Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
iwh
Poster
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby iwh » Wed Jun 17, 2015 3:34 pm

I've just made my way through the latest Opus from British denier guru Nicholas Kollerstrom: Breaking the Spell.

In this book he makes the claim that the German camps were visited on a frequent basis throughout the war by the Red Cross. As proof of this statement he uses as his only source: the 1948 ICRC 3 volume report. He "proves" that Auschwitz was visited for hygiene checks on p233 of his book by using this quote from the ICRC report:

"Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged"


I must stress here that Kollerstrom is very specific as to what this quote is referring to: Auschwitz.

Now, on seeing this, my mind went back to Harwood's book and I remembered that I had managed to get hold of some pdf files from The Phora many years ago relating to this topic. Looking on my spare hard drive I found the files, and within minutes I had the exact text on screen.

Surprise, surprise, the Kollerstrom quotation did not refer to Auschwitz at all...nor did it refer to any German concentration or labour camp; it referred to BRITISH internment camps for Italian and Germans based in EGYPT!!

This is not new, but as far as I am concerned it is the most obvious example of denier deception I have found.

Does anyone have other examples of deliberate denier deception? Can Kollerstrom's deceit be beaten?


User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4175
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Jeff_36 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:19 pm

Kollerstrom should be ashamed. That was unacceptable.

Nicely done by the way.
Last edited by Jeff_36 on Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

iwh
Poster
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby iwh » Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:32 pm

You are quite correct. There is not even any wriggle room here. It is blatant deception!!

I wouldn't have him anywhere near university students!

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14912
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:52 pm

Thanks iwh. After just finishing Wachsmann's book on the KL system, which gives the context for the very, very limited interventions by outside agencies in the world of the camps, all I can do is shake my head in a perverse sort of admiration for Kollerstrom's blatant deceit.

Judging from his website, he is an idjit.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4175
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Jeff_36 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:02 pm

Also a 9/11 truther, a 7/7 truther, someone sympathetic to the Argies in the Falklands war (he whined endlessly about the sinking of the "General Belgrano" while not giving any attention to those lost aboard the "Atlantic Conveyor" or the "Sheffield"), and somone who has used many tired and beaten denier tropes (such as the swimming pool gambit and the "Judea declares war" gambit).

He can best be sent to the dustbin of history with Gerdes.
Last edited by Jeff_36 on Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Balsamo » Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:02 pm

In most Vincent Reynourd videos on youtube, you'll find deception basically every 5 minutes, especially in the ways he presents documents and translates them, at a point I am pretty sure he does even realize his bad faith anymore. It has become a second nature.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Balsamo » Wed Jun 17, 2015 11:13 pm

wrong thread, sorry;

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4175
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:58 am

More: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... om-on.html

In the comments section, my compatriot Nathan and I take Kollerstrom apart for his misuse of the term "meeting of minds". He did not respond perhaps because he could not understand us. I know he is supposed to be a professor of something or other, but his writings make him come off as not too bright and a bit insane.

iwh
Poster
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby iwh » Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:37 am

I found Kollerstrom simply copied ideas from other "revisionists". His Bibliography is mainly denier based and his recommended reading list is completely denier based. Not only that but he sites as valid sources comments from CODOH and the comments sections from on-line newspapers; the logic being that if enough people question an article on the Holocaust, these people must be right. Proof by votes, so to say.

iwh
Poster
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby iwh » Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:39 am

Balsamo wrote:wrong thread, sorry;


Not at all...do you have any examples of Reynourd's mistranslations.

Thanks

iwh
Poster
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby iwh » Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:22 am

Just out of interest, here is a copy of the ICRC Report page that shows Kollerstrom's deliberate deception.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0M9IqhJQ3E-a3dwdUdBdG1oVnM/view?usp=sharing

I hope it works.

:?

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby nickterry » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:02 pm

iwh wrote:I've just made my way through the latest Opus from British denier guru Nicholas Kollerstrom: Breaking the Spell.

In this book he makes the claim that the German camps were visited on a frequent basis throughout the war by the Red Cross. As proof of this statement he uses as his only source: the 1948 ICRC 3 volume report. He "proves" that Auschwitz was visited for hygiene checks on p233 of his book by using this quote from the ICRC report:

"Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged"


I must stress here that Kollerstrom is very specific as to what this quote is referring to: Auschwitz.

