Revisionists vs. Belivers

[Cletus]

The message is that after I was somewhat scolded for missing the point in my original post, everybody jumped in and proved that point. Don't worry, someone will surely post something not to your liking and we can all go round and round again!

Cheers

Cletus

[Roberto]

The message is that after I was somewhat scolded for missing the point in my original post, everybody jumped in and proved that point.

Did I "scold" you for "missing the point", or did I provide a detailed and pertinent commentary on your observations?

Anyway, if you felt "scolded" (new term I learned today), please accept my apologies.

[Cletus]

I by no means singled you out Medorjurgen as scolding me (or intended to give that impresssion), but I got a sense from many posters, on both sides of the issue, that I was off the mark with my original post.

Cheers

Cletus

[Scott Smith]

I by no means singled you out Medorjurgen as scolding me (or intended to give that impresssion), but I got a sense from many posters, on both sides of the issue, that I was off the mark with my original post.

Cletus, it's always good to ask questions. Did you get the answers you were looking for?

[Cletus]

I confirmed my original view of the debate. Here are a few things that I found interesting about my original post.

1. While at no time did I state my position, I was lumped into a group by some.

2. Everything posted is either misconstrued, or analysed for some subversive motive. In my original post, while I was making general observations, I immediately came under suspicion.

3. If I am skeptical of something that is OK but only if it is something that is acceptable to be skeptical of. (Say that fast!)

4. If a poster says diesel couldn't work, so something else must have been used to kill people, and the poster never disputes the deaths, he's still attacked (rarely with evidence to support the attack).

5. Posters claim that there are no such thing as deniers, just revisionists, but then call people deniers.

6. People respond to people based on their credibility and their past posts, not what was said currently.

7. Posters on both sides of the issue who claim to respect people who question things, often get quite rude towards people who question things.

8. If someone asks a question, they are treated with suspicion. People may be looking for answers to things they do not know. Most of the replies try to implicate that person in a denial conspiracy. If I asked why Zyklon B was used instead of Mustard gas, instead of getting an answer I would have to wade through the revisionist muck. I would be viewed with suspicion because I am trying to learn.

The reason I came to this site and posted is because I was considering sending my Grade 12 students here to help their research. I am trying to impress upon them the idea that you need a variety of sources and sometimes opposing views in order to truly understand an issue. I now feel that it would do them a great deal of harm. They would not know how to ask the "right questions" and would be attacked. Any answers they did get would be lost in a sea of back and forth accusations.

It is not only the revisionists that are the danger to them. The other side of the issue (who tell you they have no side and nothing to defend) vigorously defend their position so unreasoningly in some cases, that they often insult those that agree with them. I fear that if I had my students post on this sitet, their efforts to learn more would be viewed as revisionism.

If the evidence and truth of the holocaust speak for itself and it's permissible to question things, why do I read so many posts that are a simple knee jerk reaction to anything said in question of details? Can't the details of the Holocaust be examined and confirmed or revised ? We have so much more and better technology today, yet it is blasphemy to suggest we re-examine the details. When Scott Smith claims that diesel exhaust could not have killed people, but something did, he is attacked. He never denies the deaths, just how they happened.

I want my students to be able to ask questions that don't deny or diminish the event, but deepen their understanding of the details. I do not feel this can happen here.

I feel both sides of this debate have become a single entity. They need each other to survive. One without the other fades into history.

What kind of world would it be if we all had to accept what was real without being able to question the how, the why, and the where?

While I have made generalizations in this post, and this does not apply to all, I too often have seen posters refute revisionism with slander and abuse, not the evidence and facts they say are so evident. If you do this because of years of battling revisionism, maybe its time for another tactic?

I will now take cover.

Cletus

[Dan]

The reason I came to this site and posted is because I was considering sending my Grade 12 students here to help their research

If you do, you'll probably get fired.

