CODOH - not open and no debate

Discussions
User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Nessie » Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:26 pm

I recently joined the Committee for Open Debate on The Holocaust's forum and this was my brief experience.

I used the same name I have here and first posted on the thread about what made you first question the Holocaust. I said

"Reading a debate where the question was asked "name one Jew gassed in a chamber" and it became clear that question could not be answered. I was frankly amazed and very angry that such a simple question could not be answered from orthodox history. So I read more and found that much about the Holocaust as portrayed in film and basic histories is either wrong or based on minimal evidence. I have since spent time discussing the Holocaust with deniers/revisionists and belivers and now want to go into more depth on the topic.

I also think it is a travesty that Holocaust denial/revisionism is illegal anywhere. No subject should be banned from study and discussion."


That is a truthful statement about my position which is I think the orthodox side has got lazy as it is protected by law and is happy to allow myths to continue about the Holocaust.

I then posted on a thread about photos of bodies and commented that the captions under photos are what really sets the scene for a reader and gave examples

"Whilst they say a picture is worth a thousand words, the caption below the picture can also determine the impression of the subject. Here for example there are images of Jews walking within the camps and they are captioned that they are walking to the gas chambers

http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... -birkenau/

I have seen such on other sites including one arial photo which apprently shows a group walking to the gas chamber.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 082544.jpg

It reads that anyone on the move was on their way to a gas chamber, but there is nothing to say that is really what was happening. We have no direction of travel or multiple possibilities of where the people were walking to.
"

Next thread to post on was about racism against Germans. I responded to a post by another user who said

"I had similar youthful experiences to borjastick re. comic books, television and cinema whilst growing up in Britain during the 1960s.

When I first arrived in West Germany during the mid 80s I was expecting to find a nation of militaristic psychopaths. Instead I came across some of the most decent and likeable people I have ever m
et."

To which I said

"It is great to find I am not alone. I was a decade or so later with my youth in the seventies and early eighties and first visit to Germany in 2001. I believe that all countries have leaders and a ruling class who will go to war taking the general populace with them, often by force. Once the general populace are allowed to just get on with their ordinary lives they find lots in common and can get on well. Hence some 24000 German POWs remained in the UK after the war.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/br" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... s_01.shtml

That article for me also explains how many feel about Germany and the War when it states "Many had arrived in Britain as Nazis. Now they were going home hoping to build a new, democratic Germany." Germans are held to be different from Nazis.
"

So, so far, no attacks, statements of my views on the Holocaust and evidence added.

I then found a thread about the Stalag sytem and thought it would be interesting to expand on it by comparing and contrasting POWs with inmates of the concentration camps.

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6137" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again I added evidence, when I was picked up on not including the Soviets as one of the Allies I corrected that. I had gathered more details and submitted a post about Dachau is it functioned as a concentration camp before the War started. I found that death rates there overall were at 15.5%, which puts is like the available figures of other concentration camps at better than Nazi and Soviet POW camps and worse than British, French and US run camps.

This thread was my first warning as such to staty on topic. It was about why do people think revisionists are white supremacists, something I spent a long time debating with Bob here.

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6936" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I quoted a user Hannover who had complained that "People of true European descent are the only ones that not allowed to display pride in their people. For everyone else they call it 'unity', 'black pride', 'brown pride', 'anti-defamation', etc. If we say the same thing as they do it's 'racism'." I disagreed giving examples from Burns Night to St Patricks Day of examples where white Europeans gather to celebrate their national identity and pride. I also commented on the image

http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/KKK_hol ... t_hoax.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

where another forum member had commented that such an impression of revisionism is caused by such images. I had agreed and commented that on seeing such an image people will think along the lines of 'if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck!'

My post was deleted and I was told to stay on topic. But I was clearly on topic and was looking for some open debate on the subject.

Again I was accused of going off topic on the thread on burden of proof. I posted

"Rather than squabble over who has to prove what in what is a legal concept, IMO both sides should have to evidence what they say.

For example, those who say no holes at Krema II should evidence an undisturbed, complete roof during the period when the gassings were supposed to have taken place. I do not see that as proving a negative as in prove there were no holes is often dismissed
."

to which the response came

"Such a yawner and you're off topic.
Nessie, the burden of proof rests on the accusers, like yourself. The entire gassing storyline is scientifically impossible, as I always say "If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't"

Besides other threads, the bogus 'holes' in the roofs of Kremas II & III for the claimed lowering of Zyklon-B into the absurd 'gas chambers' and the entire homicidal gassings tall tale have been utterly demolished in these threads:

'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111
also see:
'Altered Aerial Photos and the Shadows of Doom'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3249
and:
Challenge number 14 - Zyklon B Introduction holes
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6801&p=49157

Read them and post to them if you think you can do better.

- Hannover"


Clearly the point was missed that I was speaking about burden of proof and I gave an example of how burden of proof can be misused in debates and my opinion on what should be done instead, which is evidence what you say. A clarification of that was not posted on the thread by the moderators.

Other posts that did not get past the moderators was one about why I say Britian rejected Hitler's peace offers after the start of the War and a very detailed one on the Blitz and what is described as the other Holocaust, the British bombing of Dresden. I had details on how the British press falsified stories on the Blitz, suggested why the bombing was given the go-ahead and pointed out claims the British started it was not true. The Nazis bombed Guernica before WWII and then at the start of the War towns in Poland, France and finally Rotterdam before the British launched their first air raid on a German city.

When I went to log on today to see whether my posts had appeared or not I found as I said above they had not and also I found I am banned. No reason given, just a banned message.

So with that I can evidence that the CODOH are neither open nor up for a debate. All credit to the Skeptic Forum for allowing an open debate.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6249
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Tom Palven » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:52 pm

Thought that these comments on Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil" were pretty interesting.
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/wade-j1.1.1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire
I may not agree with the what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. --Voltaire
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
I haven't abandoned my vices. My vices have abandoned me. --Denis Diderot

User avatar
bluespaceoddity
Poster
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:20 pm

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by bluespaceoddity » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:18 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benedykt_XVI_(2010-10-17" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)_4.jpg
Holocaust deniers have nothing of value to contribute to the record of history.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Nessie » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:37 pm

Tom-Palven wrote:Thought that these comments on Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil" were pretty interesting.
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/wade-j1.1.1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Just the opening part of the article would get you banned from CODOH

"German-Jewish (and eventually naturalized American) philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) outraged the Left with her definitive account of modern tyranny, The Origins of Totalitarianism.

Written in 1951 when Stalin was still ruling the Soviet Union and worshipped by the Left, it exposed with ruthless logic and evidence the essential sameness between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Nazism and Communism were just two sides of the same tyrannical coin, said Arendt, not opposites of Right and Left"

A Jew telling the Nazis they are just like the Soviets! Maybe I would have lasted longer if I had added a few anti-semitic remarks, which are tolerated on the forum.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Chester
Account Locked
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:08 pm

CODOH - open to real debate

Post by Chester » Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:27 pm

Sorry, Nessie. There are a few things you need for success at CODOH. Don't start a new topic that is already under discussion elsewhere. Make your additions to the existing topic. Don't post on a broad subject. Focus on one item and don't go on a tangent or try to stir the soup. Stick to the topic! Keep it concise. Don't copy Lemmie. His posts are ponderous and he tries to change the flow of the conversation to suit his needs at the moment. One last thing - read the rules. Your ideas have value, express them cogently and learn the positions of revisionists. Ask your questions, listen to the answers and let your brain figure it out.
Don't rush into debate like a know-it-all teenager or you'll get spanked.

What do you think about the 'little train' photo? Still think the wheels are on the tracks? How about the smoke from phone poles forgery?
Why would anyone feel free to doctor photographs just to make a point?

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Nessie » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:32 pm

As far I am concerned I did post on topic, I was concise, evidenced and I did not start any topics. The post I really contributed to was on a topic I know very well indeed, but none of my contributions appeared.

I was warned twice to stay on topic, but as I said one was an additional comment to a photo already posted agreeing with anothers comment, so not off topic and then one small part of a post was claimed by a member to be off topic, but it was an example of what I meant.

If supposedly going off topic was the reason to ban me then they should say so. But what is clear from their behaviour is that they are not open and are not interested in a debate unless it is with like minded people or the standard here is a believer lets have fun debunking them. I see better why Bob and David are as they are, unable to participate in a proper debate and unable to cope with alternative views.

