WordWolf

"I want you to bring me before nightfall a set of postmortem knives."

"An autopsy? On Lucy?"

"No, no. Not exactly. I just want to cut off her head and take out her heart."

"Mr. Morris, your bullets will not harm him. He must be beheaded. I suggest that you use your big Bowie knife."

"Well, I wasn't plan on getting that close, Doc."

"How did Lucy die? Was she in great pain?"

"*continues eating* Yes, she was in great pain! Then we cut off her head, and drove a stake through her heart, and burned it, and then she found peace."

Bela Lugosi was not in this movie.

Ok, let the others had a chance to answer it.

This is the series premiere for Star Trek: Deep Space 9, "Emissary."

The episode where Picard atrociously mispronounced "Bajor".

Ok, no one else has said it, so I'm going to.

Please note this isn't a personal judgement on you as a person.

If you went out for a walk and found a nest in use, why not return the nest to where you found it

and let them keep your nest?

The wasps built it on their own, they weren't on your property, and they were minding their own business.

I know you're a human and all that, but would it be fair if some superintelligent alien race

(supposing one exists)

grabbed your house with you in it, and planned on killing you off to make a museum-piece of your house?

Interesting. One can critize them, slander them, defame them in writing (on the Internet and in newsprint) - accuse them of doing all sorts of evil deeds and TWI turns a deaf ear, ignores what you say and won't take any action against you. However you start up your own ministry and call it: The Way (or something suggesting your ministry is The Way) and their lawyers will be on you in a New York Minute!

I guess that tells you where their real priorities lie.

Actually, disagreeing with them produces reactions, and always has.

Never produces open dialogue-it produces attempts to suppress instead.

Write a paper saying "adultery is wrong"?

The powers-that-be say "anyone who reads it will get possessed!"

Point out they're kicking out Mrs W from the home she lived in, after twi got her farm

and her lifelong devotion?

NOW they want to make an official response- but before they wanted to do it secretly...

Oh good ... this is an official drinking thread now ... it was pretty silly to start with ...

I just read this ... under worst drinking stories ...

In 1805, British Admiral Horatio Nelson was killed during the Battle of Trafalgar off the coast of Spain. Most sailors were simply put to rest at sea, but as an admiral, Nelson had to be brought back to England for an official burial. To preserve his body during the voyage home, the second-in-command stored Nelson's body in the ship's vat of rum and halted all liquor rations to the crew. Not a bad idea, but when the ship reached port, officials went to retrieve Nelson's body and found the vat dry.

Disregarding good taste (in every sense), the crew had been secretly drinking from it the entire way home. After that, naval rum was referred to as Nelson's Blood.

when I go, I'll get cremated, and have a little of me added to each bottle of wine ... then I'll have a bottle shipped to each of you fine friends here ... rhino wine ...

second round is on rhino ... but please give a solemn salute to the Admiral

oh, and white dove, it was all good ... really ...

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/tapping.asp

This story, which probably isn't true, is where the British get the saying

"tapping the Admiral".

I suspect you've seen it, and just aren't thinking of it.

Which is peculiar at the moment....

"We've all become God's Madmen. All of us."

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you."

"Our ways are not your ways. And to you there shall be many strange things."

I... love you too much to condemn you."

"I'm no lunatic man. I'm a sane man fighting for his soul."

"Do you believe in destiny? That even the powers of time can be altered for a single purpose? That the luckiest man who walks upon this earth is the one who finds... True love?"

"Absinthe is the aphrodisiac of the self. The green fairy who lives in the absinthe wants your soul. But you are safe with me."

"When my time comes, will you do the same to me?

Will you?"

"No."

"Take me away from all this death! "

"Last week he wanted to marry her. Now he wants to have her committed."

"Hear me out, young man. Lucy is not a random victim, attacked by mere accident, you understand? No. She is a willing recruit, a breathless follower, a wanton follower. I dare say, a devoted disciple."

Oh I can imagine quite easily the pain associated with being used and abused. I've suffered it.

