I am been assigned the task of evaluating a web page to meet a requirement of an Internet class I am taking. As an social studies teacher, I was searching World War II information and came across your article. I imagine that many of your messages are sent in rage but I am sending mine based on criteria I established prior to reading the entire content of your article.

This criteria includes the following: quality of content, documentation, unbiased presentation of the material, and provides opportunity for additional research. The rating scale I have selected is : weak, averge, and strong.

QUALTIY OF CONTENT (weak) I have rated this weak party because I am not sure of your message. Are you trying to say the holocaust never happened or are you debating the statistics. You have made reference to historians such as Hilberg and Reitlinger stating that the most commonly accepted figure of 6 million killed is too high. You make reference to the figures 5.1 million, 4.6 million, and 1.2 million. It is irrelevant if it was 6 million or 1.2 million, we are still talking about the slaughter of innoncent people. You make reference to the human soap issue. If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are correct that this was not true, this

misinformation(if it were) can not compare to the countless volumes of evidence, such as confiscated lamps made of human skin, shrunken skulls, human skin painting parchments.

DOCUMENTATION (weak-average) You have provided documentation to support your stand. However, when using a limited number of resources such as twenty it is easy to maniuplate information to form an unpopular decision. I place my trust in the millions of pages of other documentation verses your few screens on a web page.

Unbiased (weak) If I were to combine my final two categories, I would rate you higher since you have provided an alternative view by providing the reader with the web site of the Nizkor Project. It appears as if you are trying to adapt bits and pieces of information to fit your theory instead of fitting your theory to the information.

Provides Opportunity for Further Research- (strong) I must admit that I was rather surprised that you provided the opposing view web site.

I do admit that I find it ironic if not disgusting that you are claiming and using freedom of expression to defend a government that violated the basic human rights of hundreds of millions of people.

This is the final assignment of this course and I will not be availble for any correspondence.

Sam Brocato [[email protected]]