ISIS trips, stumbles, and falls

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/06/isis-trips-stumbles-and-falls.html

ISIS trips, stumbles, and falls

Jim Fetzer

As a student of the history and the philosophy of science, I have been dumbfounded to discover that ISIS, a prominent journal in the history of science, has published a review of a book on astronomers that was edited by T. Hockey, THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, by N. M. Swerdlow, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago (ISIS 101:1 (2010), pp. 197-8), in which he assails Nicholas Kollerstrom, Ph.D., an historian of science and scholar whom I admire, on the alleged ground of anti-Semitism.

While Kollerstrom has conducted scientific research on the Holocaust related to the use of zyklon gas to exterminate inmates, it has nothing to do with his contributions to THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, where his entries on John Couch Adams, John Flamsteed and even Issac Newton are completely independent of research related to the Holocaust. The only reason for introducing it at all, therefore, has to have been to fashion an ad hominem attack on Kollerstrom, a gross abuse of Swerdlow’s role as a the author of a review, which ISIS should not have accepted for publication.

Even if he disagreed with Kollerstrom about the Holocaust, those views ought not have been cited or used to attack him. They had nothing to do with his research on the astronomers whose entries he authored, which included one on Newton, which reflected great confidence by Hockey in Nicholas. It is as if Swerdlow had intended to demonstrate to the world his ruthless dedication to the extermination of any vestiges of (what he considers to be) anti-Semitism. Astonishingly, he not only adopts the extreme measure of discouraging any library from purchasing the encyclopedia but outrageously suggests that the book itself should be pulped!

So Swerdlow not only commits the ad hominem fallacy by discounting Kollerstrom’s research on astronomers because of his interest in questions about the Holocaust, a point that should have been apparent to ISIS, but he practices an extreme form of guilt by association by condemning the entire contents of this volume on that basis, which means that he compounds one fallacy by committing another—and it is one that, from the perspective of intellectual history, actually appears to be even more egregious as a form of group punishment for the sins of one of its contributors.

IMAGE OF NICHOLAS KOLLERSTROM

Having spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of this kind and having an extensive background as the founding editor of MINDS AND MACHINES, of which I was the sole editor for ten years, and having spent another decade as an associate editor of SYNTHESE, which is devoted to methodology, epistemology and philosophy of science, I was shocked that a journal of the stature of ISIS should have permitted this offense to have occurred, which not only taints Kollerstrom but stains the journal itself.

The charge of “anti-Semitism”, alas, has often been used to impugn the character of anyone who conducts research on issues that may adversely affect the interests of Israel and its Zionist allies, which I, as the Founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, have repeatedly encountered as a consequence of discoveries that implicate the Mossad as having a role in 9/11. I have published about this myself, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html . While Nick has made no such charge, the evidence supports it.

Significantly, Kollerstrom has conducted rather extensive research on 7/7, including publishing TERROR ON THE TUBE (revised and expanded, 2011), which exposes the role of government agents or of those acting on its behalf to arrange for the terrorist acts that were attributed to four young Muslim men, who appear to have been used as patsies, when the circumstances of the case—including missing a train that would have brought them to London—made it physically impossible for them to be present.

COVER IMAGE OF TERROR ON THE TUBE

This case has been brilliantly exposed by John Anthony Hill, who is also known as “Muad’Dib”, in his DVD, “7/7 Ripple Effect”, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8756795263359807776# , which I recommend to everyone who cares about 7/7. We live in a world, alas, where governments lie more than they speak the truth and spend much of the national treasury promoting initiatives, such as wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are inimical to the interests of their citizens, squandering enormous resources both financial and personal for the benefit of corporations and their profits.

Because it is extremely difficult to expose government complicity in atrocities of this kind, I have greatly admired Muad’Dib and Nicholas Kollerstrom for their dedication to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about these events, which has included featuring them both as guests on “The Real Deal”, an internet radio program I host, where those interviews can be found in its archives, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com, and as the authors of or the subjects of blogs at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.

Swerdlow’s actions are so unwarranted by any reasonable professional standard that I personally suspect that they were deliberately contrived to punish Nick for research not only on the Holocaust but on 7/7 as well. I therefore volunteered to compose a letter to ISIS, in which I explained why I believed Swerdlow’s assault was completely unjustifiable and deserved to be remedied. Nick and I discussed my letter in some detail, which the journal accepted and published in ISIS 102:1 (2011) as follows:

COVER IMAGE OF ISIS

Re: ISIS 101:1 (2010), pp. 197-198

Dear Editor,

During a recent visit to the UK, I met the scholar, Nicholas Kollerstrom, whom I have previously interviewed on "The Real Deal", an internet radio program I host, about 7/7, his book, TERROR ON THE TUBE (2009), and aspects of 9/11 and other atrocities.

He has been a productive author with multiple books, including ASTROCHEMISTRY (1984), THE EUREKA EFFECT (1996), and NEWTON’S FORGOTTEN LUNAR THEORY (2000). For a fine collection of his articles, visit http://dioi.org/kn/index.htm .

Nick is one of the few academicians I know who has the courage, the mentality, and the integrity to assume the role of a public intellectual, not only relative to 7/7 and 9/11 but also by pursuing scientific questions concerning the history of the Holocaust.

Reading N. M. Swerdlow’s revisew of Thomas Hockey, ed., THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, I was taken aback to find a discussion in ISIS that commits fallacies I spent 35 years teaching freshmen and sophomores to avoid.

Nearly 30% of this review is devoted to a slashing "ad hominem" attack on Nick Kollerstrom! After cursory remarks about Nick's entries, Swerdlow makes a variety of allegations that are either false or completely irrelevant to the essays in question.

Nick, for example, is an historian of astrology, not an astrologer. With N. Campion, he has co-edited GALILEO’S ASTROLOGY (2003), perhaps the definitive work on the subject, which is relevant to his essays but Swerdlow does not deign to acknowledge.