Good. (Not the suffering it part.) That's the first step in understanding what many people, mostly women,

went through both PERSONALLY from vpw and generally under vpw's regime as he taught others to do

what he did and facilitate what he did.

Can you just for once try to understand that no one (at least not myself) is calling you a liar.

We've gotten people calling the women who stepped forth ALL liars.

We've had people who added to their testimony called liars.

We've had people who insisted there was never any sexual wrongdoing at the bod/bot level.

We've had people who insisted lcm never did anything.

We've had people who insisted vpw never did anything.

Then we've had people suggest vpw had sex with women FOR THEIR BENEFIT-

either to toughen them up spiritually, or to give them sexual healing.

Then we've had people who seem determined to paint the rapist (vpw) as the innocent victim

(he's in his RV on his bed innocently minding his own business when women came in,

gave themselves alcohol, and threw themselves at him.)

Finally, after having made a major production of things- by challenging every eyewitness,

victim account, everything people personally saw or did-

and having them all speak up in response-

they claimed that all this time spent on vpw's evil deeds shows the ones exposing them

have an unhealthy obsession with vpw.

Whether or not you're any of those parties, that's gone on for maybe a DECADE between

WayDale and the GSC.

I'm simply an agnostic. Ask an agnostic in relationship to the belief in the existence of god/s what that means and then maybe you'll understand my position.

There's a LOT of information, both women who've come forth as direct victims offering testimony.

There's people who were part of vpw's criminal gang who've admitted, ashamed, they were in on it.

There's official court records that lcm admitted to wrongdoing.

Then there's all the information around what's directly known from participants-willing and nonwilling-

and posted here and elsewhere.

There's a complete, VERY consistent picture.

Feel free to look up some of it. Even 10% should be enough to remove "a reasonable doubt."

I myself began from the position that vpw was innocent of wrongdoing. However, the wealth of the

evidence was sufficient for me to change my mind.

No surprise here. If I was permitted I could point out in PLAIN ENGLISH

(you must not have learned it so I'll go slow for your benefit) how mistaken you are. Unfortunately,

even in PLAIN ENGLISH I have my doubts that you're be able to see it.

Just as you might not see how making such a comment is condescending and arrogant, but

PLAIN ENGLISH must not be the language you speak.

Larry, I suspect you may be the only person here who missed the irony in using

condescending and arrogant speech

to claim someone else is being condescending and arrogant.

I really recommend you review the previous situation, where you were determined to perceive

condescension and arrogance where none was offered,

and responded "in kind", which meant you responded to civil posts with uncivil replies.

"We've all become God's Madmen. All of us."

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you."

"Our ways are not your ways. And to you there shall be many strange things."

I... love you too much to condemn you."

"I'm no lunatic man. I'm a sane man fighting for his soul."

"Do you believe in destiny? That even the powers of time can be altered for a single purpose? That the luckiest man who walks upon this earth is the one who finds... True love?"

"Absinthe is the aphrodisiac of the self. The green fairy who lives in the absinthe wants your soul. But you are safe with me."

Thanks for your help Goey. And I have already apologized for making that statement.

Oldiesman!

you "have already apologized for making that statement"????

you have???

where??

when??

to whom have you apologized??

and, most importantly, WHY HAVE YOU APOLOGIZED???

peace!

Posted on: Oct 22 2007, 10:12 AM

BTW most if not all men fantisize about young women. That is a fact of nature and any guy who disputes this is either lying or gay.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=376036

Posted on: Oct 22 2007, 01:06 PM

Groucho, you and others are correct,

I am not a spokesman for all men and should not have written that. My apologies to all, for the blanket statement "any guy who disputes this is either lying or gay." Sorry, please forgive.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=376116

Funny (not really) that you would say this seeing as how YOU happen to be one of the first ones I've engaged here that treated me in a condescending and discourteous fashion. Of course you don't see it that way, but if you were to take dan's suggestion and re-read my posts from the beginning you (or others) might see where I just got tired of your arrogant and condescending tone in your responses to me. So I slapped you back. I suppose that's something you just can't get over -- having someone stand up to your bull.