Now, on seeing this, my mind went back to Harwood's book and I remembered that I had managed to get hold of some pdf files from The Phora many years ago relating to this topic. Looking on my spare hard drive I found the files, and within minutes I had the exact text on screen.

Surprise, surprise, the Kollerstrom quotation did not refer to Auschwitz at all...nor did it refer to any German concentration or labour camp; it referred to BRITISH internment camps for Italian and Germans based in EGYPT!!

This is not new, but as far as I am concerned it is the most obvious example of denier deception I have found.

Does anyone have other examples of deliberate denier deception? Can Kollerstrom's deceit be beaten?


I was fairly sure that Kollerstrom lifted this from an earlier denier, and given it's about the ICRC then Harwood was almost certainly the source. Lipstadt's Denying the Holocaust, chapter 6 deals with Richard Harwood's Did Six Million Really Die? and pointed out Harwood's deception already in 1993. Deniers have turned Lipstadt's book into web pages so you can check easily here:
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/dl/denying6.html

The original reference in Harwood is here, in chapter 9
http://www.zundelsite.org/did-six-milli ... y-die.html

Kollerstrom actually gives no precise reference on p.233 although he mentions the ICRC report - ergo the citation was taken from a denier work, almost certainly Harwood. Kollerstrom does cite Harwood elsewhere, damaging his self-proclaimed leftwing/Green credentials by citing the 'work' of a National Front organiser.

This particular quote, unlike so much else in Harwood's pamphlet, wasn't seemingly plagiarised from David Hoggan's The Myth of the Six Million - compare Hoggan and Harwood on the ICRC, much is the same, but the quote above isn't in there.
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/ancestors/hog2.html

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4175
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:38 pm

The point, Dr. Terry, is that Kollerstrom lied blatantly and outrageously. This kills his credibility.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Balsamo » Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:05 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:The point, Dr. Terry, is that Kollerstrom lied blatantly and outrageously. This kills his credibility.


For his credibility to be killed, he should have had one in the first place, and anyone who has read his "opus" correctly, knows that he had none.
His chapter 9 is sets such a record of approximations, bad faith, and blunt dishonesty that I have real difficulties to read it all once more.

Just this one:
the Red Cross, had been strict political neutrality, and herein lies its great value.


BS. If it is true that the neutrality was a benefit for the Red Cross primary mission, that is to control if the Geneva conventions were applied in PoW camps, it is also the main reason for its inefficiency to properly control the situation of the "civilians" inmates which were not covered explicitly by those conventions. Harwood proudly speaks about concessions made by the Nazis, but concessions are what they are, concessions, all negotiate with the German Red cross which was far from being clean as far as its direction is concerned.
So yes, the Nazis opened the gates of Theresienstadt in 1944, and indeed, the delegates of the Red cross were cheated, so what would a report from them prove? Nothing. Quite the contrary, that most of those reports - excepts when they concerned PoW camps - has zero value as most of the inspectors were cheated.

And of course, as noted by the Op, why bother to give the name of the camp covered by the report used by mister H.
Quite pathetic, and so typical.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby nickterry » Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:40 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:The point, Dr. Terry, is that Kollerstrom lied blatantly and outrageously. This kills his credibility.


Actually, no, Kollerstrom 'merely' exposed himself as an utter fool in this particular instance. He placed his trust in Harwood's honesty and reliability. Relying on a secondary source is legitimate, but it's highly risky with denier literature, especially of that vintage, since there are a number of examples of sources taken completely out of context or fabricated outright, as in this case.

Since his unspoken source was clearly Harwood, blame for lying shifts to Harwood; like many a CT author relying on a recycled quotemine/selective citation/fabrication, Kollerstrom could feign ignorance if challenged on this. Or he might actually be shocked, shocked I tell you, to find out that Harwood might not have been completely honest.

Most of these guys live in their own world and make up their own reality; Kollerstrom is an especially extreme example, since he believes in so many other BS conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific claims.

I've been emailed several times by Kollerstrom asking questions; I came away with the impression that he literally didn't understand the material he was dealing with (Decodes, death books and Auschwitz documentation). Anyone familiar with basic Auschwitz literature (eg the Kalendarium and Piper) would come away with the same impression after reading his book. I don't think it's even deliberate, this incomprehension of his; he comes across as someone who floats around in a bubble.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4175
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Jun 18, 2015 7:35 pm

He had to have known that the source mentioned by Harwood was fabricated. Either that or he didn't bother to double check.

