When in doubt, accuse your target of being a Nazi, a Nazi supporter, or a Nazi admirer, and the bunch over at "Exposing Ryder" made an impressive yet sloppy attempt of this on July 23, 2006.
The post started out claiming to be inspired by complaints from Jewish visitors to Stephen Ryder's website:
Jewish readers have e-mailed us in a state of distress, asking us to demonstrate our indignance and disgust at the way photographs of infamous Nazi soldiers are being displayed on Stephen Ryder's 'Jack the Ripper' casebook with their autographs emblazened. .
The offending photo, from the profile of a casebook member, is duly displayed.
Yet there are no Nazi symbols visible, and for good reason--the photo is of World War One flying ace the Baron von Richtofen, better known as "The Red Baron"
Not only was he not a Nazi, he was killed 2 years before the Nazi party was formed. The Exposers can't even claim ignorance of the photograph's subject, since it is clearly visible at the bottom of the photo.
Having firmly jammed their collective foot in their mouth, a further accusation is made:
"We have been investigating this. A number of Casebook members are using Nazi identities as pseudonyms."
Not a single example is provided, for the simple reason that the accusation is a complete and utter lie. Of the 1116 registered members of the Casebook message boards, there is not a single instance of a remotely Nazi-inspired pseudonym. If this is a sign of their investigative skills, Jack the Ripper must be laughing in his grave.
To compound the defamation, the initial false claim is repeated, along with a healthy dose of inspired jingoism:
"Displaying autographed Nazi photographs? Did our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers die for nothing? We are of course disgusted about this affront to human decency."
Later, on the comment board, a commentator politely pointed out the error regarding the photo. Did Shamingstephenryder graciously concede the point and offer an apology? See for yourself:
"shamingstephenryder said...
Thankyou reader yes we have established that.
It makes his war like tendency no less significant, given the era, and flaunting his face is clearly a side kick macho gesture on the part of the ripperthugs. If you fail to understand that you could always go and castrate yourself, as we are getting a little tired of comments of this Nazi nature."
Talk about moving the goalposts. The entire premise of the article was to make the casebook members look like Nazi sympathizers, yet when the falsehood is pointed out, Shamingstephenryder tells his informant to castrate himself and calls him a Nazi (if you get the feeling that they like calling people Nazi's you are correct--there will be more examples at a later date). This is from a group that supposedly opposes thuggery.
To close this off, let's post a comment that was sent to the "Exposing" blog but was never posted by the owners--a tactic they use frequently.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006:
Here's your article:
"Jewish readers have e-mailed us in a state of distress, asking us to demonstrate our indignance and disgust at the way photographs of infamous Nazi soldiers are being displayed on Stephen Ryder's 'Jack the Ripper' casebook"
When someone with a couple of active brain cells points out to you that the photo is NOT of a nazi soldier at all, you respond with:
"flaunting his face is clearly a side kick macho gesture on the part of the ripperthugs. If you fail to understand that you could always go and castrate yourself, as we are getting a little tired of comments of this Nazi nature."
Instead of admitting you were wrong, you viciously launch a personal attack the person who had the nerve to provide the correct information--in other words, you behaved in EXACTLY the way you accuse the ripperthugs of behaving.
I wonder why they didn't let this one through. I guess the truth hurts.
No comments:
Post a Comment