Ok, went back to discussions where we interacted.

The first one was the "holy thing" discussion.

The thread started here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=14337

The discussion had many people agreeing and disagreeing, some using verses of Scripture, some not.

At one point, I posted this: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337336

You responded here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337622

Saying that my explanation-with verses- didn't support the conclusion with the verses.

So, I said I'd lay it out again in plain English shortly.

Which I did, verse by verse, and point by point, here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337794

Which took a considerable amount of time, was simple and straightforward,

and addressed your concerns IN GOOD FAITH.

Your response was that you couldn't see my position supported in the posts. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337841

Since it seemed to me that you were deliberately being obtuse, I asked what YOU get from those SAME verses.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337879

Jean and I, BTW, had disagreed on a number of specifics. She and I were disagreeing rather politely

on the thread at the same time. She also attempted to clarify your points.

In the process, you gave a link with some text- which was UNSOURCED.

ANYONE can make a statement and not SOURCE it-which is what that person did,

which means none of us can check whether it was a reliable statement or just hearsay,

because we can't check their SOURCE.

I pointed that out, and not in an impolite fashion, right here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338246

Your immediate response to that was here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338256

Where you said there was "a limit to your patience", to something that was fairly neutral posting.

I posted-again with manners-replying to it here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338260

Your reply to THAT was to tell me to get off my high horse, here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338266

At that point, I couldn't figure out what questions you supposedly had unanswered.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338402

I pointed out that whatever they were, they seem to have gotten lost, and a recap might be

good-which was what I'd do for you.

I also pointed out you claimed I didn't cite anything except myself,

despite the fact I'd gone verse-by-verse through 2 different versions, and cited them properly.

You then said you weren't going to recap your questions, and were going to instead explain where you got

me on a high horse. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338422

Which I explained in the next post. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338424

Once I explained in detail, your only response was that you felt you were dealing with a teenager.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338427

Things then settled down for several pages between us.

(Other posters had their own issues.)

Until you posted some people's names fully, and I told you a standing policy against that.

I said "please." http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=339856

Your reply was to change the name, and add "Don't you have anything better to do?"

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=339856

You also seemed angry I mentioned that, but some names made it fine.

So, a moderator stated the rule.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=340046

So you dropped it rather sensibly.

The rest of the thread went as amicable as threads generally go.

=========

"YOU happen to be one of the first ones I've engaged here that treated me in a condescending and discourteous fashion. Of course you don't see it that way, but if you were to take dan's suggestion and re-read my posts from the beginning"

Ok, did that.

"you (or others) might see where I just got tired of your arrogant and condescending tone in your responses to me. So I slapped you back."

Others might interpret it differently, but I just reread them, and it STILL doesn't look that way.

I do recall (but can't lay my hands on the post at this moment) that you later claimed you equated LONG posts

with NONSENSE posts, that you objected to posts on the basis of their length rather than their

content. Since some of my posts need room to explain something in detail, I noticed that would mean you

would object to my posts with no regard to the content.

That means a short, illogical post could be embraced while a long, clearly-stated,

well-documented post would be rejected, just because it was longer.

(Although the length was what made it more useful, more clear, more logical.)

One of the more consistent things here is you can always count on WTH not retaining

any knowledge posted here on the GSC.

We discussed how the specific-HOW the people were killed by the Nazis

is secondary to THAT they were killed by the Nazis,

and that even WHO was wiped out was secondary to

THAT many people were wiped out,

but WTH's fixated.

Either it's a discussion of crematoriums or he might as well not be in it.

"We've all become God's Madmen. All of us."

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you."

"Our ways are not your ways. And to you there shall be many strange things."

(This is STILL not a documentary on life in a religious group.)

I... love you too much to condemn you."

(snip)

To call me a troll because I don't share the same opinion that the majority does is pure crap.

To say that's why you're being considered a troll is pure crap.