He also has a (perfectly legitimate) intellectual interest in horoscopes, which he has pursued, as well as in the factual accuracy of the (widely embraced) history of the Holocaust, both of which Swerdlow either exaggerates or grossly distorts.

Neither these interests of his nor his conclusions that 9/11 and 7/7 were "false flag" ops in which elements of the US and UK governments were complicit, however, has any place in a review of his essays in a collection of biographical studies of astronomers!

Laws against expressing doubts about the Holocaust, in my view, are simply absurd. If you believe in the Holocaust, as I do, then it should be apparent that serious research will lead to its vindication and, if it does not, we are all entitled to know. Truth is paramount.

Something that stuns me, moreover, is that, unless Swerdlow has studied 9/11 and 7/7, he cannot possibly know that Nick is wrong! Having done quite extensive study of 9/11 and considerable on 7/7 and it is obvious to me that, on the contrary, about both, Nick is right.

The very idea that the reviewer should single out Kollerstrom because of his research on matters unrelated to the essays he authored and discourage other scholars and libraries from purchasing the book on that basis “crosses the line"! It smacks of burning books.

Nick and I discussed the matter and agreed that it would be preferable for me to speak on his behalf, since a letter from him might be interpreted as self-serving. As another scholar who has devoted himself to issues of this kind, I have been glad to address this matter.

Swerdlow has conducted an unprofessional and unwarranted vendetta for which he owes the profession an apology. We should be standing in support of those few among us who have the strength, integrity and courage to investigate the controversial issues of our time.

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

McKnight Professor Emeritus

University of Minnesota Duluth

The editor of ISIS, Bernard Lightman, apparently felt that Swerdlow deserved another opportunity to wield his axe, which he pursued with relish. Swerdlow asserted that he saw no reason to modify his position, suggesting that Nicholas regarded Auschwitz, for example, as a very hospitable environment, where Zyclon-B was used as a disinfectant rather than as a method of extermination. While he has concluded that there were certain amenities at Auschwitz, which he has discussed, without having studied the evidence, how can Swerdlow be so certain that he is right and that Nick, who has actually been studying it, is wrong?

Strikingly, Swerdlow compounds his assault with a counterpart attack on me for research I have done on the death of President John F. Kennedy and for editing a collection of studies on 9/11, which he presents in as unsympathetic a fashion as possible. This attack is even more revealing than his assault on Kollerstrom, since I organized a research group in 1992 consisting of the most highly qualified experts and scholars to investigate the death of JFK, which, I am confident, he himself has never studied.

IMAGE OF N. M. SWERDLOW

These have included a world-authority on the human brain who was also an expert on wound ballistics; a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board certified in radiation oncology; a physician who was present when JFK was brought to Parkland Hospital and, two days later, was responsible for the care of his alleged assassin; a legendary photo and film analyst; and another Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and of images of moving objects.

I have chaired or co-chaired four national conferences on the subject, published three books by experts on different aspects of the case, and produced a 4.5 hour documentary about the assassination. I have made hundreds and hundreds of presentations and interviews, including lectures at Cambridge, Harvard and Yale. Indeed, my background with respect to 9/11 is comparable, where I edited the first book from Scholars, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), http://www.amazon.com/11-Conspiracy-James-H-Fetzer/dp/0812696123, organized its first conference in Madison, Wisconsin, and produced its first DVD, “The Science and Politics of 9/11”.

In lieu of reasoned arguments, Swerdlow appeals to popular sentiments by taking for granted that widely-held beliefs must be true and that views at variance with them have to be mistaken. Thus, unless you have actually studied the evidence, it might be difficult to appreciate that there are more than fifteen indications that JFK was set up by the Secret Service, where he was taken out by the CIA/military/anti-Castro Cubans/local law enforcement, where the FBI covered it up and LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover were principals with financing from Texas oil men. For an overview, see my “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?”, which I presented at a national conference featuring Theodore Sorenson as the keynote speaker and was introduced by Judge John Tunheim, who had served as the head of the ARRB, at http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf.

Those familiar with the history of the UK, however, might be less surprised than Americans, since Shakespeare would have had little to write about were it not for plots against the kings of England. But there were technical aspects to the cover up, where JFK’s X-rays were altered to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of his head, another brain was substituted for the original, and the home movies of the assassination were revised to conceal that the driver brought the limo to a halt to make sure that he was killed. See, for example, studies by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., John P. Costella, Ph.D., and me archived at http://assassinationscience.com.

Those who would like some reassurance about the quality of our work should follow this link to reviews of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) -- http://assassinationscience.com/booktwo.html -- and to access the Preface and the Prologue as well as endorsements by Michael Parenti, Ph.D., Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., Michael L. Kurtz, Ph.D., and PUBLISHERS WEEKLY, among others. Of special importance is the review by George Costello, J.D., THE FEDERAL LAWYER (May 2001), pp. 52-56. This journal (formerly: THE FEDERAL BAR NEWS AND JOURNAL) is a publication for attorneys who work for the federal government, who practice before federal agencies, or who appear before federal courts. Its author would receive a commendation from the journal for his review, which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com/george.html .

IMAGE OF BERNARD LIGHTMAN

Relying upon his correspondence with Bernard Lightman, the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS, Nicholas had formed the rather strong impression that he would be given the chance to respond to Swerdlow’s reply to my letter. He therefore drafted a response that ran exactly the same number of words as Swerdlow’s second bite of the apple, which was 470. It was therefore a bitter disappointment when Lightman declined him the opportunity to set the record straight, a nice example of his adding insult to injury.

On the basis of an article by Nicholas relating to the controversy over the now-obligatory visits to Auschwitz by UK schoolchildren -- archived at http://www.codoh.com/incon/incontrip.html -- Swerdlow claims that Kollerstrom asserts “that Auschwitz was a pleasant place for its guests”! But while he does report that there were various amenities for the inmates, including a swimming pool and orchestras, he restricts himself to features he has been able to establish rather than the atmosphere. This suggests ISIS should have refereed his review more vigorously. As Nick has remarked to me, the accounts we have from Auschwitz tend to be fairly dire.

