[images and captions added by this website] Read the internal debate, necessarily rather one-sided, in JBooks. Sample: "Can C-Span be sued? or somehow forced to issue an apology and make amends?" - Professor Gila Perach Hirsch, Vienna, Austria JBooks and the Deborah Lipstadt Trial Monday, March 21, 2005 A correspondent informs us: YOUR camel's nose in the tent foray into the JBooks forum elicited some interesting comments, including a silly post by Debbie herself. Honestly, this issue of "what happened with the delicatessen" is hysterical. I cannot think of a single narrative historian who doesn't embellish in this way. I would recommend however for the sake of alliteration at least that everyone should google Göring goggling. -- O.P.   QUICK as a wink, just like the comments on her "blog", the discussion of Debbie's book has DISAPPEARED. No matter, I saved the page, which is attached. Amazing that those who now advocate freedom of speech for "Deniers" to "make fools of themselves" would not censor themselves out of existence. I suppose it's all your fault. -- O.P. He adds: Please note the nice post below from JBooks: Re: Deborah Lipstadt Author: Edgar Katz Date: 03-21-05 09:56 Ms. Lipstadt, I must confess that I am somewhat confused by your attempts at silencing Mr. Irving because he is a "liar". Ms Lipstadt, we are all liars here on God's green earth, but this does not prohibit us from espousing our views. In other words, one need not prove their honesty or sincerity when presenting an argument prior to a debate. The only thing that matters in a debate are the facts being discussed. Furthermore, I must tell you that no one has ever been pre-emptively disqualified from a debate because they are thought to be dishonest. The ultimate judge in a debate is the Truth, and not you or I. If he is indeed such an obvious liar and a fraud, then he should be no match for you, and who are you to deny us proof that he is what you say he is? Thank you, Ed Katz   WITHIN minutes after JBooks (Monday, March 21, 2005) deleted the entire thread of comments on Lipstadt's book (see archived copy), the lone comment alone below appeared. It has now also disappeared. Tsk, tsk. Re: Deborah Lipstadt Author: Oberststuhlherr Date: 03-21-05 10:43 Ms. Lipstadt: I have to confess, I am fairly new to the topic of Nazi era revisionism. At least, in so much as I have taken it the least bit seriously. I had been aware of the existence of such people as Ernst Zündel and David Irving. I had dismissed them as prevaricators and extremists. Recently, however, in the context of discussions with others about the various events and locations involved in the Nazi epoch, I begand to seek detailed information about the evidence of what had actually happened. What I discovered where a lot of statements of conclusions conjoined with alleged evidence which was neither persuasive, nor substantial. One particular realm in which the evidence of what actually did take place seems quite ambiguous, and in many cases, intentionally misinterpreted, is that of the documentary evidence. Originally, I had trusted the English language translations; having given them a cursory review using a German-English dictionary. After finding many of the aspects of physical evidence lacking in persuasiveness, I decided to return to the documentary evidence with a more critical focus. I will add that, in the decade and a half between my first exposure to (and rejection of) Nazi era revisionism, and the time I recently returned to the topic, I have spent a great deal of time and effort investigating the etymologies of Germanic words. What I discovered, upon returning to the allegedly incriminating documentation is that much of it makes more sense if it is read differently than the orthodox historian will have it. In conjuction with reading about the (lack of) investigation on the part of the post war IMTs, I noticed the complete absence of any direct physical evidence for many of the alleged crimes in question. At the time the conceptual model took its initial form, there was virtually no effort to examine the physical evidence, nor to preserve the most significant components such as ruins of the alleged homicidal gaschambers. Several decades later, and as a direct result of challenges by revisionists, orthodox historians supported limited forensic investigations for the first time. These investigations were, at best, inconclusive. Many of the initially circulated stories of what happend in Nazi occupied Europe have been quietly dropped, but not put to rest in the collective public awareness. It is thus somewhat difficult to determine exactly what the orthodox historian even means by "The Holocaust". To the naive investigator, many of the preconceived notions are quickly debunked by a careful reading of discussions of such topics as human skin lampshades. Even in this case, the discussion is often formulated to force the reader to follow the footnotes to determine the evidence is indeed lacking. At some point during this exercise, reasonable minds will conclude the subject of "The Holocaust" has not been treated objectively by mainstream historians. The result is that the investigator become suspicious of what he reads, and looks for clearly presented, definitive proofs of the allegations which he had previously accepted as foregone conclusions. If, with that skeptical mindset, he then reads something of the nature of your recent BBC article found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/genocide/deniers_06.shtml, he will conclude that you are not being forthright and honest. Indeed, this article of yours is dishonest propaganda relying on the force of your credentials, as well as, the momentum of preconceived notions. In conclusion, I will say, I do not know what happened 60 years ago in Nazi occupied Europe, and neither do you. The evidence for the existence of homicidal gaschambers used at Auschwitz is far less than convincing. Indeed, that which I have seen, is inconsistent. What is alleged to have happened is physically impossible.     Index to the media scandal surrounding Prof Lipstadt's attempt to silence C-Span and the history debate