The Warden wrote:Balsamo wrote:I don't know if you are aware of it.
But here is the result of the College kid "researches"
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/vie ... ors_theses
This could almost have its own thread(s).
There's a lot to pick apart in there.
Of course, we could use the Wiesel approach and ignore it, thereby voiding any credibility of the author.
I read her (the OP's) thesis yesterday. It was dull and repetitious. Consider the following:
EN on page 3 wrote:Holocaust deniers are dangerous because they distort information in order to create a lie—effectively inventing their own version of history.
EN on page 3 wrote:Although he does not specifically write Holocaust denial literature, David Irving has been labeled by Deborah Lipstadt as “one of the
most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial.”
EN on page 9 wrote:This illusion of being part of the world of legitimate scholarship is what makes print denial literature dangerous.
EN on page 10 wrote:Rassinier is dangerous as a denier because of his personal experiences.
EN on page 10 wrote:When reading about the Holocaust, the average reader would likely be more apt to believe the words of a survivor rather than information found in a secondary source. This makes Rassinier all the more dangerous.
EN on page 11 wrote:Unlike other “scholarly” works of denial literature, but equally dangerous, is a pamphlet written by the American Holocaust denier Austin J. App.
EN on page 13 wrote:Nearly all deniers use them as a basis for their arguments, thereby making The Six Million Swindel a dangerous piece of denial literature that should not be ignored.
EN on page 13 wrote:This book is dangerous, however, due to its academic façade. While a trained historian might immediately recognize Butz’s book for what it is, an uneducated reader might view the book as authentic and believe his lies.
EN on page 17 wrote:Nevertheless, it does resemble a legitimate scholarly work and could mislead a person into believing its contents—making it a particularly dangerous piece of denial literature.
EN on page 21 wrote:As a Holocaust denial database, Historical Revisionism is particularly dangerous.
EN on page 21 wrote:This is what makes IHR dangerous.
EN on page 23 wrote:These are authors of print denial literature who attempt to mask their work as scholarly—making it more dangerous.
EN on page 24 wrote:Zündel is a dangerous asset in the promotion of Holocaust denial.
EN on page 27 wrote:Although this amateur website might not be effective at promoting denial to most people, as far as these particular deniers are concerned, it was a dangerous tool.
EN on page 34 wrote:In order to judge how dangerous Holocaust denial is, it is important to understand why people are deniers to begin with.
EN on page 37 wrote:In these cases, the denial published on the internet directly resulted in people becoming Holocaust deniers, making it a dangerous asset to Holocaust denial.
EN on page 37 wrote:Although Holocaust denial is dangerous and a form of anti-Semitism, its presence on the internet is not entirely negative.
EN on page 41 wrote:A person can knowingly publish falsehoods online and label it the “truth,” and if the wrong person reads it, they might fall for the lie. Ultimately, the most dangerous aspect of internet denial is this unfortunate fact.
EN on page 41 wrote:However, the central issue is whether or not Holocaust denial is more dangerous now because of the internet.
EN on page 41 wrote:Denial is more dangerous simply because of the nature of the global, almost limitless reach and free publication of the internet.
EN on page 41 wrote:At the same time, it is less dangerous because of a lack of “professionalism” on most denial websites.
EN on page 43 wrote:There is also a third side to the question of whether or not Holocaust denial is more dangerous because of the internet and it neither positively nor negatively affects denial.
So that's *twenty two* occurrences of the word "dangerous" in her thesis describing revisionism. Now, I've read close to twenty Holocaust Handbooks and yet I still have not encountered any real danger to my life. The only "danger" however, is that I may be incarcerated for having them (depending on where I go).
Ms. Nickerson, I give your paper a grade of C- (70/100). If it was pro rev, it would still receive the same mark. You have contributed very little in terms of originality and mostly parrot and regurgitate.