Oct 9, 2014


1 comment:

Michael Santomauro said...

From: Fredrick Toben
Date: Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:14 PM

David, you seem to be accusing others, with whom you disagree, in a nasty and somewhat primitive tone. Such poor behaviour does not help to clarify the problems we are confronting in this field of enquiry, and I wonder why you are doing this.
Have you begun to study the Talmud and are you anxious to practise its death dialectic method of win-lose, instead of seeking to clarify the issues in a civilised way?
When you write:
>>Aussie Fred Toben, who, like a spurned suitor, admitted in an August 26th email to me (copied to about two dozen revisionists) that he still bears a grudge that I never met with him in the 1990s: “I never understood why you didn’t wish to meet with me when I came through (North America) in 1997 and 1999.” Get over it, Dame Edna. I don’t meet with loons.<<
- you assume it is a grudge, something that is surely autobiographical on your part.
Is it not a normal reaction to wonder why something happened? - and in our case the initial meeting was on with you and Bradley Smith but then it was cancelled without explanation.
The asking of questions is still not prohibited but there are moves afoot to ban this elementary form of enquiry because it may hurt someone’s feelings.
Name-calling is, as you certainly know quite well, not a part of civilised discourse, and it bothers me to see you behaving like a naughty school boy who needs to be pulled in line for using crude language. I don’t know whether you can blame your alcoholism for your behaviour because such character traits are usually deep-rooted, if not genetically determined.
So, it is only natural that when you re-surfaced with your book and lashed out so crudely at your former colleagues, I would recall that some years ago we almost met!
I now understand why we didn’t meet – I am still waiting for you to show proof of your physical beating that Irv Rubin allegedly inflicted upon you. You realized that I would be able to see through your deception pretty quickly, just as I can see through your deception about claiming the nonsense of “limited gassings” without any proof except some dubious documents.
I think you know by now that if you observe individuals over a long period, over decades, then their character reveals itself so clearly - as has been in your case. Everything you say and write is dubious, questionable, because your moral and intellectual integrity is shot to pieces. It does not help either to pull out the Zionist card, and to think because you ride on the Jewish racist card that this wins an argument. In any case your behaviour towards women, as you record in your book, is terribly degrading. Have you no shame?
Finally, notice how in the above quote you project your own infantile imaginings into the narrative so as to skew the matter, to distort the event in order to further your own agenda, whatever that may be.
Revisionists will continue to ask questions on matters Holocaust, including the existence or otherwise of homicidal gas chambers, something the Holocaust believers have to date not permitted through legal constraints.
When in 1997 I visited Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, Los Angeles, he agreed we need to ask questions. Then he asked me: Do you question the gassings? I replied: Of course I do! And that was the end of the conversation and our meeting, which he summarily broke off – and your final sentence adopts such a mindset.

So, David, in your own words - you done good when you end your missive with:
>>Not everything in life has clearly defined, easily identifiable sides. This does. Revisionist or denier. Pick a side.<<

Best wishes.
Fredrick Toben