Suppose that Kollerstrom were wrong about his conclusions based upon his research. Does an historian of science deserve to be ostracized for advancing opinions that are at variance with prevailing views? Nick’s article also cites significant differences on the question of how many may have died there. Is that question also ruled out as a subject for historical research? Shouldn’t we discover if popular views are more than political myths? Surely Lightman ought to have published the following letter, which Nick submitted to him, as the final word in this nasty and unprofessional exchange:

Letters to the Editor, Isis WORD COUNT: 470

Dear Editor,

There is something deeply ironic about a journal devoted to the history of science publishing an attack upon me for conducting scientific research on one of the greatest atrocities of the 20th C. As Professor Fetzer observed in his letter, what do we have to fear from research on the Holocaust? If it was real, then its reality will be confirmed; and if it was not, then surely we all deserve to know.

N. M. Swerdlow falsely asserts, ‘[Kollerstrom] defends Nazis and condemns their victims and supports his claims by links to strident Jew-hating websites’. If true, that would be a hate crime. For the sake of the integrity of ISIS, if he cannot substantiate this allegation, ISIS should demand an apology and retraction. Outrageous distortions not only discredit him as a source but also tarnish your reputation for accuracy and truth as a professional publication.

While I have authored TERROR ON THE TUBE about the July 7 London bombings, currently in its 3d edition, anyone who reads it will know that I make no such claim as that the event was “the work of ‘international Zionism’”. Swerdlow is advancing criticisms he cannot sustain, which should never have appeared here--defaming both my book and its publisher.

Swerdlow declares that, “a line has been crossed that should never be crossed”. But how can that apply to scientific research about an historical controversy without begging the question? I have an interest in the several investigations of residual iron-cyanide in the walls of Auschwitz labour-camp buildings, which carry residues of how and where zyklon (granular cyanide) was used sixty years ago. But this is a scientific question that can only be addressed by conducting scientific research.

In his second attack, Swerdlow also asserts I have “nothing original” to say. But I have actually established the ‘control’ values for the normal background levels of ferro-cyanide found in kitchens, dormitories and such, of the German labour-camps by synthesising the two sets of Leuchter and Rudolf cyanide values on the basis of objective measurements of insoluble iron cyanide.

Nothing could be less original than using the phrase, “Holocaust denier”, to bash the reputation and standing of those of us who believe controversial events are those we most need to address. He alleges I contend “Auschwitz was a pleasant place for its guests”! But who in the world could believe so insane an idea? Only someone willing to distort research could try to pin this on me.

Like Fetzer, I am an historical revisionist, who cares about the truth and getting it right, especially concerning monumental events, such as the death of JFK and reality of the Holocaust. But that is precisely what the study of history is all about, where efforts like ours to insure the record is factual rather than fictional deserve praise, not condemnation.

Nicholas Kollerstrom

Perhaps most importantly in relation to this decision, Nicholas had written to Bernie Lightman on May 27, 2011, “to request that you ask Swerdlow [quite specifically] which are the 'strident Jew-hating websites' which he reckons I link to: I believe this is hate-crime which your Journal has accused me of, as defined by 2010 European Union legislation.” And the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS, replied to his request as follows:

“I did not tell you that you would be able to reply to Swerdlow's

reply to Professor Fetzer. I told you that the journal's policy was

that there could be one reply to a review (you chose to have Fetzer

reply for you) and then that the reviewer was given the opportunity to

respond. The matter then comes to a close. That is the policy and I

will not deviate from it. Regards, Bernie Lightman”

Since ISIS has facilitated the publication of what appears to qualify as a hate-crime under European Union legislation, surely ISIS had an obligation that justified going beyond its normal policies. In my opinion, this decision by Bernard Lightman was an astounding affront to every member of the profession, whose ability to respond to allegations that should never have been allowed into print were thus circumvented. Given the new venom injected by Swerdlow in his reply to my letter, even if under ordinary conditions one reply would have been enough, a second was justified here.

For the sake of comparison, the Editors-in-Chief of SYNTHESE committed a blunder by adding a preface to a special issue of the journal, “Evolution and Its Rivals”, as a consequence of pressure imposed upon them by proponents of Intelligent Design, in which they expressed concerns for “the tone” of one of the contributions. Their act created an academic scandal that was discussed intensely across a broad spectrum of forums, where nearly 500 scholars endorsed a boycott of the journal or called for a formal apology and retraction of their preface, many calling for their resignations.

Those who may stand in disbelief that a matter so relatively trivial compared to the repeated abuse of an historian of science by a prominent journal that is devoted to the history of science should visit some of the blogs and other venues in which it has been discussed, which range from Brian Leiter’s influential philosophy blog http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/06/laffaire-synthese-payback-for-barbara-forrests-crucial-role-in-the-dover-case.html to The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/us/14beliefs.html?_r=3. Since the offense that ISIS facilitated in the first instance was compounded by the second, I am at a loss as to how a professional society could accept these actions without a formal protest. Under these circumstances, I believe that Bernard Lightman ought to resign.

IMAGE OF ISIS

THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, of course, is a collaborative academic publication from Springer, one of the world's leading publishers of technical and scientific journals and books, which has an enormous number of contributions from a very large number of contributors, where its Table of Contents is simply staggering http://www.springer.com/astronomy/astronomy,+observations+and+techniques/book/978-0-387-31022-0 Swerdlow faults the volume for having a few entries of which he does not approve. But that appears to be highly selective on his part and a very cheap shot.

These are not issues about which the authors are remotely likely to be unqualified. Swerdlow’s review—even apart from his attack on Nick—appears to be suspect on its face. And how could anyone in their right mind allow Swerdlow’s suggestions that libraries not purchase the volume and that it ought to be pulped to stand without vigorous protest, even if one of the contributors has an interest in research on subjects that some—perhaps even most!—may disapprove? What kind of standard is that? How is that being fair to the contributors, the editors, or the publisher? That is a disgrace.