To invoke an example, Oakspear and I disagree doctrinally on nearly every particular.

However, we have civil discussions and mutual respect. Ever see a shouting match

between us?

NO.

We treat each other with MANNERS, consistent with how people are treated online,

and how Christians are supposed to treat each other.

Oakspear's not a Christian, and sees that clearly.

Supposedly, you should see it more clearly than Oakspear.

You've been told lots of times, by lots of different people, that courtesy and manners

were the main problem with your posts. You've ignored all of that and maintain

that it's your opinions that people disagree with.

Ever consider that many of us would agree with a number of doctrines you do,

if they weren't being presented in objectionably rude ways?

I LIKE to agree with other Christians and respect the differences where I can.

So far, the non-Christians at the GSC- and there's a number of them-

make that a possibility with them. Supposedly, it should be easier with you.

I think it's wrong for you to voice your opinion of why you did what you are doing without affording me the opportunity to defend myself publicly. If I'm wrong (in my opinion) then at least have enuf confidence in the intelligence of the members of Greasespot to make up their own minds. All they're hearing is your side of the story. I can't believe you are so insecure about your actions that you aren't willing to defend them -- PUBLICLY.

Please don't insult our intelligences by pretending you DIDN'T mean to make a PUBLIC ISSUE of

you're posting status.

Therefore, this BEGAN (scroll up this thread) because they were hearing "your side of the story."

Paw simply responded with his side once you'd presented yours.

Saying otherwise is dishonest. And transparent.

B) Admins and moderators make a lot of decisions on a board.

I do not expect to see either of them all over this thread, justifying their decisions over and over

to your satisfaction,

partly because I believe that there would never be an end to rehashing it if it we discussed it

"to your satisfaction." I see you having made the deliberate decision to conduct yourself the way

you wished, and then to disregard when others politely told you your conduct was inappropriate for

the format and location you were engaging in it.

Eventually, action was taken to reflect this, as others made their own decisions.

The staff responded to your decisions, and where you took them.

Now you're objecting to standards being enforced-despite receiving warnings that there were

standards, and that you weren't measuring up to them.

To continue to rehash that ad nauseum is neither expected of staff, nor appropriate,

nor profitable, since it won't be needed for anyone else, and it won't convince you at all.

The other part is that staff normally do not engage in lengthy discussions on their actions,

especially when they feel it necessary to take action on a poster who has warranted action.

That's true of every messageboard all over cyberspace.

You don't get to dictate policy here.

Neither do I.

Paw has made a point of explaining himself already on this thread.

You may now choose to drop the issue and continue to post, hopefully with some manners,

or leave and see if you can find a messageboard that had policies you like.

You can even make your own messageboard and make your own policies, and see if

anyone shows up.

Or you can take the low road and throw a tantrum.

Up to you- use your free will.

Funny I thought if some of the members of Greasespot had shown me a little common courtesy, then perhaps I wouldn't be where I am today. Of course, I'm sure you and many others won't see it that way.

I admit, I consider this a very inventive reinterpretation of your conduct at the GSC,

and I think anyone who reviews your post history would find it so as well.

Is it some kind of war movie?

No.

You mean with soldiers, and armed forces, and artillery, and battlefields, and stuff.

Some variation of that.

This is not.

Someone does 'war' on someone else, but it's not a film that anyone would classify as a

'war film'

In case he was waiting for an official notice,

yes, Tom, it's your turn. :)

Darn, Belle beat me to it!

If you read the Snopes page, you'll see that Petition 2493 was defeated IN 1975.

WordWolf again.

Did wierwille build anything of substance? Through the decades, it seems like wierwille scratched and clawed his way forward by manipulation, intimidation and coercion............hardly a movement of God.

* Stole BG Leonard's class in 1953 to jump-start his lack-luster work.

And stole Stiles' book for the same, adding Bullinger, sometimes giving him credit, sometimes not, for the same reason.

* Stayed on the payroll at the Van Wert church until 1957.......not quite the George Mueller, eh?

