Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Your arguments focus on the definition and description of the > Holocaust as an event, not Holocaust denial as a phenomena. The > counter argument, which you've chosen to ignore, is that Holocaust > denial as a phenomena is nearly absolutely limited to the "Jewish" > portion that you find has been the unfair focus of attention.
That's fine. Just say so, and why. That's my argument. The other points I touched on about other kinds of "denial" were sensory, and not advocated. Note that articles like [[Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs]] are to some degree conceptualized within the general Holocaust. So there is no need to assume that another article, HD, should rely on another without explanation. > With your avowed great talent for debate, I'm surprised you find ignoring > arguments an effective strategy. Well, if some here can't presently deal with the rational arguments suggesting a rational interpretation of WP:LEDE, then I don't see why they couldn't spend their time dealing with other things. RQM has a backlog. > your claims of skill in "destroying" your opponents, or "[taking them] > to the woodshed", > I promise that my comments, regardless of how snarky or pointed, are aimed at your concepts, not you, and that I am neither trying to ape nor balderdash anyone, though the resulting sensations may be similar. >But there is some similarity between [the above] and those rappers > whose body of work mostly revolves around stating how incredibly > talented they are. Maybe your next redirect can be [[WP:MADBEATS]]. While the Oral Tradition is alive and well, keep in mind that the usage of the written word serves not just immutability, but also the formation of rational arguments, and the recording of details. That I am occasionally required to deal with irrational arguments has consequences, and I simply prefer that those consequences belong largely to the irrational arguer. :-) > If you and Ray want to counter what you see as an inappropriate bias > in the depth and breadth of Holocaust historical coverage, then you > should pursue an academic post and start publishing. Good luck to you > with that. Perhaps in academia the idea that no one actually "died" in > the Holocaust will be met with something other than outright > dismissal. Again, as with the [[Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs]] article, the issue isn't revisionism, or even consistent usage of terms - its about conceptualization in accord to NPOV. Trust me: I'm not an atheist. -Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l