Liar, lazy {!#%@}, or exceedingly stupid. Pick your poison.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby nickterry » Thu Jun 18, 2015 7:41 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:He had to have known that the source mentioned by Harwood was fabricated. Either that or he didn't bother to double check.

Liar, lazy {!#%@}, or exceedingly stupid. Pick your poison.


doors two and three.

I suspect Kollerstrom had no idea that the quote was misattributed.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Balsamo » Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:39 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:He had to have known that the source mentioned by Harwood was fabricated. Either that or he didn't bother to double check.

Liar, lazy {!#%@}, or exceedingly stupid. Pick your poison.


I don't think it was fabricated. This kind of general quote are everywhere to be found when it comes to the treatment of PoW's covered by the Geneva convention, and in some case of what the Nazis were ready to show to the Red Cross delegates. Harwood just misused - sorry I have not checked the link provided by iwh - available quotes that can be found in many "real" reports. It is pure dishonesty.
And indeed, their point (Harwood and co) is not to double check but to sow doubts.

iwh
Poster
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby iwh » Thu Jun 18, 2015 10:27 pm

nickterry wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:He had to have known that the source mentioned by Harwood was fabricated. Either that or he didn't bother to double check.

Liar, lazy {!#%@}, or exceedingly stupid. Pick your poison.


doors two and three.

I suspect Kollerstrom had no idea that the quote was misattributed.


Hi Nick

I agree with you in that his source had used Harwood to make his point. That would make Kollerstrom at the least incredibly lazy in his sourcing. The problem for me though is that Kollerstrom mentions the ICRC report in his actual bibliography. That implies to me that he had actually looked at it. It is quite obvious that he hasn't at all. It's yet another example of his dishonesty.

He mentions books he has not actually read. He is trying to impress the reader. In this case, it has backfired.

iwh
Poster
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby iwh » Fri Jun 19, 2015 8:04 am

In the case of Kollerstrom we seem to have three otions:

1. He has used a third hand source from Rense found here:

http://www.rense.com/general62/auch.htm

as noted on p 75, without checking whether the source information is actually correct. For your everyday blogger and amateur historian this, I suppose is reasonably understandable. For a PhD scientist and historian (?) it is not. Why on earth would you use, as a source the works of someone who calls himself "NoEvidenceOfGenocide"?

2. He has read the ICRC report, as indicated in his bibliography and has deliberately mislead the reader, reasoning, I assume that such a rare book would be difficult to find for the average man in the street. This of course is extremely dishonest.

3. He has taken the word of a total unknown character and put the ICRC report into his bibliography to impress the reader by making them think he has read the report.

I suppose the only way we will truly know which one, is when and if he makes the relevant corrections in future editions to his book.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby nickterry » Fri Jun 19, 2015 8:17 am

iwh wrote:
nickterry wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:He had to have known that the source mentioned by Harwood was fabricated. Either that or he didn't bother to double check.

Liar, lazy {!#%@}, or exceedingly stupid. Pick your poison.


doors two and three.

I suspect Kollerstrom had no idea that the quote was misattributed.


Hi Nick

I agree with you in that his source had used Harwood to make his point. That would make Kollerstrom at the least incredibly lazy in his sourcing. The problem for me though is that Kollerstrom mentions the ICRC report in his actual bibliography. That implies to me that he had actually looked at it. It is quite obvious that he hasn't at all. It's yet another example of his dishonesty.

He mentions books he has not actually read. He is trying to impress the reader. In this case, it has backfired.


Agreed, but the overall impression is far worse than the sloppiness in not citing the ICRC report properly and not realising that Harwood was lying.

Kollerstrom's bibliography cites only 82 works - 46 are by deniers; 14 are primary sources or quasi-primary sources like the ICRC report, a mere 12 are relatively conventional secondary works on the Holocaust, four concern Holocaust denial, and six are 'dubious mainstream' works.

There are only about half a dozen foreign language titles, and most of those seem to be cited via Mattogno or another denier; there's no indication that Kollerstrom actually understands German fully. The KZ Decodes which he fusses over are actually text-free and just consist of numbers.

These numbers indicate a near-total reliance on fringe literature while the mainstream/primary citations are likely mostly lifted from the fringe works. The Harwood example is the standout one for the whole book, but the pattern is more damning: Kollerstrom absolutely doesn't know what he is talking about. The book doesn't even mention the Einsatzgruppen, and there are innumerable basic errors, e.g. placing Primo Levi in Raisko (p.207) when he was at Monowitz.