Revisonism is clearly its own worse enemy. I think that is sad as just like banning denial is supresses freedom of speech.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Chester
Account Locked
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:08 pm

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Chester » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:03 pm

Nessie wrote:
Revisonism is clearly its own worse enemy. I think that is sad as just like banning denial is supresses freedom of speech.
The growth of revisionism is the biggest enemy of the traditional holocaust story.
People have a hard time comprehending that the entire population San Francisco could be killed, buried, dug up, burned and reburied in a five acre plot. This was done in less than a year with a skeleton crew staff. The camp was razed without leaving any traces.
I eagerly await the Colls Report.

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Poster
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:10 pm
Custom Title: - z podziemia getta
Location: Hotel Sofitel, 1 rue Scribe, Place de l’Opéra, Alphaville

Re: CODOH - open to real debate

Post by Lemmy Caution » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:06 pm

Chester wrote:Don't copy Lemmie. His posts are ponderous and he tries to change the flow of the conversation to suit his needs at the moment.
You sure as hell have been unable to deal with the history. I've been wondering how you could explain your failure to connect the dots - and your dodging so many questions and issues. At CODOH on topic means echoing Hannover/Hargis. What a bunch of pathetic crap. But pretty funny, actually.
Last edited by Lemmy Caution on Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Saramago: "All this would be absurd if it weren't happening."

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Poster
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:10 pm
Custom Title: - z podziemia getta
Location: Hotel Sofitel, 1 rue Scribe, Place de l’Opéra, Alphaville

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Lemmy Caution » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:08 pm

Chester wrote:
Nessie wrote:
Revisonism is clearly its own worse enemy. I think that is sad as just like banning denial is supresses freedom of speech.
The growth of revisionism is the biggest enemy of the traditional holocaust story.
People have a hard time comprehending that the entire population San Francisco could be killed, buried, dug up, burned and reburied in a five acre plot. This was done in less than a year with a skeleton crew staff. The camp was razed without leaving any traces.
I eagerly await the Colls Report.
Oh yeah, the hoax is quaking in its boots because a few of you chuckleheads get yourselves confused and post gibberish on the Web.
Saramago: "All this would be absurd if it weren't happening."

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Poster
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:10 pm
Custom Title: - z podziemia getta
Location: Hotel Sofitel, 1 rue Scribe, Place de l’Opéra, Alphaville

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Lemmy Caution » Tue May 01, 2012 2:17 am

So you or David or Bob or one of you lot tried to make the case that the Reich Jews deported to Lodz and other cities somehow prove the Wannsee conference to have been benign. To do this, the dunce, David actually, created a strawman, that historians argue that the Jews deported from Germany, Austria, and the Protectorate were being sent straight to death camps in fall-winter 1941-1942. Leaving that attempted sleight of hand aside, let's finally discuss what happened as Reich Jews were deported during those months - what happened to the Jews already living in destination cities like Lodz and what finally became of the deported Reich Jews themselves.

Whoopsee, let's not mention the German Jews routed to Kovno (Kaunus) in November 1941 . . . nor those sent to Riga in February-March 1942 - let's stay with the program, Jews sent to Lodz, for example, and not executed on arrival there. As a supposed proof that the Wannsee meeting had in view nothing more than resettling Jews to places in the East, isn't that it?

There's a thread on this topic, called A Visit to Wannsee, waiting for one of you clowns to post there and answer this question. Or are you going to declare it off topic, ponderous, and against the flow of the discussion - despite David's having raised the issue as a supposed proof of resettlement?
Saramago: "All this would be absurd if it weren't happening."

User avatar
berty48
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:04 am

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by berty48 » Tue May 01, 2012 4:05 pm

I used to post at CODOH until I got banned. So what.

Many people don't realise that CODOH is a site to combat real revisionism by presenting a watered down, luke warm, Gerber style revisionism that resembles real revisionism as much as Gerbers Baby Food style pureed carrots duplicates a hard, fiberous root vegetable. Many of the leaders of CODOH are on the Zionist payroll and half the revisionist posters are sock puppets of passionate believers including those employed by USHMM.

The guy, Hannover, who deletes any post that displeases him, is hired by UCLA to sabotage the revisionist cause. If anyone disbelieves how many prominant Jews donate money to UCLA or that Hannover works for them, one has only to do a little research on these connections which are available
all over the web. People, put two+two together.

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Poster
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:10 pm
Custom Title: - z podziemia getta
Location: Hotel Sofitel, 1 rue Scribe, Place de l’Opéra, Alphaville

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Lemmy Caution » Wed May 02, 2012 10:07 am

berty48 wrote:I used to post at CODOH . . . Many of the leaders of CODOH are on the Zionist payroll and half the revisionist posters are sock puppets of passionate believers including those employed by USHMM. . . . People, put two+two together.
berty48, do you have any clue how much we get paid to do this? when you do put 2 and 2 together, try not to come up with 17, ok? regards, lc
Saramago: "All this would be absurd if it weren't happening."

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by OutOfBreath » Wed May 02, 2012 1:23 pm

Two and two together is, as we all know, 22. Not 17. ;-)

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34969
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Gord » Wed May 02, 2012 6:30 pm

Paranoia and censorship is a harsh streetcorner from which to ply one's trade. That's why I try to avoid both avenues, though I do travel each on occasion for expeditious reasons.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34969
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Gord » Wed May 02, 2012 6:31 pm

Gord wrote:Paranoia and censorship is a harsh streetcorner from which to ply one's trade. That's why I try to avoid both avenues, though I do travel each on occasion for expeditious reasons.
That, right there, is the kind of sentence that got me an F in high school english class.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
berty48
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:04 am

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by berty48 » Thu May 03, 2012 12:45 am

It is clear that hoaxters like Lemmy Caution have only obfuscation and tangentiality to buttress their silly Holocausty claims.

These Hoaxters are particularly embarrassed to be called out for controlling CODOH. How weak the believer memes must be for them to resort to using a puppet called Hannover to censor the radical ideas of Carolyn Yeager and other heroes.

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Poster
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:10 pm
Custom Title: - z podziemia getta
Location: Hotel Sofitel, 1 rue Scribe, Place de l’Opéra, Alphaville

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Lemmy Caution » Thu May 03, 2012 9:42 am

berty48, you can't even answer a simple and direct question. any clue how much i get paid for this? let's break that down: a) pay for posting on various forums, which pay is best? b) pay for participating in control operation codoh (as known as "coc")? c) pay for operating sockpuppets? tell us the pay for each activity and how you know, big boy. regards, lc
Saramago: "All this would be absurd if it weren't happening."

User avatar
berty48
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:04 am

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by berty48 » Fri May 04, 2012 12:45 am

Lemmy Caution wrote:berty48, you can't even answer a simple and direct question. any clue how much i get paid for this? let's break that down: a) pay for posting on various forums, which pay is best? b) pay for participating in control operation codoh (as known as "coc")? c) pay for operating sockpuppets? tell us the pay for each activity and how you know, big boy. regards, lc
Did I say anything about being privy to the Hoaxter Union pay scale? We know that Hoaxters run CODOH because revisionists are routinely harrassed and their posts deleted. Real revisionists are fearless, honest and unafraid of ideas or arguments, so if someone is deleting posts and banning posters, one must assume that the scoundrel is either an outright Zionist stooge or a faux revisionist controlled by nefarious, secret cabalists.

I would guess that Lemmy Caution makes about $1,263 per post as his scribbling densely references Zionist literature. As he works his way up the pay scale he might make many times this amount. I cannot say for certain that Lemmy Caution and Hannover are the same person, but I would bet that, if they are not, they might as well be. Unquestionably, they communicate behind the scenes and must be plotting to silence berty48 who has brought their slimy game of deception before the shining searchlight of revisionist scrutiny.

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Poster
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:10 pm
Custom Title: - z podziemia getta
Location: Hotel Sofitel, 1 rue Scribe, Place de l’Opéra, Alphaville

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Lemmy Caution » Fri May 04, 2012 12:51 am

You can't prove a thing, can you? You have no information, no facts, no insights. Nada. Nuttin'. Zero.

Twelve hundred bucks per post. Would I be writing such long posts if that's how they paid me? You are such a dunce. Total clown.

Think about this a little longer and a little harder. Try again.
Saramago: "All this would be absurd if it weren't happening."

User avatar
berty48
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:04 am

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by berty48 » Fri May 04, 2012 2:38 am

Lemmy Caution wrote:You can't prove a thing, can you? You have no information, no facts, no insights. Nada. Nuttin'. Zero.

Twelve hundred bucks per post. Would I be writing such long posts if that's how they paid me? You are such a dunce. Total clown.

