The Transparency Of Cyber-Nitrate

[The honourable Vyshinsky]

Rush Graves <llurch at stanford.edu> writes:

>> yawen at enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) writes:
>> >>   Alexander Baron <A_Baron at abaron.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> >>  In article <4ui6qj$bk5 at news.enter.net> yawen at enter.net "Yale F. Edeiken" 
>> >writes:
>> >  
>> >>  > texts on Hitler.  You demonstrate another typical denier failing as
>> >>  > well. One of your 
>> >>  > friends (according to your story) goofed.  Insttead of blaming him, you
>> >>  > called someone who correctly pointed you to a valid source of
>> >>  > information a nasty name.
>> >>  >         Where is your apology, Lyin' Al?
>> >
>> >>  You really are one unpleasant person, aren't you Yale? You must meet an 
>> >>  awful lot of "anti-Semites".
>> >
>> >	Actually I meet very few outside of alt.revisionism.
>> 
>> "Me too." I hardly believed these dinosaurs still existed a year ago. I
>> think it's healthy to keep in mind just how unrepresentative the
>> Nazihuggers are. 
>> 
>> The ZGram list and the rec.music.white-power vote are pretty good

Liar.  You know very well the rec.music.white-power vote was falsified.

>> indicators that of the millions of people on the Internet, only a few
>> hundred are seriously into this garbage. 

Liar.  You know very well that Stormfront-L is not representative of net 
racismo.  It appears unusually intelligent vs. usenet racists is because 
of Don Black's moderation.  There aren't constant interruptions by Andrew 
Mathis, Mike Beebe, ara, scoop, sexy Jeanne Kapowski, etc., threatening 
to rape, mutilate, poison and murder racists, thanks to Mr. Black.  You 
also know very well that numbers of mailing list subscribers do not 
translate to active interest in a newsgroup.  How popular would 
comp.cypherpunks be if it was created and propagated?  FAR more popular 
than anyone would expect from a mere 1,000 or so current subscribers.  In 
fact, this is your's and tcmay, Sameer, shamrock, etc., duty to write a 
RFD and CFV for an UNMODERATED comp.cypherpunks newsgroup.  On second 
thought, you SHOULDN'T participate because you censor by moderation 
yourself as a power trip.  You know, in hindsight, I think I hurt the 
r.m.w-p effort more than helped, I only posted to usenet about it and 
avoided mail.  I shouldn't have respected cypherpunks enough to refuse to 
follow your practice of trolling against racists on the mailing list, I 
should have confined my campaign to cypherpunks.  Another example, does 
the 40 or so subscribers to coder-punks indicate there is very little 
interest in coding for crypto- at nonymity?!??????

>> I spent about an hour today reading Ingrid/Zundel's 93-page treatise on
>> "Background and Detailed Chronology of Ernst Zundel Persecution," which
>> Ingrid was so kind as to send me (OK, she didn't exactly know it was
>> me...). Near the end of the subsection called "The First Trial --
>> 'Spreading False News," I found a very encouraging couple of paragraphs,
>> which I'll quote here.

Liar.  Either post your entire copy to alt.revisionism or prove yourself 
a lying capitali$t bastard who's jealous about Zuendel because you are a 
J$wish preppie homo$exual righti$(t) ri(c)h pig.

>>       A year after Zuendel's trial a 200 page book entitled "Hate on
>>    Trial: The Zuendel Affair, the Media and Public Opinion in Canada" was
>>    published.... 
>> 
>>       "Hate on Trial" sought to measure through scientific polling data
>>    the effect of the massive coverage of the Zuendel trial on public
>>    opinion in Canada concerning Jews, the Holocaust and Germans. "The
>>    central motivation for our research project," wrote the authors, "was
>>    to find out what truly happened in the mind of the Canadian public. Did
>>    support for the Nazi perspective grow as a result of the trial and as a
>>    result of the media coverage of the trial? Did more Canadians become
>>    prejudiced against Jews as a result of the affair? How were attitudes
>>    towards Germans affected? What specifc roles did television and the
>>    press have in shaping Canadian attitudes? Were the media as harmful as
>>    many people, including journalists, feared?" (p. 31)
>> 
>>       The researchers found that news coverage of the trial:
>> 
>>     "...did more harm to the image of Germans than of Jews... Two thirds
>>     of Canadians did not change their opinions as a result of the
>>     extensive coverage of Mr. Zuendel's sensational seven week trial, but
>>     of those who did, the vast majority became less sympathetic to Germans
>>     and more sympathetic to Jews, the authors conclude... [W]hile
>>     television had a strong emotional impact, the effect was entirely
>>     opposite to what many people feared. 'People who were heavy, heavy
>>     television viewers said they became more sympathetic to Jews,'
>>     Professor Conrad Winn of Carleton University said." (Globe & Mail,
>>     March 22, 1986)
>> 
>> False "German v. Jew" conflict aside (in fact most Germans repudiate Mr. 
>> Zuendel's propaganda), I find it very encouraging that Zuendel largely
>> failed to troll up support. The public isn't as stupid as some people
>> think. 

Prove it, liar.  I can prove the opposite with just these examples: 
racist terrorism, Oklahoma City, Vipers, J$ws, Microsoft, Holocaust, 
capitali$m, flying saucers, penny stocks, etc.

>> The full citation of the referenced work is:
>> 
>> Weimann, Gabriel and Conrad Winn. Hate on Trial: the Zundel affair: the
>>   media and public opinion in Canada. New York: Mosaic Press, 1986.
>> 
>> I'll probably go pick it up at the Law Library to see how faithful
>> Ingrid/Zundel's review of the book is. I don't see why they'd lie about
>> this particular bit of information.

Why do you pretend to be Ingrid in your latest post?  Are you jealous of 
the pretty woman you'll never have because of your difficulties with 
those sort of things?

--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to                abuse at anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to    help at anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to          admin at anon.penet.fi