There are some 1,550 entries in the encyclopdia, which were authored by 430 scholars, of whom Nick Kollerstrom is only one, under the supervision of an Editor-in-Chief and a team of six associate editors. I would be willing to conjecture that a significant proportion of them may well have vices of their own, such as addictions to alcohol, pornography, adultery, S&M, or who-knows-what other practices of which public disapproval may be widespread. Should those authors be ferreted out and have their entries abolished, too? No, let’s just pulp the whole book!

I am reminded here of the occasion on which I first became involved in serious research on the assassination of JFK. It was in mid-1993 and I was lying in bed, drinking a cup of coffee and reading the paper, when my wife came in and said, “You won’t believe this!”, while turning on the TV. The image appeared of a distinguished man in standing behind a lecture with the logo of the American Medical Association, who was denigrating every serious student of the assassination from Mark Lane and Robert Groden to David Lifton and Charles Crenshaw.

He was especially caustic in attacking Oliver Stone’s “JFK”, which offers the most comprehensive, accurate, and complete depiction of what actually happened in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 ever presented to the American people through the mass media. The person turned out to be George Lundberg, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the AMA. I was stunned that someone of his stature would appear to be abusing the journal for political purposes and citing interviews with the autopsy pathologists as though they were science. That convinced me that perhaps some of us with special backgrounds and abilities should become involved.

Swerdlow’s abuse of his position has similarly convinced me that, once again, if those in positions of authority are abusing them for political purposes, some of us who might not otherwise have become involved in questions of this kind also have an obligation to pursue them. The issues involved are as important as they could be for the defense of academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, especially about controversial historical events. If the Holocaust is a reality, as I believe, then responsible research should confirm it; and if it is not, we are all entitled to know.

Perhaps the ultimate irony concerns the ethics of Swerdlow’s review. The essence of morality is treating other persons with respect. But by recommending that the other contributors, the editors, and the press should be punished for the perceived sins of one of the contributors, he is promoting the practice of collective punishment, contrary to the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. It was even condemned by the Nuremberg Tribunal in the prosecution of Nazi war crimes. In his zeal to condemn Kollerstrom for pursuing research on the Holocaust, therefore, Swerdlow has gone off of the deep end and committed an intellectual offense that is arguably even worse, which thereby exposes the immoral core of his own position.

The Egyptian goddess, Isis, after whom the journal is named, was long worshiped as the matron of nature and of magic. She has been described as the friend of slaves and sinners, by some accounts, which makes her name all the more appropriate here. In my opinion, Nicholas Kollerstrom was savaged by N. M. Swerdlow, not for offenses against the history of science, but for transgressing boundaries that are intended to protect sacred myths from refutation. In Swerdlow’s view, Kollerstrom deserved to be pilloried, not for his entries in an encyclopedia about astronomers, but for doing something that is forbidden -- conducting scientific research on the Holocaust. And not even the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS has been willing to grant him a fair shake.

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

McKnight Professor Emeritus

University of Minnesota Duluth

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth

http://911scholars.org

Edited June 19, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Len Colby]

You repeat association with Holocaust deniers of late (Barrett, "Pastore", Atzmon. Kollerstrom)is intriguing. I agree that Kollerstrom's views concerning the Holocaust are probably irrelevant to his contributions to a book about astronomy but since you failed to quote the offending passages of the review in your lengthy essay your readers have no way of knowing what Swerdlow's points were unless they want to pay $14*. Unfortunately You can NOT be relied upon to provide objective information. A case in point, from your essay above:

On the basis of an article by Nicholas relating to the controversy over the now-obligatory visits to Auschwitz by UK schoolchildren -- archived at

http://www.codoh.com.../incontrip.html

-- Swerdlow claims that Kollerstrom asserts “that Auschwitz was a pleasant place for its guests”! But while he does report that there were various amenities for the inmates, including a swimming pool and orchestras, he made no statement at all resembling that which Swerdlow has fabricated. This suggests that ISIS should have refereed his review more vigorously.

Here's what your friend said about the camp were millions of people were put to death and inmates lived under inhuman conditions:

Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates who watched the water-polo matches (6); and were shown paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its the theatrical performances, including a children' s opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. Let's hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, some of which still exist, where the postman would collect the mail twice-weekly. Thus the past may not always be quite, as we were told.

[...]

6. The swimming-pool : " The working hours were modified on Sundays and holidays, when most of the kommandos were at leisure. Roll call was at around noon; evenings were devoted to rest and to a choice of cultural and sporting activities. Football, basketball, and water-polo matches (in an open-air pool built within the perimeter by detainees) attracted crowds of onlookers. It should be noted that only the very fit and well-fed, exempt from the harsh jobs, could indulge in these games which drew the liveliest applause from the masses of other detainees." - Marc Klein, professor at the Strasbourg medicine faculty, 'Auschwitz I Stammlager' published in 1947 * He had first submitted this recollection "to the reading and scrutiny of Robert Weil, professor of science at Sarreguemines lycée," who had been interned in the same camps.

A (Swedish) witness Ditlieb Felderer testified: " Slides depicted the two starting blocks, the mount for the springboard and the showers. Piper told Felderer that the pool had been used to rehabilitate inmate patients and as recreation." Some literature of Holocaust survivors referred to this swimming pool and how it was used for water polo. **

Any objective person would describe that as sounding like '"a pleasant place for its guests”!' So if you can't fairly describe a text you link to one can only imagine how you distort a text not freely available.

* http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/653858

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It is not a question of whether he is right or wrong, where I will ask Nick if those passages still represent his position. If they do, I will revise it. He is not a "Holocaust denier" but an historical revisionist. The issues are the ad hominem attack by the reviewer, N.M. Swerdlow, and his recommendations that libraries not purchase the book and that it even be pulped! Are they too difficult for Len Colby to get his mind around? Here are the key issues that are involved here:

IMAGE OF ISIS

THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, of course, is a collaborative academic publication that has an enormous number of contributions from a very large number of contributors, where its Table of Contents is simply staggering, http://www.springer.com/astronomy/astronomy,+observations+and+techniques/book/978-0-387-31022-0. Swerdlow faults the volume for having a few entries of which he does not approve. But that appears to be highly selective on his part and a very cheap shot.