Best
Dan

[Scott Smith]

The reason I came to this site and posted is because I was considering sending my Grade 12 students here to help their research

If you do, you'll probably get fired.

Cletus,
Why don't you send some of your more-precocious students over (with their parents' permission of course) to ask their questions.

We can ask the moderators to be especially vigilant on these posts to ensure that they stay on-topic and do not get personal.

Debate alone is a victory. When there can be no open debate then we have all lost to dogma and intolerance.

[Roberto]

Cletus,

4. If a poster says diesel couldn't work, so something else must have been used to kill people, and the poster never disputes the deaths, he's still attacked (rarely with evidence to support the attack).

Why, can you show me that poster? I must have missed him somehow.

6. People respond to people based on their credibility and their past posts, not what was said currently.

I’d say they respond based on both. Besides, past lies do not exactly enhance credibility on present issues, do they?

7. Posters on both sides of the issue who claim to respect people who question things, often get quite rude towards people who question things.

A rather superficial observation. Couldn’t it be that this depends on the reasonability and substantiation of the “questioning”, and that “questioning” is sometimes rudely dismissed because it keeps being brought up in incessant repetition regardless of how often and how thoroughly it has been demonstrated to lack foundation?

8. If someone asks a question, they are treated with suspicion.

Depends on the question, once again.

People may be looking for answers to things they do not know.

I dare say that, after one and a half years of debating on this forum, I can fairly well tell honestly interested questioners from fuss-makers out on a political errand.

Most of the replies try to implicate that person in a denial conspiracy.

Again, a very superficial observation. Couldn’t it be that such replies, where they exist, are related to the identification of staple “questions” repetitively produced by propagandists?

If I asked why Zyklon B was used instead of Mustard gas, instead of getting an answer I would have to wade through the revisionist muck. I would be viewed with suspicion because I am trying to learn.

Dead wrong. A question asked as above, academic though it is, stands a good chance of getting a detailed matter-of-fact answer. An assertion that goes: “ I don’t think they gassed people because if they had they would have used mustard gas instead of Zyklon B”, on the other hand, will very probably (and deservedly, in my opinion) throw you into the muck of “Revisionist” imbecility.

It is not only the revisionists that are the danger to them. The other side of the issue (who tell you they have no side and nothing to defend) vigorously defend their position so unreasoningly in some cases, that they often insult those that agree with them.

Any examples of such unreasoning and insulting defense that you can show us?

I fear that if I had my students post on this sitet, their efforts to learn more would be viewed as revisionism.

No reason to fear that. The reasonable folks on this forum are able to sift the wheat from the chaff right now. If in doubt as to where you come from, they may ask you some provocative questions in order to make you show your hand. Nothing you should be afraid of if you're honestly interested in the issues at hand.

If the evidence and truth of the holocaust speak for itself and it's permissible to question things, why do I read so many posts that are a simple knee jerk reaction to anything said in question of details?

Many posts? Let’s see some examples, preferably from this forum.

Can't the details of the Holocaust be examined and confirmed or revised ?

Of course they can, evidence and reasonable arguments provided.

We have so much more and better technology today, yet it is blasphemy to suggest we re-examine the details.

By no means. There are some details, however (such as the specifics of the Treblinka gassing engine) that are as impossible to “re-examine” as they are irrelevant.

When Scott Smith claims that diesel exhaust could not have killed people, but something did, he is attacked. He never denies the deaths, just how they happened.

A rather naïve observation. Nobody would have a problem with Smith if his stance were: “I think the gassing engine that killed hundreds of thousands of people at Treblinka was not a diesel engine, but a gasoline engine.” That’s not what he’s trying to tell us, however. His message is “I don’t think they gassed anyone at Treblinka because if they had wanted to do so they would have used a gasoline engine (or some other device) instead of a diesel engine”. The latter is about the greatest nonsense that I’ve ever come across, at least on this forum. Do you now understand the issue?

I want my students to be able to ask questions that don't deny or diminish the event, but deepen their understanding of the details. I do not feel this can happen here.