Think about this a little longer and a little harder. Try again.
Not $1200 but $1263. The fact that you discount the extra $63 is proof that you are an overly priviledged Zionist lacky for whom $1200 is chump change. As you are a true believer and Hoaxing zealot, I attribute the length of these arduous posts to your devotion to the cause of world wide domination for Israel.

You are so overly entitled that you believe that you get to ask all the questions, but this is not the case. You must answer just queries as well. Are you Hannover at CODOH? If not, do you know who is? Have you ever posted at CODOH? It is my understanding that you have.

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Poster
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:10 pm
Custom Title: - z podziemia getta
Location: Hotel Sofitel, 1 rue Scribe, Place de l’Opéra, Alphaville

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Lemmy Caution » Fri May 04, 2012 9:51 am

>> It is my understanding that you have.

Based on what? Please demonstrate to the members of this forum that I have posted at CODOH. I believe one must be a CODOH member to post there. So please demonstrate that I am a member of CODOH as well.

That said, I post and have posted on a number of forums under different names. I have not hidden this fact.

As to my pay, it is not $1200 per post, and not $1263 per post. I have already patiently explained to you that I would post shorter replies in these forums if were paid by the post. You didn't take my advice to reconsider your speculation, I see. But, really, when will you post something, anything based on facts and supported by evidence you share with us? You won't, of course. Personally, I feel free to believe that you yourself are Little Grey Rabbit. I have no evidence for this, but I feel like believing it, so I will now assert it as a fact. Can you prove you are not LGR?
Saramago: "All this would be absurd if it weren't happening."

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Nessie » Fri May 04, 2012 4:33 pm

It would make sense that Hannover is one of the mods at CODOH. He once stated that it was supposedly racist for celebrating anything white and western, to which I listed a number of examples where that is not true and white western countries do celebrate their national identity.

Whatever damage to revisionism that CODOH presents, it is nothing compared to your antics Berty. Keep on coming with your unproven drivel on the Holocaust and keep denial banned. Going by your logic you must be one of the the Chief Rabbis. :lol:
Last edited by Nessie on Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5576
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Monster » Fri May 04, 2012 8:16 pm

berty48 wrote: Did I say anything about being privy to the Hoaxter Union pay scale? We know that Hoaxters run CODOH because revisionists are routinely harrassed and their posts deleted. Real revisionists are fearless, honest and unafraid of ideas or arguments, so if someone is deleting posts and banning posters, one must assume that the scoundrel is either an outright Zionist stooge or a faux revisionist controlled by nefarious, secret cabalists.
No True Scotsman. Ha!
I would guess that Lemmy Caution makes about $1,263 per post as his scribbling densely references Zionist literature. As he works his way up the pay scale he might make many times this amount. I cannot say for certain that Lemmy Caution and Hannover are the same person, but I would bet that, if they are not, they might as well be. Unquestionably, they communicate behind the scenes and must be plotting to silence berty48 who has brought their slimy game of deception before the shining searchlight of revisionist scrutiny.
berty48, this is so nutso whacko that I think you're a Poe.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Nessie » Fri May 04, 2012 8:35 pm

This is frustrating, I have been asked a question

Jofo said "Wiesel claims the Nazi's put a tattoo on him. The burden of proof is on him to produce said tattoo."
.......

Twila then said "Of course I agree with you Jofo. My question was directed at Nessie who claims that "both sides should have to evidence what they say." I was using the weasels lack of a tattoo to prove the point that it is up to the hoaxers to back up their claims with proof and not up to skeptics to have to prove a negative. But Nessie didn’t take the bait."

Well Nessie did not take the bait because I cannot. The answer is of course only Wiesel can show his tattoo and he should. The point is that those with the evidence should produce it, whether they are accuser or accused.

I would prefer it to be shown I am banned. Not doing so is a deception by CODOH. Pathetic.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Donnageddon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1047
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:07 am

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Donnageddon » Sat May 05, 2012 12:36 am

Nessie, I must say I admire you open minded, but prudently skeptical and dogged approach to this subject.

I used to post on this particular forum, but found it too much time to do the research to be sufficiently informed to make a real contribution to it, other than a knee jerk response.

Hats off to you.
My name is not Donna.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Nessie » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:21 pm

Bump for Bob to see what it is like on CODOH when you have contrary views and more accurate information than Hannover et al.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by David » Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:49 pm

Lemmy Caution wrote:So you or David or Bob or one of you lot tried to make the case that the Reich Jews deported to Lodz and other cities somehow prove the Wannsee conference to have been benign.
To do this, the dunce, David actually, created a strawman, that historians argue that the Jews deported from Germany, Austria, and the Protectorate were being sent straight to death camps in fall-winter 1941-1942. Leaving that attempted sleight of hand aside, let's finally discuss what happened as Reich Jews were deported during those months - what happened to the Jews already living in destination cities like Lodz and what finally became of the deported Reich Jews themselves.
Since you are already well off the topic of the thread, I'll deal with
your string of excuses.

As to an "attempted sleight of hand" you have to remember that you Believers
are all over the map about "when the Holocaust started."
The Tale told at Nuremberg was that the secret "order" was given in June 1941.
Remember that embarrassing bit of "Holocaust History?"
There are even "confessions" to support that bit of ex-history, confessions of
"experimental" gassings of Soviet POWs in Block 11.
Now you Believers are confronted with clear evidence that the June 1941 date
was impossible.

The big problem for Holocaust Believers is that it is now clear that
by October 1941 most people classified as Jews had already left the Reich.
And the destination of most of the Austrian Jews is known from the train records.
Most of the Austrian Jews were not transported to any of the "Death Factories"
supposedly set up to mass murder Jews. (according to the Hoess Confession)

To "explain" the facts Believers have:
1. Thrown most of the early June 1941 "evidence" into the Memory Hole-
2. Invented the "Two Step Gambit" that people were shipped PAST the Death Factories because, uh, because, uh because, well Minsk was going to be the secret
Death Factory,
3. or tried to think of a reason to send people to Theresienstadt Ghetto.

Suddenly, you appear with your undies in a knot spouting demands about
"Reich Jews were deported during those months."

So, the obvious question is, "How does this relate to the fundamental
problem of Holocaust Belief...When was the alleged secret conspiracy order
given? Obviously, it was not given by the time of the Wannsee breakfast meeting,
at least by the language of the Minutes. Christopher R. Browning sort of puts these
forward in,

The Origins of the Final Solution The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942



Do you think that there was a rogue group of Nazis killing German and Austrian
Jews (and setting up death camps and rail transport) prior to the approval by Hitler?





Whoopsee, let's not mention the German Jews routed to Kovno (Kaunus) in November 1941 . . . nor those sent to Riga in February-March 1942 - let's stay with the program, Jews sent to Lodz, for example, and not executed on arrival there. As a supposed proof that the Wannsee meeting had in view nothing more than resettling Jews to places in the East, isn't that it?
David McCalden once commented that,
"as more is learned of events at Auschwitz and Majdanek, the Holocaust will
'move East'
", ie. to places where there is less evidence.
That's the new Believer gambit.
Let's talk about the deportations to Riga since they seem entirely in accord with
the idea of resettlement in the East.

As to the Wannsee meeting, it is clear. In November 1941 there would have been
no organized plan of killing.
Or do you claim otherwise?



Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Hans » Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:11 pm

From: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=19003" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Bob wrote:I do not have a reason to believe your explanation as i have only your word at this time, but you have a great opportunity to report this in the thread name a specific "holocaust" topic censored / banned here and to prove this accusation, so can I expect your presence in this thread?

From your point of view guidelines destroys your idea of debate, rules like - no dodging, no ignoring, back up your claims, name calling...but from my point of view these rules prevent the mess you can see here or on rodoh and they ensure correct debate otherwise i am completely lost how dodging, ignoring, diverting the subject, volumnious posts with many different points, name calling and etc. are good for debate and how can be considered as an "anti-discussion" rules.
I already posted numerous examples of censored posts here. Guess why Hannover opened a new thread instead of commenting in the old one!

Now, Bob, here is your chance to justify the CODOH forum policy of censorship.

a) Why was my thread 'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report) silently removed by the moderator. It was only restored because too many Revisionists saw it before it was censored and complained, but if by incidence Hannover had been online and browsing shortly after I submitted, it would have been still in the memory hole and nobody except him and me would know about it.