Disliked them enough to criticize them, liked them enough to take their money and use their resources to start his

own business on the side while they paid the upkeep for the office. Clever, but dishonest, and not Christian.

* Convinced his brother Harry to bankroll the renovations of the old farmhouse and a new office.

Making the property all part of a non-profit, exempting it all from taxes while allowing him complete use of it.

* Talked his brother Rueben and sisters, Lydia & Sevilla, to sell off their portion of farm/property.

But retaining its use, since the non-profit served him, and presumably, them.

Added the Kipp farm, too, Mrs W's inheritance or something.

* On weekend labor, some carpenters and followers built the Ecumenical Center, the BRC.

Using twi "followers" as manpower, he was able to skip paying some of them. Economical.

* The trailer park era......single-wides and later, double. Whoa! :)

HOME-BUILT the trailers in the beginning- didn't even buy the initial ones all safe and sealed.

Saved who-knows-how-much in exchange for making them of inferior quality.

Oh, and trailers are still in use to this day, there, for long-term residency.

* Emporia Campus......Rome City Campus..........using free labor, corps labor.

Both to remodel, and to maintain. Few salaries for groundskeeping, corps PAID to do the work.

* OSC......a shell.....a warehouse area......and later, offices and cafeteria/dining room.

* Finally, two months before wierwille's death.......the auditorium is finished.

Oddly enough, the opposite of the other things. Rather than pinching each penny until Lincoln screamed in pain,

he had it richly appointed, far more expensive than it needed to be.

Usually, that was reserved for things reserved for his personal use...

No matter how one tries to re-write twi history, it sure looks like "scratching and clawing one's way to success" rather than a genuine movement of God. Maybe, it's the manner of corraling the control into his corner......maybe it's the lack of forethought and the trailer park at hq........maybe, it's the auditorium that is SO NON-FUNCTIONAL and not suited for any versatility except productions (even Sunday teachings are *distant* and cold from the elevated pulpit).

Seems that wierwille built it on "a shoestring and a prayer"........er, a scam.

:unsure:

I think those he scammed the worst were his offspring.. all he left them was his name..

And that's not exactly something you'd necessarily want.

I mean, the name "Sinatra" is free publicity, especially if you are a performer who's Frank S' kid.

On the other hand, Jeff Gilooly changed his own name because it was TOO recognizable.

(Emphasis mine.)

Larry caused alot of problems about a month ago. He asked if he could gather some stuff from his PM's before I banned him (I never said I would ban him that I recall) I let him do that and he said he would be gone at the end of that week.

Sure would be nice if we could take our posters all at face value.

Many of his held posts right now are directed at me, some of them just plain Flaming.

It's almost as if he's begging for a ban.

Either that, or thinks he runs things here, and the staff just have to bend over when he wants them to.

I would like to know why he decided to break his word and come back, then I will consider whether or not I will take him off moderation. In my opinion, he has many of the attributes of a troll, that is why when he left I put the account on moderation.

He also likes to start threads that would be better treated as emails.

Oldies, other have been put on moderation when they do personal attacks, in fact a number were put on moderation when they attacked you. They just decided not to publicly complain about it.

I prefer not to warrant moderation. However, if I did so, I'd like to think I'd bear earning it with the grace

of an adult, and skip the tantrums or public displays.

Socks, you don't know all the facts, hopefully this enlightens you a bit. It's really easy to side with a self made victim when you don't have the facts.

"Victims of GSC" are generally of the self-made kind. I don't remember the last time that wasn't the case.

AND last but not least, the whole logic about the moderation is to stop the incendiary comments before they reach the page. I can't possibly discover each and every one, but I do act on the ones that I do find out about. It's real easy to attack the moderators. It takes a little more work to find out the facts.

I suspect most of the people who criticize moderators rather than just asking or just trusting them

have never been moderators themselves.

I've been both- and in several cases, I was drafted as a moderator, meaning I discovered after-the-fact

that an announcement had been made that I was now made a moderator.

I've also recruited moderators, and screened moderators. It's a LOT more difficult than a lot of people think.

