Is this lie and reply a sign of mental impairment?

Dr. Nicholas Terry is someone who makes a living promoting an eighty-year-old, WW2, atrocity-propaganda narrative: i.e. he is a professional ’holocaust’ promoter. This means he earns a wage promulgating a refuted pseudo-history. He has been collecting a salary for perpetuating this ahistorical aberration in the minds of receptive students for about thirteen years.
Yet despite himself being one of the many people on the planet who are themselves in denial regarding certain refutations of the H’ narrative on empirical grounds, made and confirmed by numerous revisionists over the last seven decades, still he makes this claim on his academic CV:

“I have… engaged with the phenomenon of Holocaust denial from a historical as well as a contemporary perspective”.

Hmmm?
What does that even mean, exactly? 🤔
How has he ”engaged” with it?
Does he mean by thinking about it?
By considering its merits?
By reading ’denier’ literature?
By discussing with ’H-deniers’?
By attending meetings/lectures of ’H-deniers? 

Is this just a wierd way of admitting that he has read revisionist writings and discussed the holocaust narrative with reknowned skeptics of it — both deceased authors (”historical”) and living (”contemporary”)?

Or... Is he perhaps using such unusual verbiage in an attempt to justify his having considerable familiarity with revisionist writings?

Or is he attempting to protect himself from criticism from the likes of Religion Professor Deborah Lipstadt who insists no-one should ever acknowledge or debate the research findings of  ’holocaust’-skeptics and/or revisionists?

And here is the point I have been leading towards: how is someone with such a peculiar approach to people who raise questions of parts of this protected topic, ever going to be able to have a genuine, open, rational, RESPECTFUL discussion about their viewpoints?
As doesn’t his dismissal of all and any doubt as equalling denial of all of it demonstrate that his long association with promoting the only, one accepted viewpoint — with the inevitable and  considerable emotional (AND economical) investment in being ’right’ — ever going to be able to admit error and concede core fallacies? 

He will have to do such a hugely humiliating climb-down.

 ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ... 

On a personal note, I noticed that Dr. Nick has recently been honouring me with a personal, perennial smear campaign over at the non-skeptical Holocaust Skeptics forum. He has been repeating the old lie that I attempted to plagiarise the writings of Mark Weber as if they were my own writings. 

Now, why would a qualified and successful holocaust ’academic feel the need to defend this ’history’ from critical analysis by making false assertions about minor participants in online discussion of it?? 🤔

If ’the holocaust’ were such a well-established and definitively-evidenced historical occurrence, why would one of the few academics specialising in it, need to take petty-minded potshots at an unimportant, uninfluential skeptic of just the extent of the mass-gassing aspect of it, by spreading demeaning lies about them?

Isn’t that also rather wierd behaviour? 
 
So… for the record, the reality is that I have NEVER attempted to pass off the writings or research of anyone as being my own.
 
Though, as often is the case with deliberate deceptions, there is a grain of truth here.
 As I recall, it occurred about thirteen years ago, when I was new to RODOH and revisionism, and I became involved in a lengthy discussion of many posts over many days (which I think might have been between myself and Stat. Mech. about the Wannsee Protocol). During that discussion I ONCE backed up a point with a short quote from Mark Weber that I distinguished from my own words by putting it in “quote marks”, but which I didn’t immediately reveal who it was from. 

And for this ’crime’, a Senior Lecturer at Exeter University is over a decade later trying to discredit me — an insignificant online participant in online discussion — by misrepresenting that occurrence. And all to protect a particular historiography from dastardly doubters?!?! 
Why?
Question: Why would a ”senior” academic in a genuine, well-evidenced historiography feel a need to do something so petty?
Answer: The reason is because — as with ANY discussion with people who believe a historical narrative with religious certainty — the issue is psychological not historical. 🙂