These are not issues about which the authors are remotely likely to be unqualified. Swerdlow’s review—even apart from his attack on Nick—appears to be suspect on its face. And how could anyone in their right mind allow Swerdlow’s suggestions that libraries not purchase the volume and that it ought to be pulped to stand without vigorous protest, even if one of the contributors has an interest in research on subjects that some—perhaps even most!—may disapprove? What kind of standard is that? How is that being fair to the contributors, the editors, or the publisher? That is a disgrace.

There are some 1,550 entries in the encyclopdia, which were authored by 430 scholars, of whom Nick Kollerstrom is only one, under the supervision of an Editor-in-Chief and a team of six associate editors. I would be willing to conjecture that a significant proportion of them may well have vices of their own, such as addictions to alcohol, pornography, adultery, S&M, or who-knows-what other practices of which public disapproval may be widespread. Should those authors be ferreted out and have their entries abolished, too? No, let’s just pulp the whole book!

I am reminded here of the occasion on which I first became involved in serious research on the assassination of JFK. It was in mid-1993 and I was lying in bed, drinking a cup of coffee and reading the paper, when my wife came in and said, “You won’t believe this!”, while turning on the TV. The image appeared of a distinguished man in standing behind a lecture with the logo of the American Medical Association, who was denigrating every serious student of the assassination from Mark Lane and Robert Groden to David Lifton and Charles Crenshaw.

He was especially caustic in attacking Oliver Stone’s “JFK”, which offers the most comprehensive, accurate, and complete depiction of what actually happened in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 ever presented to the American people through the mass media. The person turned out to be George Lundberg, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the AMA. I was stunned that someone of his stature would appear to be abusing the journal for political purposes and citing interviews with the autopsy pathologists as though they were science. That convinced me that perhaps some of us with special backgrounds and abilities should become involved.

Swerdlow’s abuse of his position has similarly convinced me that, once again, if those in positions of authority are abusing them for political purposes, some of us who might not otherwise have become involved in questions of this kind also have an obligation to pursue them. The issues involved are as important as they could be for the defense of academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, especially about controversial historical events. If the Holocaust is a reality, as I believe, then responsible research should confirm it; and if it is not, we are all entitled to know.

Perhaps the ultimate irony concerns the ethics of Swerdlow's review. The essence of morality is treating other persons with respect. But by recommending that the other contributors, the editors, and the press should be punished for the perceived sins of one of the contributors, he is promoting the practice of collective punishment, contrary to the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. It was even condemned by the Nuremberg Tribunal in the prosecution of Nazi war crimes. In his zeal to condemn Kollerstrom for pursuing research on the Holocaust, therefore, Swerdlow has gone off the deep end and committed an intellectual offense that is arguably even worse, which thereby exposes the immoral core of his own position.

The Egyptian goddess, Isis, after whom the journal is named, was long worshiped as the matron of nature and of magic. She has been described as the friend of slaves and sinners, by some accounts, which makes her name all the more appropriate here. In my opinion, Nicholas Kollerstrom was savaged by N. M. Swerdlow, not for offenses against the history of science, but for transgressing boundaries that are intended to protect sacred myths from refutation. In Swerdlow’s view, Kollerstrom deserved to be pilloried, not for his entries in an encyclopedia about astronomers, but for doing something that is forbidden -- conducting scientific research on the Holocaust. And not even the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS has been willing to grant him a fair shake.

Edited June 26, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I sent Nick a link to this discussion, where he has written back

with the following response, observing that there is a difference

between the features of the camp and the atmosphere prevailing

there, where he does not regard himself as qualified to judge:

My essay ‘School trips to Auschwitz’ emphasised the industrial

purpose of the various labour-camps around Oswiecim (the Polish

village called ‘Auschwitz’ in German):

‘The labour-camp Monowitz was concerned with industrial rubber

production, vital for the German war-effort... The Auschwitz camp had

an industrial purpose, seldom mentioned in texts. That’s why it was

located by several rivers and near to the big Polish coalfields....

Most of Auschwitz's inmates were put to work in a variety of heavy

industries, from rubber manufacture to medical supplies, from

armaments to clothing.’ http://www.codoh.com/incon/incontrip.html

My essay in no way aims to be a comprehensive statement, but only to

make a few factual statements about what was actually present at the

labour-camp. It makes no allusion of the extent to which its inmates

might have been in misery, despair etc – I would be far from competent

to do any such thing. I believe everything in the essay is factually

correct. Whether or not schoolchildren would benefit from perusing it

before their pilgrimage to the site, however, is for readers to judge.

So I think it is a fair statement to observe both that certain amenities

were present at the camp, such as the swimming pool, without implying

that the atmosphere was pleasant, since the reports we have suggest it

was not a pleasant place to be. Nick is simply trying to get it all straight.

You repeat association with Holocaust deniers of late (Barrett, "Pastore", Atzmon. Kollerstrom)is intriguing. I agree that Kollerstrom's views concerning the Holocaust are probably irrelevant to his contributions to a book about astronomy but since you failed to quote the offending passages of the review in your lengthy essay your readers have no way of knowing what Swerdlow's points were unless they want to pay $14*. Unfortunately You can NOT be relied upon to provide objective information. A case in point, from your essay above:

On the basis of an article by Nicholas relating to the controversy over the now-obligatory visits to Auschwitz by UK schoolchildren -- archived at

http://www.codoh.com.../incontrip.html

-- Swerdlow claims that Kollerstrom asserts “that Auschwitz was a pleasant place for its guests”! But while he does report that there were various amenities for the inmates, including a swimming pool and orchestras, he made no statement at all resembling that which Swerdlow has fabricated. This suggests that ISIS should have refereed his review more vigorously.

Here's what your friend said about the camp were millions of people were put to death and inmates lived under inhuman conditions:

Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates who watched the water-polo matches (6); and were shown paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its the theatrical performances, including a children' s opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. Let's hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, some of which still exist, where the postman would collect the mail twice-weekly. Thus the past may not always be quite, as we were told.