To be a moderator, you have to continually put the good of the board overall over your own opinion.

It's usually a thankless job, but people will sometimes be swift to criticize you as soon as they disagree.

(As in "when I do right, no one remembers, when I do wrong, no one forgets."

Even on boards where I don't like the staff, I give them the benefit of the doubt on their duties.

As for the behaviour that warrants staff here, I often suspect people pull it here because if they pulled it

anywhere else, they'd get slapped down quickly. So, they abuse the laissez-faire posting policy until they

REALLY go over the line.

I just wanted to keep this moving without cheating.

==========

Ok, then, next one.

"We've all become God's Madmen. All of us."

(No, this is not a documentary about life in twi.)

It is my understanding that Larry's posts are getting screened, monitored, before they appear.

That makes Larry part of an "elite" group. Out of hundreds and hundreds of posters that have ever

posted at the GSC, only a handful have ever worked hard enough to "achieve" the status of having

their posts screened. Those are the tiny few that proved to the staff-beyond all hope of a reasonable doubt

to their satisfaction- that these posters needed moderation. That takes a lot of work. People have to put in a

lot of time, and a lot of effort, to get that.

Having made that a goal, and having achieved that goal, it's silly not to accept one's status.

This happened as I understand it, because the moderators thought that Larry was engaging in personal attacks.

If my suspicion is correct, Larry would like to be treated like every other poster here, with no double standards.

i.e,

if he gets monitored because of personal attack, then other posters who engage in personal attack, should also be monitored.

or,

since other posters engage in personal attack and their posts are not getting monitored before they appear, neither should Larry's.

Seems fair to me...

and it's far more than just a poster making personal attacks.

And whether or not something's a personal attack IN YOUR OPINION does not guarantee the STAFF sees it the

same way you do. They certainly don't see it the same way I do.

Well OM, I've always found that there has been a pretty good reason when folks have been moderated...

I also think that is proven out by the fact that it rarely happens...

Whatever is going on is between him and the moderator(s) and neither you nor I know any of the details...

And not knowing the details I know I couldn't make a judgement on it... how can you?

Bottom line: This board has functioned pretty well as far as I can tell in the limited time I've been around... IMO.

*guess*

Is it "How to Marry a Millionaire?"

or "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes?"

if not, Raf should be next up at bat...

One of the more consistent things here is you can always count on WTH not retaining

any knowledge posted here on the GSC.

We discussed how the specific-HOW the people were killed by the Nazis

is secondary to THAT they were killed by the Nazis,

and that even WHO was wiped out was secondary to

THAT many people were wiped out,

but WTH's fixated.

Either it's a discussion of crematoriums or he might as well not be in it.

So, with lots of different definitions of "Holocaust" in use-

even on websites he quoted,

he deliberately goes for an archaism, one that no longer conveys the meaning

used in discussions. He uses the only one fixated on crematoriums.

"I guess we can all agree that Holocaust means 'something burnt.'"

No, that would make every backyard barbecue a "Holocaust", which perverts

the plain English discussion the rest of us are capable of having.

With WTH unable or unwilling to even communicate fairly on what the

Holocaust WAS, or means in regular use, what's the point in trying to

follow his tortured "logic"?

(snip)

Go ahead. Keep on patronizing me. You're only discrediting the exterminists cause by continuing to do so. Truthfully, many people have already been so horribly annoyed by it that in 20 years nearly everyone will be saying, The Holocaust Never Happened! Well of course the Holocaust happened - but in a general sense that is. Because of the work of the revisionists, the questions that everyone are now asking about the Holocaust are -> how much of it happened? People are not quesioning that the Holocaust never happen - they are questioning the way the exterminits are ramming it down people's throats - all the time insisting it happened a particular way but could not have happened the way they claim.