Explain to us and show against which rule I have violated and why this rule is justified.

b) Explain against which rule(s) I have violated here and why these rules are justified.

c) Why was my thread announcing the Holocaust Controversies Mattogno, Graf, Kues critique deleted (screenshot here), but for example not a thread announcing a new book from Mattogno? The readers should know about Mattogno's new books but not when these are criticized? Is this fair and transparent, yes or no?

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Bob » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:46 pm

Quite absurd that this debate is taking place on this forum since I got this message for a second time.

Hans again dodged to respond to my comment and instead of this he produced new questions and requests. Yet he still claims that guidelines on the codoh are "anti-discussion" rules. Here is this comment
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 03#p306187" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Despite this, I will address Hans.
Hans wrote:I already posted numerous examples of censored posts here. Guess why Hannover opened a new thread instead of commenting in the old one!

Now, Bob, here is your chance to justify the CODOH forum policy of censorship.

a) Why was my thread 'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report) silently deleted by the moderator. It was only restored because too many Revisionists saw it before it was censored and complained, but if by incidence Hannover had been online and browsing shortly after I submitted, it would have been still in the memory hole and nobody except him and me would know about it.

Explain to us and show against which rule I have violated and why this rule is justified.

b) Please also explain against which rule(s) I have violated here and why these rules are justified.
- your first fallacy is in the fact that you are claiming that Hannover is moderator and he is censoring threads, but this statement is without any proof. Looks like that peoples are really obsessive about this man as everything is claimed to be caused by Hannover.

- second fallacy is "Now, Bob, here is your chance to justify the CODOH forum policy of censorship." - but since I do not agree there is come censorship and I have never agreed nor I ever saw some proof, I cannot justify something what does not exist.

- a)b)reason was provided by moderator, I repeat: "Hans: Why do you always post claims that have already been addressed. Repetition doesn't change the fact that there is no substance to your claims. M1" so reason stated, you comment was considered as a repetition/redundant according to moderator. I cannot tell how founded is this since I really do not have a time to check 5264 threads to be able to verify it and search function can hardly be efficient to verify it, but moderator is obviously in the better position. But since I have experiences with you - I agree that repetitions are a bad habit of you and they are not welcomed there for obvious reasons as everybody can repeat self ad infinitum on trillion of pages. (Codoh guidelines - redundant posts are not welcomed.) - you have accepted it, so no case.

- silently deleted is again unfounded, moderator obviously warned you, if this warning had been placed there after deletion/resurrection, then read this rule - Reasons for deletions may or may not be stated. The Moderator will endeavor to notify the offender and the Forum in general, but not in every case; especially when it is obvious why the post was deleted.- you have accepted it, so no case.

- since your comment was resurrected after complaints from revisionists, is clear that your claim about how somebody is feeling to be cornered is unfounded and even false and same goes for the complaints about revisionists or Codoh in general. The best what you can do are the complaints about alleged moderator Hannover, not about the revisionists, codoh or forum in general.
c) Why was my thread announcing the Holocaust Controversies Mattogno, Graf, Kues critique deleted (screenshot here), but for example not a thread announcing a new book from Mattogno? The readers should know about Mattogno's new books but not when these are criticized? Is this fair and transparent, yes or no?
- I agree this may be wrong, BUT since this paper is claimed to be created from material from various websites, the reason can be precaution and to not advertise paper violating copyright rules OR intellectual property OR this paper violated previous rules like dodging, redundancy, name calling and etc. OR the reason were experiences with these gentlemen on Codoh forum (or other forums) and because of these experiences the advertise for this book was deleted. Really do not want to see some definitive reason from me as I am not a moderator so I do not see in his head and I cannot see the only one true reason/s for deletion as they were not probably (I see nothing in your screen) stated in accordance with the rule above. I am only hypothesizing.

You have chance to make your case and provide your "irrefutable" complaints and evidence here, what are you waiting for...instead of this you are "crying" on the wrong grave and to wrong people.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by nickterry » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:27 pm

Bob wrote:
c) Why was my thread announcing the Holocaust Controversies Mattogno, Graf, Kues critique deleted (screenshot here), but for example not a thread announcing a new book from Mattogno? The readers should know about Mattogno's new books but not when these are criticized? Is this fair and transparent, yes or no?
- I agree this may be wrong, BUT since this paper is claimed to be created from material from various websites, the reason can be precaution and to not advertise paper violating copyright rules OR intellectual property OR this paper violated previous rules like dodging, redundancy, name calling and etc. OR the reason were experiences with these gentlemen on Codoh forum (or other forums) and because of these experiences the advertise for this book was deleted. Really do not want to see some definitive reason from me as I am not a moderator so I do not see in his head and I cannot see the only one true reason/s for deletion as they were not probably (I see nothing in your screen) stated in accordance with the rule above. I am only hypothesizing.
Your hypotheses don't stand up to scrutiny. The HC white paper was not created from material from various websites, it is rather demonstrably based on archival material + conventionally used secondary literature. There was no violation of copyright or intellectual property, the white paper is not for sale so commercial copyright considerations don't apply, what is in there falls under fair use, the lengthier quotes are from documents not from other authors. Clearly, you haven't read the critique if you can make up such nonsense.

The HC white paper can no more violate rules like dodging than can any other off-site publication, whether that be the Daily Mail articles the CODOH members like to discuss, or an announcement of a new work by Carlo Mattogno. That's because only forum members can violate rules with what they post. Anything else is the purest nonsense.

But the kicker is that we can easily see how obsessed CODOH forum is with the authors of the HC white paper, and see that CODOH has no problem acknowledging their existence in other contexts.

The HC white paper has since been acknowledged several times by the CODOH "empire", there was a notice on Bradley Smith's blog (written by 'Fooled Once'), there was an announcement of a radio debate between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Berg on the main site, and the Inconvenient History blog, which is hosted by CODOH as 'revblog.codoh.com', has published two "communiques" from Mattogno, Graf and Kues announcing they will respond to the critique.

So clearly CODOH as a whole has no problem in acknowledging the HC white paper or its authors, it's just on the forum where we see some extremely petty behaviour, including deleting threads inviting discussion of the white paper.

In the past year, a search for 'Muehlenkamp' on CODOH throws up 150 hits, despite the fact that he was banned long before October 2011 for supposed rules violations, after being let back in after he was banned many years previously for supposed rules violations. In the same twelve months, we find only 91 hits for 'Hilberg'. For the all-time results, we find 684 hits for 'Muehlenkamp' which is fast approaching the number of hits for 'Hilberg' (793). If things continue at the present rate, Roberto Muehlenkamp will overtake Raul Hilberg as most mentioned researcher on the Holocaust some time in the next 6-9 months.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by nickterry » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:48 pm

I will add three comments on CODOH moderation and CODOH rules, which explain why I won't debate there:

1) the 'no dodging' rule has virtually no parallels elsewhere on the internet. If forum moderators here had to enforce it, then they would be busy 24-7 banning members for not answering straightforward questions. As frustrating as it is, everyone has a right to ignore questions or challenges, if they couldn't, then cranks, woos and nutters of all stripes would have an even hard time on skeptics' forums. In the context of CODOH forum, 'no dodging' is deployed selectively against non-revisionists and very rarely against other revisionists.

2) the one-topic-per-thread rule is intellectually dishonest. Every subject worth discussing must be considered in relation to many topics or aspects. That is why subjects worth discussing are usually written in books which consist of more than one chapter. It is an elementary principle of rational discussion that any subject or topic should be considered from many angles. CODOH moderators are frankly not capable of judging what is relevant to any topic under discussion because they know bugger all about the Holocaust. So the one-topic-per-thread rule becomes another weapon to limit discussion. It is also applied selectively, with several revisionist members allowed to 'Gish Gallop' and discuss multiple topics in one post or one thread, whereas other revisionists are then edited, and non-revisionists find themselves subjected to the usual shenanigans.

3) Whether or not Hannover is currently moderator (I was recently informed by one CODOH forum member privately that they think he isn't), the fact remains that Hannover, the #1 poster there, is an {!#%@} of the highest order, with whom no rational debate or discussion is possible. He has antagonised a number of other revisionists with his debating tactics. Not long ago, The Warden said this to Hannover on October 18 of this year:
Take a guess on how much I care about being banned (again) from this forum anymore.
As long as you're here, two people can't discuss anything and work things out.
needless to say, the remark was deleted, and The Warden has not posted since, although he is a top-25 poster at the forum with nearly 400 posts.

Hannover of course thinks he is king of the hill at CODOH, and thinks he has won huge victories because nobody will debate him there. But as he never ventures out to debate anywhere else, he is simply deluding himself.

