I asked "where did the word 'joke' appear in any of my posts REFERRING TO KKK TERROR" (emphasis added). My original use of the word "joke" was clearly used TO REFER TO YOUR ARGUMENT. You then accused me of saying (your words) "Ku Klux Klan terror is 'a joke'". Ergo, it is false that I denied my "own words". Ergo it is true that you again twisted the facts and lied.
As to the UDHR, it was YOU who cited it, it was YOU who claimed that it contained words it did not --- nothing remotely like what YOU claimed. It was YOUR error that I pointed out. This is normally called "accuracy". Just how is pointing out a blatant misrepresentation on your part willful deception on my part?
More evidence of your slimy tactics of debate, which you obviously prefer to actually supporting any of your nonsense.
Notice that we have now moved into the arena far from evidence about Noam Chomsky's supposed "political and legal" support for Faurisson, which I knew we would, since nothing of the sort exists. I presumed that Ken Lawrence would continue to lie, would continue to avoid providing evidence for his claims, would continue to refuse to answer the specific questions I put to him, and that he would begin g to claim that I had said things I had not, thus diverting attention from his own shameful methods. I was absolutely correct, sad to say.
I am going to post Robin Hahnel's long-awaited reply to Justin Schwartz sometime later today. Hopefully this will provide more fertile and useful ground for discussion than the trash that Lawrence wishes to bring to the list.
Bill