[...]

6. The swimming-pool : " The working hours were modified on Sundays and holidays, when most of the kommandos were at leisure. Roll call was at around noon; evenings were devoted to rest and to a choice of cultural and sporting activities. Football, basketball, and water-polo matches (in an open-air pool built within the perimeter by detainees) attracted crowds of onlookers. It should be noted that only the very fit and well-fed, exempt from the harsh jobs, could indulge in these games which drew the liveliest applause from the masses of other detainees." - Marc Klein, professor at the Strasbourg medicine faculty, 'Auschwitz I Stammlager' published in 1947 * He had first submitted this recollection "to the reading and scrutiny of Robert Weil, professor of science at Sarreguemines lycée," who had been interned in the same camps.

A (Swedish) witness Ditlieb Felderer testified: " Slides depicted the two starting blocks, the mount for the springboard and the showers. Piper told Felderer that the pool had been used to rehabilitate inmate patients and as recreation." Some literature of Holocaust survivors referred to this swimming pool and how it was used for water polo. **

Any objective person would describe that as sounding like '"a pleasant place for its guests”!' So if you can't fairly describe a text you link to one can only imagine how you distort a text not freely available.

* http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/653858

Edited June 17, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Len Colby]

It is not a question of whether he is right or wrong, where I will ask Nick if those passages still represent his position.

If they do, I will revise it. He is not a "Holocaust denier" but an historical revisionist. The issues are the ad hominem

attack by the reviewer, N.M. Swerdlow, and his recommendations that libraries not purchase the book and that it even

be pulped! Are they too difficult for Len Colby to get his mind around? Here are the key issues that are involved here:

Fetzer once again you demonstrate that you don't carefully read others posts before writing your replies. I said that IF you description Swerdlow's were accurate you'd have a point. The problem is you failed to quote the offending passages so one has to take it on faith that what you say about the review is accurate but you have proven yourself unreliable you lambasted Swerdlow for saying Kollerstrom portrayed Aushwitz as "a pleasant place" but he clear did so.

"He is not a "Holocaust denier" but an historical revisionist"

There is no real difference they are $h!t from the same sewer.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Your response implies that (a) you support ad hominem arguments (which, of course, I already knew), (2) you take

for granted that the popular wisdom about the Holocaust is true (and suggest that it should not be studied(?)), and

(3) you even agree that pulping a book with 1,550 contributions from 430 contributors is an appropriate response

to the alleged improprieties of one of the contributors (which, as I have noted, is a form of collective punishment).

His research, by the way, in case you missed it, is focused on the use of Zyklon-B, which has been claimed to have

been one of the principal methods for the extermination of prisoners in the camps. There are reasons to believe

that that is not the case, however, where a scientific question of this kind can only be resolved by scientific study.

Since I take it you have never studied any of these issues, how can you pose as though you know their answers?

Nick's concern is that the study of the Holocaust should be open to students and faculty and other scholars, just

as much as the assassination of JFK, the bombing of Hiroshima and of Nagasaki, and of 9/11. Indeed, as I have

discovered, there is a wide-spread disinclination to do research on 9/11, even though 9/11 has been described as

"the pivotal event" of the 21st C. So if academicians cannot study these events, who can? And why not? Tell us.

There is something about the Holocaust that makes grown men pee in their pants. If the Holocaust was a reality,

as I believe, then serious research should confirm that it was; and if it does not, then surely we are all entitled to

know. Calling research by obscenities does not diminish its importance, but only offers one more illustration of

wide-spread reluctance to tackle serious research on what may be one of the most influential dogmas of our time.

It is not a question of whether he is right or wrong, where I will ask Nick if those passages still represent his position.

If they do, I will revise it. He is not a "Holocaust denier" but an historical revisionist. The issues are the ad hominem

attack by the reviewer, N.M. Swerdlow, and his recommendations that libraries not purchase the book and that it even

be pulped! Are they too difficult for Len Colby to get his mind around? Here are the key issues that are involved here:

Fetzer once again you demonstrate that you don't carefully read others posts before writing your replies. I said that IF you description Swerdlow's were accurate you'd have a point. The problem is you failed to quote the offending passages so one has to take it on faith that what you say about the review is accurate but you have proven yourself unreliable you lambasted Swerdlow for saying Kollerstrom portrayed Aushwitz as "a pleasant place" but he clear did so.

"He is not a "Holocaust denier" but an historical revisionist"

There is no real difference they are $h!t from the same sewer.

Edited June 17, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Given Nick's explanation of what he meant, I think you have a point and I have rewritten

the sentence to make it more accurate. Thanks for raising the issue. I appreciate it. Jim

You repeat association with Holocaust deniers of late (Barrett, "Pastore", Atzmon. Kollerstrom)is intriguing. I agree that Kollerstrom's views concerning the Holocaust are probably irrelevant to his contributions to a book about astronomy but since you failed to quote the offending passages of the review in your lengthy essay your readers have no way of knowing what Swerdlow's points were unless they want to pay $14*. Unfortunately You can NOT be relied upon to provide objective information. A case in point, from your essay above:

On the basis of an article by Nicholas relating to the controversy over the now-obligatory visits to Auschwitz by UK schoolchildren -- archived at

http://www.codoh.com.../incontrip.html

-- Swerdlow claims that Kollerstrom asserts “that Auschwitz was a pleasant place for its guests”! But while he does report that there were various amenities for the inmates, including a swimming pool and orchestras, he made no statement at all resembling that which Swerdlow has fabricated. This suggests that ISIS should have refereed his review more vigorously.

Here's what your friend said about the camp were millions of people were put to death and inmates lived under inhuman conditions:

Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates who watched the water-polo matches (6); and were shown paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its the theatrical performances, including a children' s opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. Let's hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, some of which still exist, where the postman would collect the mail twice-weekly. Thus the past may not always be quite, as we were told.

[...]