Now, either Hannover is an anonymous internet troll of some kind, or we can say he's in fact a librarian at a West Coast university. No matter which we believe, then such a creature has absolutely no status whatsoever in the real world, and very little status even in the revisionist world, because he doesn't contribute proper articles to revisionist journals, has no known books to his name, and hasn't even made a YouTube video.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Bob » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:02 pm

I again wonder about "coincidence" when these individuals resurface in some particular situation to support each other.
Your hypotheses don't stand up to scrutiny. The HC white paper was not created from material from various websites, it is rather demonstrably based on archival material + conventionally used secondary literature. There was no violation of copyright or intellectual property, the white paper is not for sale so commercial copyright considerations don't apply, what is in there falls under fair use, the lengthier quotes are from documents not from other authors. Clearly, you haven't read the critique if you can make up such nonsense.

This is your word, if moderator of the forum has different opinion based on information reported about this paper, you have problem. I repeat, this was one of the many possible reasons.

One can notice that I in my paragraph did not say a word about if this information is correct, yet this individual immediately accused me.

One can notice that Terry dodged other possible explanations


The HC white paper can no more violate rules like dodging than can any other off-site publication, whether that be the Daily Mail articles the CODOH members like to discuss, or an announcement of a new work by Carlo Mattogno. That's because only forum members can violate rules with what they post. Anything else is the purest nonsense.

If this paper is consisted from information previously discussed/addressed on the forum and moderator decided to consider it a redundant, you have again problem.

But the kicker is that we can easily see how obsessed CODOH forum is with the authors of the HC white paper, and see that CODOH has no problem acknowledging their existence in other contexts.

Since I am not aware of saying something like "peoples on codoh denies existence of paper, peoples on codoh denies existence of authors" is this remark irrelevant. What is relevant is your admission that paper is without alleged censorship addressed and debated on forum, thus you lost the case of some alleged censorship.

The HC white paper has since been acknowledged several times by the CODOH "empire", there was a notice on Bradley Smith's blog (written by 'Fooled Once'), there was an announcement of a radio debate between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Berg on the main site, and the Inconvenient History blog, which is hosted by CODOH as 'revblog.codoh.com', has published two "communiques" from Mattogno, Graf and Kues announcing they will respond to the critique.

Again irrelevant as we are debating codoh forum, if you can prove that all these places are runned and moderated by the same person who is moderating forum and who allegedly censored this post from Hans, than you have some case.

So clearly CODOH as a whole has no problem in acknowledging the HC white paper or its authors, it's just on the forum where we see some extremely petty behaviour, including deleting threads inviting discussion of the white paper.

Again irrelevant, see above.

In the past year, a search for 'Muehlenkamp' on CODOH throws up 150 hits, despite the fact that he was banned long before October 2011 for supposed rules violations, after being let back in after he was banned many years previously for supposed rules violations. In the same twelve months, we find only 91 hits for 'Hilberg'. For the all-time results, we find 684 hits for 'Muehlenkamp' which is fast approaching the number of hits for 'Hilberg' (793). If things continue at the present rate, Roberto Muehlenkamp will overtake Raul Hilberg as most mentioned researcher on the Holocaust some time in the next 6-9 months.

Terry dodged possible obsession about Hannover and argues with obsession about Muehlenkamp and number of hits for this name on the forum and compared it with hits for Hilberg which is no surprise as he himself was a member and local debater thus this methodology is quite flawed from the beginning.

His "methodology" only supported this suggestion about obsession about user Hannover since on his blog one can see number of (tags)

Hannover-Hargis (122)
Hilberg (8)


Peoples like Robert Jan Van Pelt are missing completely in tags.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Hans » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:05 pm

- your first fallacy is in the fact that you are claiming that Hannover is moderator and he is censoring threads, but this statement is without any proof. Looks like that peoples are really obsessive about this man as everything is claimed to be caused by Hannover.
I claim that Hannover aka Hargis is moderating the CODOH forum because its owner Bradley Smith said so!
- second fallacy is "Now, Bob, here is your chance to justify the CODOH forum policy of censorship." - but since I do not agree there is come censorship and I have never agreed nor I ever saw some proof, I cannot justify something what does not exist.
Irrelevant hairsplitting, one of your favourite activities here.
- a)b)reason was provided by moderator, I repeat: "Hans: Why do you always post claims that have already been addressed. Repetition doesn't change the fact that there is no substance to your claims. M1" so reason stated, you comment was considered as a repetition/redundant according to moderator. I cannot tell how founded is this since I really do not have a time to check 5264 threads to be able to verify it and search function can hardly be efficient to verify it, but moderator is obviously in the better position.
Enter "Kinna" into the search function and you will see that the Kinna report was never discussed before at the CODOH forum and that your esteemed moderator was lying when he cheeky claimed "I deleted it because it was mere repetition of previously worked over material".

That's an important conclusion we should note for this thread:

The moderator silently deleted a posting discussing an important but also incriminating historical document on Auschwitz never discussed before at CODOH and when caught censoring excused his practice with the lie the posting "was mere repetition".
But since I have experiences with you - I agree that repetitions are a bad habit of you and they are not welcomed there for obvious reasons as everybody can repeat self ad infinitum on trillion of pages.
I do repeat whenever I feel that you have not properly addressed or understood a point.
- silently deleted is again unfounded, moderator obviously warned you
"silently deleted" means deletion without comment, which was the case here. It has nothing to do whether I was warned in advance or not.

- since your comment was resurrected after complaints from revisionists, is clear that your claim about how somebody is feeling to be cornered is unfounded
Wrong, as I wrote it is Hannover who deletes when he feels Revisionists are cornered. This was also the case here. Only when he felt the pressure from other Revisionists he reversed the deletion.
The best what you can do are the complaints about alleged moderator Hannover, not about the revisionists, codoh or forum in general.
Hannover is indeed the main problem why no debate is possible at CODOH. But he was placed and is kept there by Bradley Smith. Some Revisionists are fed up by him too, but there still enough supporting him and his policy.
- I agree this may be wrong, BUT since this paper is claimed to be created from material from various websites, the reason can be precaution and to not advertise paper violating copyright rules OR intellectual property OR this paper violated previous rules like dodging, redundancy, name calling and etc. OR the reason were experiences with these gentlemen on Codoh forum (or other forums) and because of these experiences the advertise for this book was deleted. Really do not want to see some definitive reason from me as I am not a moderator so I do not see in his head and I cannot see the only one true reason/s for deletion as they were not probably (I see nothing in your screen) stated in accordance with the rule above. I am only hypothesizing.
You are not good in hypothesizing.

The CODOH forum moderator has never been much sensitized for such things as copyright, so no case.

It is absurd to apply forum rules on external resources, else most of the links in the forum would be subjected to deletion - including denierbuds Auschwitz video for example - since they typically cover multiple points (only in the CODOH world things and people are so simple that only one point can be covered at the same time), so no case.

Bad experiences? But the CODOH forum is full of links to sites which are considered poor and bad by most Revisionists, so no case.

You have chance to make your case and provide your "irrefutable" complaints and evidence here, what are you waiting for...instead of this you are "crying" on the wrong grave and to wrong people.
I already did so here. I delivered, Hannover did not back up his explanation for the deletion, case closed.
Last edited by Hans on Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:16 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Bob » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:08 pm

I will add three comments on CODOH moderation and CODOH rules, which explain why I won't debate there:
Yet, he debated there recently.
http://forum.codoh.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7218" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Terry´s somewhat volumnious complaint is completely destroyed by one of his remark:
the fact remains that Hannover, the #1 poster there, is an {!#%@} of the highest order
Yet he still wonders and complains about the guidelines. Readers can guess quality of debate style of this user and about credit he has to be able to complains about "wrong" rules.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Hans » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:29 pm

Bob wrote: Yet he still wonders and complains about the guidelines. Readers can guess quality of debate style of this user and about credit he has to be able to complains about "wrong" rules.
You cannot conclude from a single verbal derailing on the "quality of debate style". Nick's posts are typically factual, founded, well written and detailed. Whether here, at Jref forum or at CODOH. THIS is for example what defines his debate style, not such a sporadic expression of dislike.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Bob » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:53 pm

Hans wrote:
- your first fallacy is in the fact that you are claiming that Hannover is moderator and he is censoring threads, but this statement is without any proof. Looks like that peoples are really obsessive about this man as everything is claimed to be caused by Hannover.
I claim that Hannover aka Hargis is moderating the CODOH forum because its owner Bradley Smith said so!