Yes, it can. All they have to do is to ask reasonable questions denoting genuine interest.

I feel both sides of this debate have become a single entity. They need each other to survive. One without the other fades into history.

Well, two things I am certain of. One is that the “Revisionists” would feel much better if there were no fellows like myself exposing their nonsense. The other is that the Holocaust would hardly be a subject of conversation let alone debate on this forum if it were not for the “Revisionists”.

What kind of world would it be if we all had to accept what was real without being able to question the how, the why, and the where?

A lousy world, for sure. But questioning the how, why and where out of genuine interest is one thing, making a fuss out of it in support of a political agenda is another.

While I have made generalizations in this post, and this does not apply to all, I too often have seen posters refute revisionism with slander and abuse, not the evidence and facts they say are so evident.

Any examples, preferably from this forum, that you can show us?

If you do this because of years of battling revisionism, maybe its time for another tactic?

Has it occurred to you that what you criticize may not be a “tactic” at all, but simply the reaction of people losing their patience after some time of reading the same beaten propaganda nonsense over and over again, no matter how often and how thoroughly refuted? Critics of “Revisionism” are only human beings, you know. And some of them, such as myself, are rather hot-blooded fellows.

[Roberto]

Debate alone is a victory. When there can be no open debate then we have all lost to dogma and intolerance.

Exactly, Reverend. Try to sell that idea to the Codoh moderator (or shall I say censor?), Mr. David Thomas. When you’re at it, please invite the fellow to some open debate on this forum.

[Scott Smith]

Debate alone is a victory. When there can be no open debate then we have all lost to dogma and intolerance.

Exactly, Reverend. Try to sell that idea to the Codoh moderator (or shall I say censor?), Mr. David Thomas. When you’re at it, please invite the fellow to some open debate on this forum.

Are you asking me to try to help you get posted over there again? I will only do that if you promise to behave. That means following their rules of formal debate, whether you like them or not. They don't have the resources for micromanaging troublemakers and extinguishing flame-wars.

[Roberto]

Debate alone is a victory. When there can be no open debate then we have all lost to dogma and intolerance.

Exactly, Reverend. Try to sell that idea to the Codoh moderator (or shall I say censor?), Mr. David Thomas. When you’re at it, please invite the fellow to some open debate on this forum.

Are you asking me to try to help you get posted over there again?

Time provided, I actually intend to give old DvD a few more headaches. But I don't need any help for that, and asking you for help is the last thing I would do anyway, as you well know.

I will only do that if you promise to behave. That means following their rules of formal debate, whether you like them or not. They don't have the resources for micromanaging troublemakers and extinguishing flame-wars.

How about cutting of the bullshit and telling us which of the censored posts in my rather huge collection failed to comply with the deliberately non-transparent and arbitrarily wielded "posting rules" or qualifies as a “flame-war”, whatever that is supposed to be? Here they are, once again:

Open debate?
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =240.topic

Open debate? (continuation)
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =211.topic

More "open debate" ...
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =211.topic

And I thought they had learned something ...
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =174.topic

Or would you rather be honest for once and admit right away that my posts were censored on account of nothing other than their inconvenient contents?

[Scott Smith]

Or would you rather be honest for once and admit right away that my posts were censored on account of nothing other than their inconvenient contents?

So if provocation is not your intent, then simplfy them, remove the attitude--and make the same points! The Codoh moderator will pass them. Simple as that.

And don't whine to me about it. I said a long time ago that more opposition needed to post there for the Open Debate idea to work but that the oppositon didn't like to do that because it gives Deniers and their ideas legitimacy in a Denier forum. I don't really care one way or another since I haven't been censored here. And neither over there except when using provocative tactics with pseudonyms to gauge the fairness for myself.

[Roberto]

Or would you rather be honest for once and admit right away that my posts were censored on account of nothing other than their inconvenient contents?