There are other ironic goofs, at one point he complained that it was almost impossible to get hold of anything in English about Monowitz, totally unaware of Peter Hayes, Joseph Borkin and most of all Piotr Setkiewicz's comprehensive history of IG Auschwitz. Since we know he visited the Wiener Library to look at the ITS Arolsen records then he could easily have sat down with such books, and indeed the hundreds of other books one would need to read in order to get up to speed with the subject of the Holocaust.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby nickterry » Fri Jun 19, 2015 8:17 am

iwh wrote:In the case of Kollerstrom we seem to have three otions:

1. He has used a third hand source from Rense found here:

http://www.rense.com/general62/auch.htm

as noted on p 75, without checking whether the source information is actually correct. For your everyday blogger and amateur historian this, I suppose is reasonably understandable. For a PhD scientist and historian (?) it is not. Why on earth would you use, as a source the works of someone who calls himself "NoEvidenceOfGenocide"?

2. He has read the ICRC report, as indicated in his bibliography and has deliberately mislead the reader, reasoning, I assume that such a rare book would be difficult to find for the average man in the street. This of course is extremely dishonest.

3. He has taken the word of a total unknown character and put the ICRC report into his bibliography to impress the reader by making them think he has read the report.

I suppose the only way we will truly know which one, is when and if he makes the relevant corrections in future editions to his book.


corrections? :lol: :lol: :lol:

iwh
Poster
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby iwh » Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:24 am

corrections? :lol: :lol: :lol:


You mean he won't make any corrections?

Oh dear.

;) ;)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14912
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:05 am

iwh wrote:In the case of Kollerstrom we seem to have three otions: . . . I suppose the only way we will truly know which one, is when and if he makes the relevant corrections in future editions to his book.

Corrections for which I should think we will wait an eternity. Among the strange events I foresee happening, Kollerstrom correcting such things in his BS book is not among them.

Edit: y'all beat me to it, I see! "Oh dear" indeed, and even stronger language could be used . . . LOL
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

Hans
Poster
Posts: 245
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Hans » Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:30 pm

Stunning find, iwh!

Harwood didn't even assign the quote to Auschwitz. In fact, he did not mention Auschwitz in this sub-section "no evidence of genocide". That is, Kollerstrom has either even further distorted Harwood himself or - more likely - he used yet another internet source like scrapbookpages:

"In 1948, the Red Cross released a three volume report in which the findings on the Auschwitz visit were included: "Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged" (Vol.III, p. 594)."


http://www.scrapbookpages.com/CzechRepu ... Visit.html

In any case, Revisonist research at its best.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 245
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Hans » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:28 am

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... it-of.html

Kollerstrom commented on some HC blog posting in the past, so we might get a statement from him on this (yet don't hold your breath).

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4175
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Jeff_36 » Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:30 pm

Hans wrote:http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2015/09/kollerstroms-deception-on-visit-of.html

Kollerstrom commented on some HC blog posting in the past, so we might get a statement from him on this (yet don't hold your breath).


Nathan and I responded to his comment on your earlier article in rather strong terms. Suffice to say he did not reply. I would not expect a response here. He is more or less cornered.

iwh
Poster
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby iwh » Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:23 am

Hans wrote:http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2015/09/kollerstroms-deception-on-visit-of.html

Kollerstrom commented on some HC blog posting in the past, so we might get a statement from him on this (yet don't hold your breath).


I get a mention on Holocaust Controversies.

Indeed, I feel honoured!

:yahoo:

Iwh

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4175
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Jeff_36 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:16 pm

I feel honored as well. :geek:

iwh
Poster
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby iwh » Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:58 pm

It appears I have come to the attention of a denier called Mr Reid who I have been locking horns with on Amazon. He has suggested I continue to debate him at CODOH where he can get help where needed.

Hans and Roberto at Holocaust Controversies suggested he came here.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 852&bpli=1

I wonder if he will?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18803
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:24 pm

If he is serious about genuine debate, he would.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4175
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Jeff_36 » Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:33 pm

He may be a bit brighter than monstrous, but that's not saying much.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25948
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 25, 2015 11:44 pm

iwh wrote:It appears I have come to the attention of a denier called Mr Reid who I have been locking horns with on Amazon. He has suggested I continue to debate him at CODOH where he can get help where needed.