Kindly provide me with screen of this email.

Kindly provide me with information that Hargis is Hannover since in this alleged email is not a single word about Hargis-Hannover connection, it looks like your simply connected these two names together, but this is without any proof again and even contradicted by your colleague Terry. One can notice that your link in fact links back to your blog.

Your colleague claims the opposite "(I was recently informed by one CODOH forum member privately that they think he isn't)"

- second fallacy is "Now, Bob, here is your chance to justify the CODOH forum policy of censorship." - but since I do not agree there is come censorship and I have never agreed nor I ever saw some proof, I cannot justify something what does not exist.
Irrelevant hairsplitting, one of your favourite activities here.

No wonder your are complaining about the guidelines instead of addressing my point, you chose arrogance. Deal with the fact that i do not accept this fallacies and do not expect that I will accept unfounded and not proven point of your question as - proven.

Your question is like asking - justify why are you beating your wife - without proving that somebody is really beating wife. If you do nto see fallacy of your request about codoh, that is your business

- a)b)reason was provided by moderator, I repeat: "Hans: Why do you always post claims that have already been addressed. Repetition doesn't change the fact that there is no substance to your claims. M1" so reason stated, you comment was considered as a repetition/redundant according to moderator. I cannot tell how founded is this since I really do not have a time to check 5264 threads to be able to verify it and search function can hardly be efficient to verify it, but moderator is obviously in the better position.
Enter "Kinna" into the search function and you will see that the Kinna report was never discussed before at the CODOH forum and that your esteemed moderator was lying when he cheeky claimed "I deleted it because it was mere repetition of previously worked over material".

That's an important conclusion we should note for this thread:

The moderator silently deleted a posting discussing an important but also incriminating historical document on Auschwitz never discussed before at CODOH and when caught censoring excused his practice with the lie the posting "was mere repetition".

Again, no wonder your are complaining about the guidelines, so here again I repeat: search function can hardly be efficient to verify it
But since I have experiences with you - I agree that repetitions are a bad habit of you and they are not welcomed there for obvious reasons as everybody can repeat self ad infinitum on trillion of pages.
I do repeat whenever I feel that you have not properly addressed or understood a point.

As shown, you feel is obviously wrong as proven by the act of the moderator. Thank you for your admission that you really repeat yourself.
- silently deleted is again unfounded, moderator obviously warned you
"silently deleted" means deletion without comment, which was the case here. It has nothing to do whether I was warned in advance or not.

Irrelevant as you accepted the guideline "Reasons for deletions may or may not be stated. The Moderator will endeavor to notify the offender and the Forum in general, but not in every case; especially when it is obvious why the post was deleted." so whatever you wanted to suggest by the word "silently" is quite irrelevant as probably most of the threads and posts are deleted without notification in accordance with the guidelines.
- since your comment was resurrected after complaints from revisionists, is clear that your claim about how somebody is feeling to be cornered is unfounded
Wrong, as I wrote it is Hannover who deletes when he feels Revisionists are cornered. This was also the case here. Only when he felt the pressure from other Revisionists he reversed the deletion.

So here again this brings us to your fundamental fallacy since there is no proof about Hannover being a moderator, this is even contradicted by your colleague Terry. Even if this is true, is complete nonsense to resurrect thread if he felt that revisionists are in the corner only because of complaints from the revisionists, in this case he would place here some "invented" explanation if your claims about him are true. Anyway, you have no case here again.
The best what you can do are the complaints about alleged moderator Hannover, not about the revisionists, codoh or forum in general.
Hannover is indeed the main problem why no debate is possible at CODOH. But he was placed and is kept there by Bradley Smith. Some Revisionists are fed up by him too, but there still enough supporting him and his policy.

See above again. Your next bad "argumentation" habit is to make claims based on unfounded and not proven premises - logical fallacy.
- I agree this may be wrong, BUT since this paper is claimed to be created from material from various websites, the reason can be precaution and to not advertise paper violating copyright rules OR intellectual property OR this paper violated previous rules like dodging, redundancy, name calling and etc. OR the reason were experiences with these gentlemen on Codoh forum (or other forums) and because of these experiences the advertise for this book was deleted. Really do not want to see some definitive reason from me as I am not a moderator so I do not see in his head and I cannot see the only one true reason/s for deletion as they were not probably (I see nothing in your screen) stated in accordance with the rule above. I am only hypothesizing.
You are not good in hypothesizing.

The CODOH forum moderator has never been sensitized for such things as copyright, so no case.

It is absurd to apply forum rules on external resources, else most of the links in the forum would needed be subjected to deletion since they typically cover multiple points (only in the CODOH world things and people are so simple that only one point can be covered at the same time), so no case.

Most of this addressed to Terry.

Bad experiences? But the CODOH forum is full of links to sites which are considered poor and bad by most Revisionists, so no case.

How many of these alleged sites used the most disgusting foul language towards to codoh members? I guess that answers is 0, right? So in fact, you have no case, because i was not talking mainly about poor research, but about behavior and name-calling. What do you expect? That after all these insults, codoh forum will happily advertise paper from peoples involved in name-calling towards to forum members?
You have chance to make your case and provide your "irrefutable" complaints and evidence here, what are you waiting for...instead of this you are "crying" on the wrong grave and to wrong people.
I already did so here.

Where exactly is your case of Kinna report? Nowhere.

Did you receive response and explanation to your complain in your quoted thread? Yes.
Your complaints are quite irrelevant as revisionists like Berg, Yeager, Hunt, Gerdes and etc. they all not only had their comment deleted, but their accounts were repeatedly banned. So in fact, you have no case of "censorship because of arguments" here.
You cannot conclude from a single verbal derailing on the "quality of debate style". Nick's posts are typically factual, founded, well written and detailed. Whether here, at Jref forum or at CODOH. THIS is for example what defines his debate style, not such a sporadic expression of dislike.
I personally debated with Terry in the past, so you are again wrong in your claims, I do not need your description of his debate style, or do you want some examples? To demonstrate I am fair - you are probably the only one from your group who does not use foul language (at least to my knowledge and with the assumption that all accusations about you are not proven as I am not interested in this weird case)

Well, I have not much to add to this case.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by nickterry » Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:10 am

Bob wrote:I again wonder about "coincidence" when these individuals resurface in some particular situation to support each other.
?????

I've been a member here since 2006, long before most of you. I don't often post here, as is well established. But when you blurt out obvious nonsense, then I might - emphasis might - deign to comment.
Your hypotheses don't stand up to scrutiny. The HC white paper was not created from material from various websites, it is rather demonstrably based on archival material + conventionally used secondary literature. There was no violation of copyright or intellectual property, the white paper is not for sale so commercial copyright considerations don't apply, what is in there falls under fair use, the lengthier quotes are from documents not from other authors. Clearly, you haven't read the critique if you can make up such nonsense.

This is your word, if moderator of the forum has different opinion based on information reported about this paper, you have problem. I repeat, this was one of the many possible reasons.

One can notice that I in my paragraph did not say a word about if this information is correct, yet this individual immediately accused me.

One can notice that Terry dodged other possible explanations
What other possible explanations did I dodge? You're making no sense here. You were the one who "hypothesised" a load of incorrect nonsense about the HC white paper. It seems to have escaped you that I might be motivated to correct your "hypothesising" because you were talking blatant gibberish.
The HC white paper can no more violate rules like dodging than can any other off-site publication, whether that be the Daily Mail articles the CODOH members like to discuss, or an announcement of a new work by Carlo Mattogno. That's because only forum members can violate rules with what they post. Anything else is the purest nonsense.

If this paper is consisted from information previously discussed/addressed on the forum and moderator decided to consider it a redundant, you have again problem.
How could the moderator know that without reading the critique? Hans was describing and referring to attempts to post about the white paper right at the start of this year, when no one except a speed reader could have possibly read it from cover to cover. Had any revisionist done so honestly, they would have swiftly seen it presented a vast amount of new information on the subject of the Reinhard camps which is not to be found in revisionist literature, nor on any websites like HEART, nor in Arad, nor in denierbud's videos. It obviously also covers old 'familiar' ground but often in a new way - read the damn thing and find out for yourself.

You seem to be under the delusion that revisionists at CODOH are bang up to date with their knowledge of the historiography and of the state of the art in research into the Holocaust. This is manifestly not the case.
But the kicker is that we can easily see how obsessed CODOH forum is with the authors of the HC white paper, and see that CODOH has no problem acknowledging their existence in other contexts.