So if provocation is not your intent

It's something I can't help, as a matter of fact. Everything that goes against the grain of Faith is a provocation to these fellows as soon as it's too good for one of their more eloquent preachers to provide a handy reponse. How come?

, then simplfy them,

What is there to simplify? The posts are detailed but concise. And then, why would the complexity of posts be the moderator's business? Because he fears his fellow True Believers may not be able to respond and that even, oh Mein Führer, an unbeliever may be having the last word on threads in a "Revisionist" forum, perhaps?

remove the attitude

What attitude? Do True Believers consider themselves immune to criticism? Can't they accept that free speech and open debate also include the right to call their nonsense by its proper name?

--and make the same points! The Codoh moderator will pass them.

Well, he tried that for a while, to the point that I even thought he might have changed his policy. Unfortunately, the ground eventually seems to have got to hot under his feet and he decided to again be himself. Simple as that. Read about it on the thread

And I thought they had learned something ...
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =174.topic

And don't whine to me about it.

Cut out the crap, quack. In case you haven't noticed, I was just pointing out to you that your own peers don't play by the rules they extol and are not very interested in the open debate they pretend to demand.

I said a long time ago that more opposition needed to post there for the Open Debate idea to work but that the oppositon didn't like to do that because it gives Deniers and their ideas legitimacy in a Denier forum.

Apparently you buddies over there have different ideas. They'd rather chat among themselves by the chimney under the moderator's watchful and protective eyes. Despite several visits of mine and of other critics to the online Führerbunker and repeated invitations, none but a few have accordingly ventured out into the real world of this forum, where they would find the open debate they claim to be yearning for. And the only one of those to last around here is the Reverend, and that only because he has no problem with repeating the same beaten and refuted nonsense a hundred times over again, no matter how many fellow posters start seeing him as a sorry joke.

I don't really care one way or another since I haven't been censored here.

See, Reverend, here the moderators practice what DvD only claims to be practicing. Interesting, isn't it?

And neither over there except when using provocative tactics with pseudonyms to gauge the fairness for myself.

Big deal, Rev. You're one of the family after all, aren't you?

[Cletus]

Here comes more fun!


Cletus: If the evidence and truth of the holocaust speak for itself and it's permissible to question things, why do I read so many posts that are a simple knee jerk reaction to anything said in question of details?


Medorjurgen: Many posts? Let’s see some examples, preferably from this forum.


Scott S: Each case has to be taken on its own terms.


Medorjurgen: Any terms that could make a particular massacre look any better than it does, buddy?






Victor’s Justice: Let´s not use double standards, people;


Medorjurgen: Exactly, my friend. Write that behind your ears, and tell it to your fellow True Believers.


Scott S: I strongly disagree with those who say there is no Faith involved here.


Medorjurgen: You bloody well should, Reverend, because there’s actually a lot of Faith involved. Your Faith and that of like-minded believers in the supreme virtues of Adolf and the Third Reich and the utter evil of World Jewry.


Scott Smith: If you look at our diesel debates of over a year ago, Roberto did not know anything about Treblinka. Not one thing.


Medorjurgen: Exactly. I was never interested in that place until the Reverend introduced me to it with his diesel nonsense. But I’ve learned a lot in the meantime, whereas the Reverend is still as ignorant as he was at the outset.


Medorjurgen: Like a bitching fish-woman, the Reverend is repeating one of his staple half-truths (or shall I say lies?).


Scott S: It doesn't make you a Denier unless you cross the pale in some other way that marks you as a H-skeptic. Start doubting diesel gaschambers, or better yet Zyklon-B, while affirming the six-million...


Medorjurgen: Not a denier, but a poor jerk who wastes his time on irrelevant academic issues.






Cletus: It is not only the revisionists that are the danger to them. The other side of the issue (who tell you they have no side and nothing to defend) vigorously defend their position so unreasoningly in some cases, that they often insult those that agree with them.

