------------------------------------------------------------
I hope that you have found the above interesting.  
               		Alan Lustiger AT&T Bell Laboratories ERC, Princeton, NJ
--
Selected by Brad Templeton.  MAIL your joke (jokes ONLY) to funny@clarinet.com.
Do not use the old site of "looking.on.ca" please.
Attribute the joke's source if at all possible.  A Daemon will auto-reply.









-- 
Alex Lopez-Ortiz                              alopez-o@maytag.UWaterloo.ca
Deparment of Computer Science                       University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario                                                   Canada

	Your post about the Idaho thing was hardly convincing me that Idaho
doesn't exist.  It was convncing me, however, that the person who wrote that
is critically fucked in the head (to coin a phase).  If that was an example
of the kind of arguments this Nazi guy is going to make then maybe the $10
entrance fee will be worth the comedy.  

Brett Maraldo

-- 
               --------     Unit 36 Research     ---------
	                "Alien Technology Today"
  	 	      bmaraldo@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca
  	           {uunet!clyde!utai}!watserv1!bmaraldo

In article <Btpo2y.II8@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, bmaraldo@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Commander Brett Maraldo) writes:
> 	Your post about the Idaho thing was hardly convincing me that Idaho
> doesn't exist. 

Any one that read the introduction to the "Idaho posting" knows that it was not 
meant to convince. Here is the paragraph in question:

>As an example of the type of fallacies put forward by revisionists, I'm
>reposting this parody of their arguments. In this context their fallacies
>are self-evident.                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

But I think Brett is just trying to be obnoxious...  

-- 
Alex Lopez-Ortiz                              alopez-o@maytag.UWaterloo.ca
Deparment of Computer Science                       University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario                                                   Canada

In article <92Aug28.135255edt.12046@roll.db.toronto.edu> fche@db.toronto.edu
("Frank Ch. Eigler") writes:
>shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>>P. S.  Although I detest Irving and his views, I nevertheless
>>support his right to speak.  But the Hotel Bayrischer Hof and
>>European Sound Import are not compelled to give him a forum,
>>and I have every right to express my displeasure at their choices.
>>So do you.
>
>Sure, express your displeasure, but leave him alone.  Parade
>outside his talk, if you want.  Admit at least that some people
>have a legitimate curiosity toward what this person has to say.

I suspect his brand of historical revisionism (the standard euphemism for
denial of the Holocaust) isn't all that different from what is currently out
there already.  In fact, there was (and no doubt it still continues) an
organization based in California called the Institute of Historical Review
(IHR) which publishes a journal dedicated mainly to historical revisionism.

For a study on the right wing in Canada, one may find the work "Is God a
Racist?" (Barrett, U of T Press, 1987) to be of interest.

>abrodnik@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>>I completely agree that he has all right speak, but does he has right
>>to spread lies? Somehow I can't understand this.
>
>Oh, come now.  Lie-spreading is the bread-and-butter of many activist
>groups.  I don't think he's more dangerous than, say, some of the
>views promoted by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.

Ah, but that's political naivety.  The point of speaking in public is not
merely to promote one's own views, but to organize sympathizers as well.
Though it may be possible to study a topic in isolation in academia, all too
often in the political realm issues are intertwined.  If organization and
networking is indeed a goal, then counter-organization is a legitimate
response.  I would not advocate censorship, however, as that would merely
sweep issues under the rug.

In article <92Aug28.135255edt.12046@roll.db.toronto.edu> fche@db.toronto.edu ("Frank Ch. Eigler") writes:
|
|Oh, come now.  Lie-spreading is the bread-and-butter of many activist
|groups.  I don't think he's more dangerous than, say, some of the
|views promoted by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.


	Frank, your opinions suck.


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker			Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.gts.org	Uucp: ...!web!becker!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "We want the worm, and we want a cow!"
 _< /_	 	- More Jimison, ordering drinks for his table

In article <92Aug28.135255edt.12046@roll.db.toronto.edu> fche@db.toronto.edu ("Frank Ch. Eigler") writes:
|
|Oh, come now.  Lie-spreading is the bread-and-butter of many activist
|groups.  I don't think he's more dangerous than, say, some of the
|views promoted by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.


	Frank, your opinion sucks.


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker			Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.gts.org	Uucp: ...!web!becker!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "We want the worm, and we want a cow!"
 _< /_	 	- More Jimison, ordering drinks for his table

In article <BtpD25.44u@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
> He had been invited to speak to the Carleton University history department
> in 1989, but that invitation was cancelled when they found out who
> he really was.  Similarly, a talk before the Royal Military Institute 
> in Toronto was cancelled when they found out his real message.
> According to the Globe & Mail (March 8, 1989), "Col. Hardie said
> the institute was unaware of Mr. Irving's controversial [sic] views."

  We can't let people with "controversial views" speak to a forum, can we?
  Instead of attempting to silence those academics with these views, why
  not show the errors in their conclusions via academic means?  Surely
  that's the best way to discredit academic liars.

  When Rushton's results got press time, nobody bothered to look at his
  method.  Later, when his method came to light, everybody laughed.
  Similarly, with the recent gender-difference brain-size study.  

                                                               Herb...