Holocaust is Propaganda, friend says

New reporters, and historians and writers are born everyday...if everything has been covered, there is no option but to go over it again....and obviously not write the same thing all over...

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the topic at hand.

 

I think what he means is that in historical context, one can dig and dig for more detail, but eventually the well is bound to run dry. In response, an author may "revise" historical fact and make their own interpretation. At times in the ridiculous spectrum.

 

Indeed but again I don't see how it's relevant to the difference between the old and favoreably looked upon revisionist (and it should be pointed out to qualify one had to have significant revisions of the accepted historical interpretation) and the new and revialed definition of one who ignores facts to push an unacceptable interpretation. The well does indeed run dry in some areas so if one wishes to present material with a fresh look then it's required to find an area where there is new or widely overlooked information. But again that's not relevant to the topic at hand.

 

Some don't find a new area...I would argue most already have chosen their field due to personal interest...the idea here is a simple one, and a general comment on revision and revisionists. Plenty of 'revision', as we find in archaeology, is based on making a name and career for oneself, and or aquire further grants for study...it's based on a 'deliberate' re-interpretation of available facts to present 'new' work. It's a comment on revision and revisionists, it's relevant...not that I need your permission or acquiescence...

 

I didn't say you needed my permission certainly we wander off topic on a frequent basis but that seemed to come out of left field and as I said I couldn't see that it had any relevance to the topic at hand. I still don't. Not sure if that is because I'm missing something you were trying to say or just don't see that it is relevant.