Hans and Roberto at Holocaust Controversies suggested he came here.


Logically, he should come here. I suggest you offer him a debate format that we just used here on another topic. We established a Debate thread, for you two alone to debate in, and a Discussion thread for everyone else to post in. Both of you may take information from the discussion thread as you see fit and this simply allows the debate thread to remain clear and easy to follow, with only two participants.

The only problem is, if you want a third party moderator. Pyrrho, our forum moderator is pretty busy at the moment. Obviously I would like Dr Terry or Statistical to be moderator, but that's obviously going to be unacceptable to a denier.
I could ask Austin, a person not interested in the holocaust, who is president of the Texas Air-Capital Skeptics? Does anyone else have better ideas or perhaps a moderator is not needed.

I think this is a good idea.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4175
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Jeff_36 » Fri Sep 25, 2015 11:58 pm

he should just post here. IWH, SM, myself, Mr. Ellard and the others will respond to him while monstrous, Mary, and David help him out.

iwh
Poster
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby iwh » Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:18 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
iwh wrote:It appears I have come to the attention of a denier called Mr Reid who I have been locking horns with on Amazon. He has suggested I continue to debate him at CODOH where he can get help where needed.

Hans and Roberto at Holocaust Controversies suggested he came here.


Logically, he should come here. I suggest you offer him a debate format that we just used here on another topic. We established a Debate thread, for you two alone to debate in, and a Discussion thread for everyone else to post in. Both of you may take information from the discussion thread as you see fit and this simply allows the debate thread to remain clear and easy to follow, with only two participants.

The only problem is, if you want a third party moderator. Pyrrho, our forum moderator is pretty busy at the moment. Obviously I would like Dr Terry or Statistical to be moderator, but that's obviously going to be unacceptable to a denier.
I could ask Austin, a person not interested in the holocaust, who is president of the Texas Air-Capital Skeptics? Does anyone else have better ideas or perhaps a moderator is not needed.

I think this is a good idea.


Sounds good to me....however, from reading his comment on Codoh, he stated that he would like help from other Codoh members. I prefer any of our posts to be out in the open, so to say. There are enough deniers around here to help him out.

The thing that annoys me most is Mr Reid's assumption that I would willingly go to Codoh to debate him. He never asked my opinion or my agreement; he just set up the thread.

That is bad manners.

iwh

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4175
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Jeff_36 » Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:34 pm

you really shouldn't go to codoh, it's very heavily tilted towards hannover and his boys. It's not a debate forum

iwh
Poster
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby iwh » Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:30 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:you really shouldn't go to codoh, it's very heavily tilted towards hannover and his boys. It's not a debate forum


I can assure you I have no intention of doing so...

:amen:

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4175
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Jeff_36 » Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:38 pm

Mr. REEEEEEEIIIIIIIDDD...........

COOOOMMMMMEEEE OUUUT AND PLAAAAAAYYYYYYY!
:morpheus:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25948
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Is this most blatant example of denier deception?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:54 am

iwh wrote:.however, from reading his comment on Codoh, he stated that he would like help from other Codoh members. I prefer any of our posts to be out in the open, so to say. There are enough deniers around here to help him out.
I agree it must be fair and open. Although it seems obvious that we invite CODOH deniers here to offer assistance to their champion, in a discussion thread (not the actual debate thread), I'm not sure if Pyrrho, our forum moderator, would want us inviting CODOH members here. If this debate "firms up" I will ask Pyrrho for his opinion first.

The other thing I'm thinking, is that an open-to-all discussion thread would end up in separate fights distracting from the clean debate thread. Therefore I'm thinking
1) A debate thread restricted to the debaters, IWH, a revisionist and maybe a mutually acceptable moderator.
2) A "revisionist discussion thread for the debate" for joining CODOH members, and our own resident holocaust deniers, to add information for their champion
3) A "conventional history discussion thread for the debate" for us lot and normal historians to add information, for our champion IWH.

I'm not exactly sure what the exact topic is yet. I suggest that we compose a debate topic position, that clearly distinguishes between the conventional historical position and the revisionist position. ( This is harder than you think)

I don't think we need a poll or anything like that, as the arguments will stand on their own merit. I think we need some basic rules, such as each person must respond within a week, supply citations, and present arguments based on evidence.

I'm happy to draft some rules and a debate format, for you and others, to review and modify, if you want to consider exploring a formal debate further.


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Balmoral95, Jeffk 1970 and 3 guests