Return to Should Respectable Historians Attend and Speak at Conferences Hosted by David Irving?
My understanding is that Mr Khawaja cares, Mr Salzman
(#43252)
by Don Williams on September 30, 2004 at 10:24 AM
by Don Williams on September 30, 2004 at 10:24 AM
In his September 25, 2004 2:49 PM post above, Mr Khawaja
stated: "The real question is why she was forced to appear in court in the first place--a question that so far has gone unanswered in this discussion despite repeated attempts to pose it"
Personally, I thought "the real question" was whether
Irving was a charlatan or a historian who had made errors and ,if the latter, whether those errors were widespread and major.
However, Mr Khawaja then went on to note (September 27, 2004 at 6:32 PM ) that
"I then made the point that Lipstadt's not testifying at trial by itself tells us nothing about the merits or demerits of her view. Having assiduously avoid the subject I actually raised, you then rush off to discuss at great length a subject I hadn't raised. But the fact remains: the original claim I made has so far gone unacknowledged, unaddressed, and undiscussed. It remains a fact that Lipstadt's not testifying is not a reflection on her case. Whatever else you want to say about her case, if you don't accept that fact, you are flouting reality. "
Chastened by the masterful rhetoric of an Aristotelian, I have felt compelled to address Mr Khawaja's objections.
For example, I think that a look at reality will show that his statement re Lipstadt failure to testify is wrong. I will explain why in a later post in the hope that Mr Khawaja's masterful logic will show me the error in my judgment.
Fortunately, this is not quite a diversion -- I share historians' silly prejudice about arranging things in chronological order so I think it is rational to look at the pre-trial events before looking at the trial itself.
stated: "The real question is why she was forced to appear in court in the first place--a question that so far has gone unanswered in this discussion despite repeated attempts to pose it"
Personally, I thought "the real question" was whether
Irving was a charlatan or a historian who had made errors and ,if the latter, whether those errors were widespread and major.
However, Mr Khawaja then went on to note (September 27, 2004 at 6:32 PM ) that
"I then made the point that Lipstadt's not testifying at trial by itself tells us nothing about the merits or demerits of her view. Having assiduously avoid the subject I actually raised, you then rush off to discuss at great length a subject I hadn't raised. But the fact remains: the original claim I made has so far gone unacknowledged, unaddressed, and undiscussed. It remains a fact that Lipstadt's not testifying is not a reflection on her case. Whatever else you want to say about her case, if you don't accept that fact, you are flouting reality. "
Chastened by the masterful rhetoric of an Aristotelian, I have felt compelled to address Mr Khawaja's objections.
For example, I think that a look at reality will show that his statement re Lipstadt failure to testify is wrong. I will explain why in a later post in the hope that Mr Khawaja's masterful logic will show me the error in my judgment.
Fortunately, this is not quite a diversion -- I share historians' silly prejudice about arranging things in chronological order so I think it is rational to look at the pre-trial events before looking at the trial itself.
Re: My understanding is that Mr Khawaja cares, Mr Salzman
(#43278)
by Sara D. Salzman on September 30, 2004 at 1:45 PM
by Sara D. Salzman on September 30, 2004 at 1:45 PM
Point taken, Mr. Williams.
Persoanlly, I thought the "real question" was "should respectable historians attend and speak at conferences hosted by David Irving"? <smile>
And of course, I think I've made my opinion on that question painfully clear. I believe Mr. Irving is a charlatan, and that those who defend his falsifying of history are making bad decisions, to say the least.
If you would like to contact me off-list, I will be delighted to share with you some of the other reasons why I feel this way. But apparently, my expressing facts about Mr. Irving has upset poor Mr. Kirstein so deeply that he has removed himself from the discussion, and I would hate to be thought of as a "party-pooper."
Sara Salzman
catamont@REMOVEcomcast.net
Persoanlly, I thought the "real question" was "should respectable historians attend and speak at conferences hosted by David Irving"? <smile>
And of course, I think I've made my opinion on that question painfully clear. I believe Mr. Irving is a charlatan, and that those who defend his falsifying of history are making bad decisions, to say the least.
If you would like to contact me off-list, I will be delighted to share with you some of the other reasons why I feel this way. But apparently, my expressing facts about Mr. Irving has upset poor Mr. Kirstein so deeply that he has removed himself from the discussion, and I would hate to be thought of as a "party-pooper."
Sara Salzman
catamont@REMOVEcomcast.net
Re: Did Lipstadt treat Irving unfairly before the trial? Who cares?
(#43393)
by Tom Stoneburner on October 1, 2004 at 9:46 AM
by Tom Stoneburner on October 1, 2004 at 9:46 AM
Miss Salzman,
*Let's get back to Irving's "Real History" conference. Have you any idea what kinds of speakers Irving attracts? Have you any idea what kinds of "real" history is discussed there?*
I was a featured speaker at Mr Irving's Real History Conference this year. I am a former Marine Corporal. Two of the subjects I covered were the 1993 assault on the Branch Davidians and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Both were horrible events.
I was privileged to have lunch and share a bus seat with Mr. Irving over the Real History weekend. I have no problem calling him a good man. He is a fantastic speaker. His speech on Dresden was easily the best of the conference.
The next conference is scheduled for 2006. I will pay for your admission if you wish to attend.
Take care,
Tom Stoneburner
*Let's get back to Irving's "Real History" conference. Have you any idea what kinds of speakers Irving attracts? Have you any idea what kinds of "real" history is discussed there?*
I was a featured speaker at Mr Irving's Real History Conference this year. I am a former Marine Corporal. Two of the subjects I covered were the 1993 assault on the Branch Davidians and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Both were horrible events.
I was privileged to have lunch and share a bus seat with Mr. Irving over the Real History weekend. I have no problem calling him a good man. He is a fantastic speaker. His speech on Dresden was easily the best of the conference.
The next conference is scheduled for 2006. I will pay for your admission if you wish to attend.
Take care,
Tom Stoneburner
If Invited, I Shall Return
(#43480)
by Peter N. Kirstein on October 2, 2004 at 5:36 PM
by Peter N. Kirstein on October 2, 2004 at 5:36 PM
Hello Mr Stoneburner,
I attended your talk and thought your debunking of Kennedy assassination myths was quite apropos. I respect your service as a Marine corporal and I hope you did not injure or hurt another human. I also hope you were not injured as well in any battle or war. You seemed fit and healthy so I feel that can be ruled out. Or hopefully so.
I did not know Mr Irving was going to sponsor another conference in 2006. If I am reinvited, I will certainly accept. I believe the primary emphasis should be placed on what one says and not necessarily who they say it to. Also, I define for myself what is appropriate and inappropriate. I simply ignore public dictates of ought and must; in fact, I defy it.
Peter N. Kirstein
I attended your talk and thought your debunking of Kennedy assassination myths was quite apropos. I respect your service as a Marine corporal and I hope you did not injure or hurt another human. I also hope you were not injured as well in any battle or war. You seemed fit and healthy so I feel that can be ruled out. Or hopefully so.
I did not know Mr Irving was going to sponsor another conference in 2006. If I am reinvited, I will certainly accept. I believe the primary emphasis should be placed on what one says and not necessarily who they say it to. Also, I define for myself what is appropriate and inappropriate. I simply ignore public dictates of ought and must; in fact, I defy it.
Peter N. Kirstein
Return to Should Respectable Historians Attend and Speak at Conferences Hosted by David Irving?
by Sara D. Salzman on September 30, 2004 at 8:47 AM