6. The swimming-pool : " The working hours were modified on Sundays and holidays, when most of the kommandos were at leisure. Roll call was at around noon; evenings were devoted to rest and to a choice of cultural and sporting activities. Football, basketball, and water-polo matches (in an open-air pool built within the perimeter by detainees) attracted crowds of onlookers. It should be noted that only the very fit and well-fed, exempt from the harsh jobs, could indulge in these games which drew the liveliest applause from the masses of other detainees." - Marc Klein, professor at the Strasbourg medicine faculty, 'Auschwitz I Stammlager' published in 1947 * He had first submitted this recollection "to the reading and scrutiny of Robert Weil, professor of science at Sarreguemines lycée," who had been interned in the same camps.

A (Swedish) witness Ditlieb Felderer testified: " Slides depicted the two starting blocks, the mount for the springboard and the showers. Piper told Felderer that the pool had been used to rehabilitate inmate patients and as recreation." Some literature of Holocaust survivors referred to this swimming pool and how it was used for water polo. **

Any objective person would describe that as sounding like '"a pleasant place for its guests”!' So if you can't fairly describe a text you link to one can only imagine how you distort a text not freely available.

* http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/653858

Edited June 18, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Len Colby]

Your response implies that (a) you support ad hominem arguments (which, of course, I already knew),

No Fetzer you post demonstrates that I was correct when I said “you don't carefully read others posts before writing your replies” I wrote (emphasis added because you need it):

"IF you description Swerdlow's were accurate you'd have a point. The problem is you failed to quote the offending passages so one has to take it on faith that what you say about the review is accurate but you have proven yourself unreliable”

So yes I agree with you that Kollstrom’s bios of astronomers, let alone the larger work they are part of, should not be judged based on his idiotic views regarding the Holocaust. The problem is I don’t trust that you have fairly represented. So why don’t you post the passages you object to here?

(2) you take for granted that the popular wisdom about the Holocaust is true (and suggest that it should not be studied(?))

It seems you cranium is firmly planted in your digestive track, were did I "suggest that [the Holocaust] should not be studied?" I don’t doubt the Holocaust because I have spoken to numerous Jews who lived in Europe at the time including family members and the vast majority of their relatives and Jewish friends/acquaintances did not survive the war. I’ve also spoken to camp survivors, soldiers who liberated camps and gentiles who lived in Europe at the time. I have also seen/read interviews with members of the above groups who all said the same thing. I have also read books about the subject. I have also noted that among the deniers/revisionists is a dearth of people with relevant expertise and a surplus of ones with extremist political views.

and (3) you even agree that pulping a book with 1,550 contributions from 430 contributors is an appropriate response to the alleged improprieties of one of the contributors (which, as I have noted, is a form of collective punishment).

Where did you devine that from? See what I was saying about the location of your head?

His research, by the way, in case you missed it, is focused on the use of Zyklon-B,

Not the article you posted, it made Aushwitz soundn like a fancy summer camp. Nothing in his bio suggests he is qualified to make such a determination.

which has been claimed to have been one of the principal methods for the extermination of prisoners in the camps. There are reasons to believe that that is not the case, however, where a scientific question of this kind can only be resolved by scientific study.

Get back to me when you can cite someone with relevant qualifications who believes “that that is not the case”

Since I take it you have never studied any of these issues, how can you pose as though you know their answers?

What’s the name of the fallacy when someone reaches a conclusion based on false assumptions? See above.

Nick's concern is that the study of the Holocaust should be open to students and faculty and other scholars, just as much as the assassination of JFK, the bombing of Hiroshima and of Nagasaki, and of 9/11.

Essentially it is, I don’t agree with law that criminalize Holocaust denial but I am unaware of any serious scholars whose views risk running afoul of them.

Indeed, as I have

discovered, there is a wide-spread disinclination to do research on 9/11, even though 9/11 has been described as

"the pivotal event" of the 21st C. So if academicians cannot study these events, who can? And why not? Tell us.

It has been well studied, but few serious scholars take your loony theories seriously.

There is something about the Holocaust that makes grown men pee in their pants.

How odd that the murder of 10 – 14 million people and attempted extermination of two ethnic groups upsets some people, that is completely irrational

If the Holocaust was a reality, as I believe, then serious research should confirm that it was;

That has already been done, have you even bothered to read any books on the topic?

and if it does not, then surely we are all entitled to know.

Why am I not surprised that you toy with Holocaust denial? I doubt it is a coincidence this comes on the tails of you strongly endorsing a Mein Kampf like take on early 20th century history.

Calling research by obscenities does not diminish its importance, but only offers one more illustration of wide-spread reluctance to tackle serious research on what may be one of the most influential dogmas of our time.

Please cite examples of when I have called serious research “by obscenities”

Edited June 18, 2011 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Given Nick's explanation of what he meant, I think you have a point and I have rewritten

the sentence to make it more accurate. Thanks for raising the issue. I appreciate it. Jim

You're welcome but your minor edit is insufficient because in this case at least Swerdlow was completely right and you were completely wrong. And no there was no 'swimming pool' for prisoners at the Auschwitz death camp. Post one photo of them using it or a survivor account of using it.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Either you believe that research on the Holocaust is perfectly appropriate or you do not. How could a

question like this one be resolved independent of conducting serious historical research? I have made

many points about Swerdlow's irresponsible reviews. If you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that

he went far off the deep end, then your moral compass is out of whack. Of course, I already knew it,

so spare us the bandwidth. It is already apparent that you have nothing more of value to say. Thanks.

Given Nick's explanation of what he meant, I think you have a point and I have rewritten

the sentence to make it more accurate. Thanks for raising the issue. I appreciate it. Jim

You're welcome but your minor edit is insufficient because in this case at least Swerdlow was completely right and you were completely wrong. And no there was no 'swimming pool' for prisoners at the Auschwitz death camp. Post one photo of them using it or a survivor account of using it.

Edited June 18, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Evan Burton]

I think I have to agree with Jim here.