Medorjurgen: Any examples of such unreasoning and insulting defense that you can show us?


Scott S: Funny, few of the Revisionists say the Holocaust never happened. They doubt things like gaschambers and atrocity propaganda and most think the six-million figure is an irresponsible exaggeration.


Medorjurgen: Well, I’d say downsizing genocide and mass murder against evidence is tantamount to denying it.

Scott S: Yes, I think the gassing stories at Treblinka and the gas-vans are nothing more than atrocity propaganda


Medorjurgen: On what basis do you think that, Reverend? Can you account for the fate of the hundreds of thousands who disappeared behind the gates of Treblinka? Can you explain away the documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence? Can you do anything other than helplessly squeal “forgery” when confronted with documents such as Just’s letter to Rauff of 5 June 1942? No, you can’t, which means that what you think is of no relevance whatsoever.

Scott S:
, which is not to say that nothing bad ever happened to the Jews.


Medorjurgen: No, they were “horribly abused” and “sometimes killed”, weren’t they?


Medorjurgen: So the Reverend feels cheated because the bloody Jew Nussbaum he had been told died in the gas chambers was eventually found to have survived. A statement that says much about the Reverend’s mentality and raises two questions:

Scott S:First of all I did not call Dr. Nussbaum a "Bloody Jew."

Medorjurgen:Short memory, Reverend. This is what you told sylviek4:

Quote:
Whether they did or did-not survive detention is pure speculation. We assumed that the Ghetto Boy was gassed and that is the rub. That's why it made such a pernicious atrocity photograph. If the man did not turn up as a prosperous NY physician he would have been just another nameless victim. I felt slightly cheated somehow when I first found that our darling Ghetto Boy survived the war. And that is atrocious in and of itself—I mean—that the heartstrings had been so callously plucked to make me almost sorry that someone was not victimized after all, when we were told, in not so many words, that he was.


Believe it or not, I by now know the Reverend well enough to read between the lines of his postings.


Tonyh: Where is the phrase "Bloody Jew" in this that you accuse Scott of saying?


Medorjurgen: A little quip, my friend. Where's your sense of humor?


Tonyh: Roberto, Scott did NOT mention "bloody Jew" once. And what's more YOU know this.

Medorjurgen: Of course I do. I was just reading his mind.




Cletus: If a poster says diesel couldn't work, so something else must have been used to kill people, and the poster never disputes the deaths, he's still attacked (rarely with evidence to support the attack).


Medorjurgen: Why, can you show me that poster? I must have missed him somehow.

Scott S:not by diesel exhaust.


Medorjurgen: If not by diesel exhaust, then by gasoline exhaust. Big deal


Scott S: A true historian would look at this and compare all the other evidence and conclude that a) A diesel engine wasn't used, and the witness is mistaken, b) that the method of death wasn't CO, c) an inefficient method of death was used.

Medorjurgen: If the Reverend had said “I think the gassing engine that killed hundreds of thousands of people at Treblinka was not a diesel engine, but a gasoline engine”, nobody would have cared about his stance. But the message was “they didn’t gas anybody there because if they had wanted to do so they would have used gasoline and not diesel engines”, wasn’t it? And that stance, as the Reverend should admit if there’s just a little intellectual honesty in him, absolutely sucks and is just about the greatest bullshit I’ve ever come across.




I got tired of cruising through posts filled with this stuff.

Cletus

[Roberto]

I got tired of cruising through posts filled with this stuff.

That makes it two of us.

If you're tired after two weeks of reading, imagine how tired I am after one and a half years of reading, writing and refuting the Reverend's nonsense over and over again, only to see it repeated a few days later on every appropriate or inappropriate occasion. And I dare say that I'm by no means the only one and haven't been for quite a while.

If you have time to spare and haven’t done so already, take a look at my post of Thu May 02, 2002 11:11 pm on the thread

The Leuchter Report Vindicated
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 385ef5797e

of this forum.