Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 adequacy diary icon is _very_ inadequate

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Nov 28, 2001
I don't know which one of adequacy editors is still in love with that little girl and couldn't get over her innocent smiley face or her tear jacking diaries after these many years.

More diaries by loginadequacy
seventypercent of 0.01% clue on communist theory
"Keep Your Eye on the Target" by Ron Paul (R-TX)
From Taoist to Infidel (2001)
Madman's Diary by LuXun
Enron Venture Capitalism
But honestly, it turns me off to write anything decent for my adequate well being. I request a personalized diary icon. And here is my recommendation


if you were even slightly literate (none / 0) (#1)
by error27 on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 11:43:02 PM PST
you would know that "that little girl" is Anne Frank.

Perhaps you should ask yourself if you truly adequate?

Glass houses and stones. (none / 0) (#3)
by tkatchev on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 02:48:12 AM PST
Don't be so quick to judge.

There is a large body of evidence that Anne Frank's diary was fake[1]. Unlike other "revisionist" "research", this was actually extremely well-researched and backed up with scientific methods.

[1] I won't post links, sorry, I'm too lazy. I assume that all you are "adequate", and are well-acquainted with Mr. Google.

Peace and much love...

Except that (none / 0) (#6)
by Hammurabi on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 07:16:42 AM PST
Every paper I've been able to find claiming Anne Frank's diary to be fake was written by someone who was also a holocaust revisionist. Now granted, the arguments seem reasonably sound, but I'm certainly not going to reproduce all the research done by the author of the paper, so I have to be able to trust him. And it's difficult to trust the author when I know that his primary reason for embarking on the study is in an attempt to lessen evidence for the holocaust.

Perhaps you know of some papers by established history professors claiming it's a fake? It's difficult to find such things on Google. Is there a site where you can read history papers online, like there is for physics and math?

Only the most dangerous and hardened of criminals attempts to blame the law when he is the one who broke it.

Reading comprehension. (none / 0) (#7)
by tkatchev on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 08:07:19 AM PST
Yes, like I said in my original post:

Unlike other "revisionist" "research", this was actually extremely well-researched and backed up with scientific methods.

You are right, the "revisionist" guys are buffoons. Except that in this particular case, the research is quite solid and non-controvercial. And it is not as if Anne Frank's relatives are impartial third-party observers -- they most likely embellished the story quite a bit. Wouldn't you?

Peace and much love...

Absolutely (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 08:33:52 AM PST
The respected historian David Irving, a fearless challenger of established myths, has made his views clear on the topic of Anne Frank.

It is dangerous to spread the truth though - Römer, another respected historian, claimed the diaries were fake only to be convicted in an emotional German court. How typical of our supposed 'freedoms'.

As David points out, it is highly suspicious that Otto Frank, her father, refuses to hand out the manuscript even to the most impeccable institutions. Nobody is allowed to see them. Is this not a tad suspicious? And how can the genuine nature of the diaries be established when nobody is allowed to examine the diaries?

The manuscripts were examined briefly, in situ, in the 70's by Swiss authoroties. Suspiciously, large portions of the manuscript were 'embellished' with a ball point pen - despite the fact that ball point pens were not invented till well after WWII.

I am glad to see you accept that Anne Frank's diaries may not be all they appear. Just remember the inherent dangers in denying such things in this confirmist age.

At the very least, large parts of the diary were not written by Anne herself - this much has been established and accepted by all parties, already. But even larger portions could be false - possibly as much as the whole entirety of the diaries could be faked. There are many suspicious and odd facts in the case, and we seem to be heading towards one inevitable conclusion.

One small comment, (none / 0) (#11)
by tkatchev on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 09:59:25 AM PST
I just want to mention that the (non-)validity of Frank's diary can in no way be construed as a justification for Nazism. (Obviously, sad that I even have to mention this.) Her story is just one of millions, and not even the most horrible or striking. (Heck, even my family tree suffered from Nazi death camps...) She was a human being like any of us, and could have embellished the story if she wanted to. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as we don't view the diary as some sort of gospel truth.

Peace and much love...

you're an idiot (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 06:49:55 PM PST
The respected historian David Irving,

Oh, yes, the David Irving who doesnt believe the Holocaust happened and regularly "proves" the case in his capacity as a regular and distinguished guest at Neo-Nazi pow-wows.

How typical of our supposed 'freedoms'.

It's just as well you havent a problem with libel laws because I'm about to call you a fucking moron: you are, self-demonstrably and for all posterity, a fucking moron.

You're really anti-Semitic. Really. (nt) (none / 0) (#10)
by elenchos on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 08:47:14 AM PST

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

I think he knew that. (none / 0) (#4)
by theboz on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 05:16:42 AM PST
In the diary he didn't say her name directly, but he did make reference to "her tear jacking diaries after these many years." I think he meant tear jerking by the way, but perhaps something else was on his mind. Anne Frank is probably the only diaries of a little girl that have been very famous and dealt with a sensitive subject. Of course, they could be fake as someone else noted in this thread.

nothing's real except the real thing (none / 0) (#9)
by loginadequacy on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 08:34:45 AM PST
who cares if her stories are real or fake. but i heard the rumor that the editor or her book publisher fell in love with the little girl ( yes, i'm *very* inadequate in naming names) to the extent that he destoyed his own happy family life just so that he can be the little girl's slave. the power of love and hate is quite amazing. Maybe we should find a picture of this man toiled in love to replace that unreal girl's picture?

Yeah. (none / 0) (#2)
by em on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 12:41:29 AM PST
It might be time for a change indeed. We'll look into it.
Associate Editor,

cookies (none / 0) (#5)
by loginadequacy on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 06:48:37 AM PST
i hate cookies. One of the baking ladies in my house thought that you folks aren't adequate enough for a real treat so she stole my cookies and replace the treat i have offered with a stone house for inadequate folks dairies.

That's hilarious! cookies bring surprises sometimes.


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to