Since I am not aware of saying something like "peoples on codoh denies existence of paper, peoples on codoh denies existence of authors" is this remark irrelevant. What is relevant is your admission that paper is without alleged censorship addressed and debated on forum, thus you lost the case of some alleged censorship.
Nope. The claim of censorship pertained to CODOH forum. Other parts of the CODOH "empire" operate in an evidently more honourable manner. Indeed, when the white paper came out, we corresponded briefly with "Fooled Once", the aforementioned blogger on Bradley Smith's blog, about the white paper.

CODOH consists of a website, along with affiliated blogs like Bradley Smith's blog, the Inconvenient History blog, an affiliated web-based journal, also called Inconvenient History, as well as the forum. These are all linked very prominently from the home-page of codoh.com. But they are edited/controlled/webmastered/moderated/run by different people. The criticism here is about the forum. And that criticism stands.
The HC white paper has since been acknowledged several times by the CODOH "empire", there was a notice on Bradley Smith's blog (written by 'Fooled Once'), there was an announcement of a radio debate between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Berg on the main site, and the Inconvenient History blog, which is hosted by CODOH as 'revblog.codoh.com', has published two "communiques" from Mattogno, Graf and Kues announcing they will respond to the critique.

Again irrelevant as we are debating codoh forum, if you can prove that all these places are runned and moderated by the same person who is moderating forum and who allegedly censored this post from Hans, than you have some case.
So you're basically making my point for me. CODOH forum was the thing we were talking about. I have pointed out that other parts of CODOH haven't had a problem acknowledging the critique. Only on CODOH forum was this supposedly a problem, to the point where Hans had threads about the white paper deleted.
So clearly CODOH as a whole has no problem in acknowledging the HC white paper or its authors, it's just on the forum where we see some extremely petty behaviour, including deleting threads inviting discussion of the white paper.

Again irrelevant, see above.
No, it's not irrelevant. CODOH is a common brand-name for a website and a forum. It's highly ironic if the forum moderator kicks up a fuss and deletes a thread about the HC white paper when it gets mentioned by someone else on the website operating under the same name.

Do you understand what "irony" means?
In the past year, a search for 'Muehlenkamp' on CODOH throws up 150 hits, despite the fact that he was banned long before October 2011 for supposed rules violations, after being let back in after he was banned many years previously for supposed rules violations. In the same twelve months, we find only 91 hits for 'Hilberg'. For the all-time results, we find 684 hits for 'Muehlenkamp' which is fast approaching the number of hits for 'Hilberg' (793). If things continue at the present rate, Roberto Muehlenkamp will overtake Raul Hilberg as most mentioned researcher on the Holocaust some time in the next 6-9 months.

Terry dodged possible obsession about Hannover and argues with obsession about Muehlenkamp and number of hits for this name on the forum and compared it with hits for Hilberg which is no surprise as he himself was a member and local debater thus this methodology is quite flawed from the beginning.

His "methodology" only supported this suggestion about obsession about user Hannover since on his blog one can see number of (tags)

Hannover-Hargis (122)
Hilberg (8)


Peoples like Robert Jan Van Pelt are missing completely in tags.
Way to miss the point. Roberto Muehlenkamp - more than any other HC blogger - is continually mentioned at CODOH forum, yet when a non-revisionist tried to post about the HC white paper, this was deleted. Given how much Roberto is abused on CODOH forum you'd have thought they could have tolerated such a thread, and turned it into another opportunity to abuse him, since they don't seem to have a problem doing that on other occasions. The fact that the thread was deleted speaks to a major degree of paranoia and control-freakery, because the thread was started by a non-revisionist.

I'm unclear how I could have "dodged" a point that hadn't been made yet, but your comparison falls completely flat on its face. HC is a blog which criticises Holocaust deniers. From the get-go, this has been understood to mean big-name "guru" revisionists like Mattogno, as well as the big fish in small ponds, like Hannover on CODOH forum, i.e. internet deniers. So the fact that there are lots of posts tagged with Hannover fits with what HC is supposed to do.


Roberto certainly does post about Hannover, precisely because (1) CODOH banned him irrationally twice and (2) CODOH forum continues to discuss him behind his back, in a venue where he cannot respond because he has been 'conveniently' banned. So naturally he comments on this fact on HC blog. This ups the number of references to Hannover and CODOH.

Yet, despite this 'personal' dialogue from blog to forum and back again, Muehlenkamp is mentioned five times more often on CODOH forum posts than Hannover has been tagged on HC blog.

As Hilberg wasn't a denier, there is little reason why he would be a frequent subject of HC blog posts, he would only be invoked when brought up by deniers as appropriate. He has however been referenced far more than 8 times - the Blogger search taps out at 32 hits, and Hilberg maxes that. Pelt simply doesn't have a tag, but has been cited way more than 32 times. The most common tag, really, is Mattogno with 231 tags, which is well over 20% of all the blog posts on HC.

The irony of Hilberg still being repeatedly referenced on CODOH forum is that he was one of the first historians of the Holocaust who died five years ago, and there have been two or three generations of historians since Hilberg first published in 1961. None of the contemporary 'big names' in Holocaust history get mentioned at CODOH anywhere near as often as they should be. By continuing to reference Hilberg, the CODOH revisionists show how woefully out-of-date and ignorant they are of the historiography of the Holocaust.

I simply find it ironic that a lowly amateur blogger like Roberto Muehlenkamp has 10x the number of hits on CODOH forum than someone like, say, Christian Gerlach, and is rapidly catching up with the guy that revisionists (wrongly) think of as some kind of Pope of the Holocaust. If you can't see the irony here, then you have a serious problem assessing and weighing evidence.

It's not, by contrast, ironic in the least that HC blog has posted a fair bit about Hannover, because the subject of HC blog is Holocaust denial, and Hannover is one of the noisier and more obnoxious Holocaust deniers on the internet, the #1 poster on the SOLE internet forum run by revisionists and dedicated exclusively to revisionism. There simply aren't very many other 'Hannovers' to talk about, because you guys are so few in number full stop.

There are still less than 670 members of CODOH forum after what will be exactly 10 years in a few weeks' time. And that membership count includes a bunch of non-revisionists as well as numerous Greg Gerdes sockpuppets.

Any other silly arguments from you on this?

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by nickterry » Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:39 am

Bob wrote:
I will add three comments on CODOH moderation and CODOH rules, which explain why I won't debate there:
Yet, he debated there recently.
http://forum.codoh.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7218" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Terry´s somewhat volumnious complaint is completely destroyed by one of his remark:
the fact remains that Hannover, the #1 poster there, is an {!#%@} of the highest order
Yet he still wonders and complains about the guidelines. Readers can guess quality of debate style of this user and about credit he has to be able to complains about "wrong" rules.
My recent "debate" at CODOH was in fact really about the validity of debating at CODOH full stop. Hannover 'challenged' me, and by his standards I "dodged" the challenge, which is why there are two sticky threads with my name on it as we speak at that forum. I invited CODOH members to visit other forums, which seems to have induced a couple to visit JREF (which is my 'home' to the extent that I have such a thing) and indeed, one to visit Skeptics Society Forum.

One of my points to Hannover et al was that their challenge to debate on their home turf is meaningless unless there is an 'away' match. Since nobody can agree on a proper tournament, the entire "debate" is completely pointless anyhow. Different sides feel that they are hobbled by the rules and conditions on different fora.

If anyone ever can establish 100% neutral ground, where there are no obvious impediments to either side, and most of all no perception of an impediment, then things might change. Because as long as non-revisionists think CODOH forum is not a level playing field, and as long as revisionists are paranoid about other existing forums, neither side will agree that anywhere is 'neutral ground'.

My additional point to you and also one made repeatedly on JREF is that the internet forum discussion thread format is not a reliable method of truthseeking or verifying facts, and not recognised as such anywhere that matters. The proper venue for verification of historical events is academia, specifically history departments. Unfortunately for you, revisionists are shut out of such arenas by their own incompetence and blithering incoherence, so the next best thing is whatever revisionists can produce by way of books and 'proper' articles.

That is where the informal debate should be - discussing, seriously, whatever is produced by revisionists like Mattogno. Which is what people like Hans like to do. And what people like Hannover seem unable to do.

YouTube videos, Twitter, Facebook, vBulletin-type forums and all the other paraphernalia of web 2.0 are all utterly irrelevant in the final analysis. Hats off to Hans for watching denierbud's latest video about Auschwitz, but there is no reason on earth to take ANY YouTube video seriously.