Only an idiot would say, "the Holocaust never happened" at all. But people will eventually end up saying that, but NOT because the event never happened but because the revisionists redefined this historical event. The problem the extrerminst's keep on making is they try to pretend revisionism is "Holocaust denial" but in doing so they end up discrediting themselves. That is why many people around the world today are starting to say, "Why am I surrounded by morons?" whenever they are presented with nothing but the exterminists viewpoint. Why? Because that viewpoint contradicts the laws of physics so even someone who is NOT even a revisionist scholar can even see through the hypocrasy of the exterminists using nothing more than their own reasoning and their own common sense!!!

No, the Holocaust does not need to be defined. What needs to be defined is Revisionism.

[Here we go again...]

The word “Revisionism” is derived from the Latin word “revidere,” which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs. The Holocaust rightfully is history, but it will end up being history re-defined. Why? Because science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence. That is the reason why the Holocaust legend (that is, the 6 million gassed to death and exterminated Jews by Nazi Germany Holocaust legend) is rapidly dying.

[Compare that statement of WTH's to this statement from ]

http://www.vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html

"The word "Revisionism" is derived from the Latin word "revidere," which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs.Science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence."

[When I have more time,

I'll see about what else I can find he's plagiarized in this post...

Oh, so now we're defining the meaning of the Holocaust? Here's a question for you. Why didn't you locate a more reliable and credible source other than Wikipedia to help you in your troubled definition of the Holocaust? Wikipedia hardly qualifies as such a source. Even college professors won't allow students to quote or use Wikipedia as a credible or reliable reference source today whenever they are writing research and/or thesis papers for reports.

Allow me to present a far more specific and reliable source which clarifies the definition that you were apparently trying to make and only ended up parrotting:

Defining Holocaust - A proposal. (From: The Holocaust Historiography Project)

Go ahead. Keep on patronizing me. You're only discrediting the exterminists cause by continuing to do so. Truthfully, many people have already been so horribly annoyed by it that in 20 years nearly everyone will be saying, The Holocaust Never Happened! Well of course the Holocaust happened - but in a general sense that is. Because of the work of the revisionists, the questions that everyone are now asking about the Holocaust are -> how much of it happened? People are not quesioning that the Holocaust never happen - they are questioning the way the exterminits are ramming it down people's throats - all the time insisting it happened a particular way but could not have happened the way they claim.

Only an idiot would say, "the Holocaust never happened" at all. But people will eventually end up saying that, but NOT because the event never happened but because the revisionists redefined this historical event. The problem the extrerminst's keep on making is they try to pretend revisionism is "Holocaust denial" but in doing so they end up discrediting themselves. That is why many people around the world today are starting to say, "Why am I surrounded by morons?" whenever they are presented with nothing but the exterminists viewpoint. Why? Because that viewpoint contradicts the laws of physics so even someone who is NOT even a revisionist scholar can even see through the hypocrasy of the exterminists using nothing more than their own reasoning and their own common sense!!!

No, the Holocaust does not need to be defined. What needs to be defined is Revisionism. The word “Revisionism” is derived from the Latin word “revidere,” which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs. The Holocaust rightfully is history, but it will end up being history re-defined. Why? Because science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence. That is the reason why the Holocaust legend (that is, the 6 million gassed to death and exterminated Jews by Nazi Germany Holocaust legend) is rapidly dying.

When ongoing research finds new evidence, or when critical researchers discover mistakes in old explanations, it often happens old theories have to be changed or even abandoned. [One of those "old" theories is the Nazi "gas chamber".] By “Revisionism” we mean critically examining established theories and hypotheses in order to test their validity. Scientists need to know when new evidence modifies or contradicts old theories; indeed, one of their main obligations is to test timehonored conceptions and attempt to refute them. Only in an open society in which individuals are free to challenge prevailing theories can we ascertain the validity of these theories and be confident that we are approaching the truth. That is why in 20 years people will be saying: THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED!

Yes, we WILL be saying it - NOT because the Holocaust never occurred at all, but because that historical event will have been redefined.

Quoted so I have a reference copy for later-in case the original post's plagiarized sections

suffer a sudden edit and mysteriously disappear....

Have a nice morning, everyone!