Although I believe Kollerstrom is completely wrong in his beliefs, and agree with totally with Swerdlow's assessment, it didn't have anything to do with the publication. The most Swerdlow says about Kollerstrom's articles is that they are undistinguished, have little to recommend them and they look for conspiracies. He doesn't really illustrate those examples.

[Len Colby]

Either you believe that research on the Holocaust is perfectly appropriate or you do not.

Show where I have ever indicated it wasn’t appropriate. But it is interesting to note that defending Holocaust deniers has become a theme of yours as of late.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2007/02/holocaust_denier_eric_d_willia.php

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/02/uncle-fetzer-on-holocaust-denial-part.html

How could a question like this one be resolved independent of conducting serious historical research?

The Holocaust is one of the most researched events in history, no scholars say the prisoners at Auschwitz and other death camps enjoyed swimming pools, art classes etc. such absurd claims are the province of misinformed cranks. But now that we are on the subject please explain your comment on another thread that, “I am not a Holocaust denier (even though I'm inclined to believe the numbers killed have been exaggerated),”

I have made many points about Swerdlow's irresponsible reviews. If you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that he went far off the deep end,

You indeed “made many points about Swerdlow's” review but “YOU can't bring yourself to” actually post the offending passages. As I have already made clear a few times IF your take on them is accurate you have a point. The problem is I don’t trust you. Why not post the excerpts of the parts that bothered you?

then your moral compass is out of whack. Of course, I already knew it,

LOL this coming from someone who:

- proudly promotes a Hitlerian take on early 20th century history

- endorsed a military coup to remove Bush

- was suspended from this forum for improper conduct.

- was suspended from his job for improper conduct with a female coworker

- implied on a Yahoo forum that the relationship was sexual but denied it here

[Len Colby]

I think I have to agree with Jim here.

Although I believe Kollerstrom is completely wrong in his beliefs, and agree with totally with Swerdlow's assessment, it didn't have anything to do with the publication. The most Swerdlow says about Kollerstrom's articles is that they are undistinguished, have little to recommend them and they look for conspiracies. He doesn't really illustrate those examples.

Evan

Have you actually seen the review?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thank you, Evan. This has nothing to do with whether Nick is right or wrong. Maybe he's completely

wrong. But since it has nothing to do with his research on the astronomers about whom he wrote, is

it even remotely appropriate that libraries should be discouraged from buying it or the book pulped?

There are 1,550 entries from 430 contributors, where an Editor-in-Chief and six associate editors

supervised the project. So he is not only committing ad hominems but guilt by association and even

collective punishment! Swerdlow is committing rather brutal, unprofessional and unethical offenses.

I think I have to agree with Jim here.

Although I believe Kollerstrom is completely wrong in his beliefs, and agree with totally with Swerdlow's assessment, it didn't have anything to do with the publication. The most Swerdlow says about Kollerstrom's articles is that they are undistinguished, have little to recommend them and they look for conspiracies. He doesn't really illustrate those examples.

Edited June 20, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Either you believe that research on the Holocaust is perfectly appropriate or you do not.

Show where I have ever indicated it wasn’t appropriate. But it is interesting to note that defending Holocaust deniers has become a theme of yours as of late.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2007/02/holocaust_denier_eric_d_willia.php

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/02/uncle-fetzer-on-holocaust-denial-part.html

How could a question like this one be resolved independent of conducting serious historical research?

The Holocaust is one of the most researched events in history, no scholars say the prisoners at Auschwitz and other death camps enjoyed swimming pools, art classes etc. such absurd claims are the province of misinformed cranks. But now that we are on the subject please explain your comment on another thread that, “I am not a Holocaust denier (even though I'm inclined to believe the numbers killed have been exaggerated),”

I have made many points about Swerdlow's irresponsible reviews. If you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that he went far off the deep end,

You indeed “made many points about Swerdlow's” review but “YOU can't bring yourself to” actually post the offending passages. As I have already made clear a few times IF your take on them is accurate you have a point. The problem is I don’t trust you. Why not post the excerpts of the parts that bothered you?

then your moral compass is out of whack. Of course, I already knew it,

LOL this coming from someone who:

- proudly promotes a Hitlerian take on early 20th century history

- endorsed a military coup to remove Bush

- was suspended from this forum for improper conduct.

- was suspended from his job for improper conduct with a female coworker

- implied on a Yahoo forum that the relationship was sexual but denied it here

As I have stated several times, I believe in the Holocaust, but restrictions against research about it are

absurd. If it was real, as I believe, then serious research will substantiate it; and it if was not, then we

are all entitled to know. But I certainly agree that one or the other of us has lost his moral compass.

I discuss many books on "The Real Deal", including STRANGER THAN FICTION, GUILT BY ASSOCIATION,

WHAT I SAW THAT DAY, some of which reflect adversely upon Zionism and its practitioners. That does

not mean I have "a Hitlerian take on early 20th century history". So now you are a 20th C. historian?

As for a military coup, I said at a presentation in early June 2006 that it would not surprise me were

something like that to occur. That is not the same as an endorsement. Bush grossly violated the US

Constitution, however, where, I am sorry to say, Obama is following suit. Sad days for the US of A!

Suspended for discussing 9/11 issues on a thread in which I was being attacked for my views about

9/11? That's a pretty serious offense, Len. I won't say you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel,

because you have long since exceeded that. You are grasping after straws without a lot of success.

We know all about my suspension. I had a relationship with a member of the staff who was also

married which my wife regarded as "inappropriate". She was the Chancellor's closest friend and,

when we had a falling out, the Chancellor hung me out to dry. But you already know all of this.

Yes, I was tweaking Tink, who had an admitted history of involvement with undergraduates when

he taught at Haverford, which most faculty, including me, regard as unprofessional and deplorable.

It was a rather innocuous relationship, as these things go, and I paid for it in many different ways.

Since displaying respect for others is the essence of morality, which you are manifestly not doing

here but exaggerating and recycling old news, none of which has anything to do with the issues at

stake here, I can see that you and Swerdlow inhabit the same moral universe. No surprise there!

Edited June 20, 2011 by James H. Fetzer