There's even a new informal logical fallacy, argumentum ad YouTubium, to highlight why YT videos are irrelevant. Because nobody has yet passed any qualification in a relevant subject by submitting YouTube videos instead of properly written and properly referenced essays, term papers or dissertations.

Debates on internet forums are also irrelevant in the final analysis. They're only good to rehearse things which could be presented in other formats, OR in order to relax and shoot the breeze casually. The kind of head-to-head slugfests we see on here or with other cranks don't prove anything.

In every single case - the Holocaust, 9/11, evolution, whatever contentious issue is discussed - the subject is too big and too complex to be compressed into a forum post. And it's pretty damn obvious that our civilization regards it as much more impressive if people can write coherent, well-organised essays, dissertations, journal articles or books, which might actually have something more than ephemeral value.

The other reason why debates on internet forums with cranks like Holocaust deniers, 9/11 Truthers, creationists etc don't prove anything is because all of these cranks have refined pigheadedness into an artform. It's the easiest thing in the world to play the I'm-not-convinced act. Deniers have been doing it on the internet for 20 years. Has denial got anywhere in the real world in that time? Nope.

I'll admit, I have wasted an inordinate amount of time bashing my head against the brick wall of denier intransigence. It's sometimes been fun exposing deniers as the pig {!#%@} that they really are. But in the end I have to admit that Hannover and co are indeed {!#%@} of the highest order. In all the time I have been following denier antics on the internet, I have met perhaps a dozen out of several hundred revisionists who are not complete c***s. How can I debate properly with people who I think are absolute {!#%@}?

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by Bob » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:00 am

My recent "debate" at CODOH was in fact really about the validity of debating at CODOH full stop. Hannover 'challenged' me, and by his standards I "dodged" the challenge, which is why there are two sticky threads with my name on it as we speak at that forum. I invited CODOH members to visit other forums, which seems to have induced a couple to visit JREF (which is my 'home' to the extent that I have such a thing) and indeed, one to visit Skeptics Society Forum.

One of my points to Hannover et al was that their challenge to debate on their home turf is meaningless unless there is an 'away' match. Since nobody can agree on a proper tournament, the entire "debate" is completely pointless anyhow. Different sides feel that they are hobbled by the rules and conditions on different fora.

If anyone ever can establish 100% neutral ground, where there are no obvious impediments to either side, and most of all no perception of an impediment, then things might change. Because as long as non-revisionists think CODOH forum is not a level playing field, and as long as revisionists are paranoid about other existing forums, neither side will agree that anywhere is 'neutral ground'.
Randi forum thread about holocaust is consisted from one single thread where everybody is discussing everything, so one big mess. Skeptic forum is without any rules and occupied by almost the same group of exterminationists like on randi forum - yet this man "invited" peoples to come there/here and debate. I came here or rodoh forum and I debated, results are always the same, foul language, dodging and many falsehoods. On Codoh forum, these problems are mainly eliminated by guidelines applied to all.
My additional point to you and also one made repeatedly on JREF is that the internet forum discussion thread format is not a reliable method of truthseeking or verifying facts, and not recognised as such anywhere that matters. The proper venue for verification of historical events is academia, specifically history departments. Unfortunately for you, revisionists are shut out of such arenas by their own incompetence and blithering incoherence, so the next best thing is whatever revisionists can produce by way of books and 'proper' articles.
Another statement aimed to attack revisionism, problem is that Terry himself proved with his "arguments" false nature of this statement.

Terry also "missed" (in fact he knows it quite well) that the true reasons are censorship and punishment by jail sentences/fines or smear campaign by media, these are the reasons why the debate with revisionists will never take place in the way suggested by Terry.
The other reason why debates on internet forums with cranks like Holocaust deniers, 9/11 Truthers, creationists etc don't prove anything is because all of these cranks have refined pigheadedness into an artform. It's the easiest thing in the world to play the I'm-not-convinced act. Deniers have been doing it on the internet for 20 years. Has denial got anywhere in the real world in that time? Nope.

It's sometimes been fun exposing deniers as the pig {!#%@} that they really are.

*new version - pig {!#%@}

But in the end I have to admit that Hannover and co are indeed {!#%@} of the highest order.

*new version - {!#%@} of the highest order

I have met perhaps a dozen out of several hundred revisionists who are not complete cunts.

*new version - not complete c***s. (he applied some auto-censoring filter)

How can I debate properly with people who I think are absolute {!#%@}?

*new version - absolute {!#%@}?
Another demonstration of debate style of this man. No doubt, Hans will come again with some damage control. This is language of someone who´s comments are characterized by Hans as - You cannot conclude from a single verbal derailing on the "quality of debate style". Nick's posts are typically factual, founded, well written and detailed. Somebody with well founded arguments does not need to use such a language. He can calls them as he wants, he will not change the essential fact, that they are correct in their arguments.

To reveal false nature of this volumnious comment aimed to attack revisionists ad hominem and with foul language one needs only to ask this individual Terry one simple question - Can you show me alleged nazi homicidal gas chamber and tell me how was gassing possible as alleged? Start a separate thread and feel free to explain it. He can start with already running threads about crematorium 2 of course. On codoh, there is exactly already prepared thread for Terry.
I simply find it ironic that a lowly amateur blogger like Roberto Muehlenkamp
Terry has plus for this honest statement, I agree. There is no irony, he is probably the loudest and the most active "believer" on the internet for many years, so no irony, but is logical that his quite unique claims are often target of revisionists especially when they are very controversial, trolls are very successful with this too.

*edit - I included new foul language added by Terry during the time I prepared this response. I am no more interested in debate with this individual if he is not capable of polite behavior. I expect that these individuals will summon Muehlenkamp to join this thread too.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: CODOH - not open and no debate

Post by David » Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:41 am

nickterry wrote:
One of my points to Hannover et al was that their challenge to debate on their home turf is meaningless unless there is an 'away' match. Since nobody can agree on a proper tournament, the entire "debate" is completely pointless anyhow. Different sides feel that they are hobbled by the rules and conditions on different fora.

If anyone ever can establish 100% neutral ground, where there are no obvious impediments to either side, and most of all no perception of an impediment, then things might change.

Jeeze H Krist, Nick, You are amazingly puerile in your discussion of CODOH....place the matter against the background of you Believers having
to "win the debate" by making questioning the Holocaust a felony...5 years in jail.

Why not take the view that we are working together to learn the Truth?

Look at the amazing work of Fritz Berg regarding the impossibility of killing people
with exhaust from an unloaded diesel. You Believers hadn't even thought of that!

Look at the eye opening comments of Denierbud about the tale of putting a well in the middle of a Treblinka field of 250,000 bodies.

Look at the stunning work of Thomas Kranz blowing away Believer claims of 1,400,000 dead at Majdanek!!
You should be on your knees thanking Revisionists. Instead you are whining
about "not open."
I'll take you more seriously if you write a letter to the Germans protesting the jailing of Revisionists.




YouTube videos, Twitter, Facebook, vBulletin-type forums and all the other paraphernalia of web 2.0 are all utterly irrelevant in the final analysis. Hats off to Hans for watching denierbud's latest video about Auschwitz, but there is no reason on earth to take ANY YouTube video seriously.

You're an Arrogant little snot. You need videos to be peer reviewed to think about them? Learn from everything, buddy

Deniers have been doing it on the internet for 20 years. Has denial got anywhere in the real world in that time? Nope.

Another NAS (Nicky Absurd Statement.)
Take the once sacred claim of a secret "Hitler Order" issued in June 1941. Heroic Revisionists knew that was impossible and Believers would have thrown us in jail for expressing our doubt.
But Now you are trying to "explain" Hoess' "confession" by claiming he mixed up the
year!!! :lol: :lol: Gawd...you Believers.

Berg has you Believers running around "realizing" that all your steam chambers and diesel engines were "really"...... gasoline.
DenierBud has blown away your absurd tales merely by reviewing the
construction documents of Krema II.

Maybe you Believers better increase the penalty for "Doubting" to 10 years.
Another 500,000,000 Euros for propagation of the Faith!



I'll admit, I have wasted an inordinate amount of time bashing my head against the brick wall of denier intransigence. It's sometimes been fun exposing deniers as the pig {!#%@} that they really are. But in the end I have to admit that Hannover and co are indeed {!#%@} of the highest order. In all the time I have been following denier antics on the internet, I have met perhaps a dozen out of several hundred revisionists who are not complete c***s. How can I debate properly with people who I think are absolute {!#%@}?
On that basis I wonder how you can look in the mirror in the
morning.