Freedom of speech and forum rules

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 16 Jul 2004 03:53

Konrad -- I remarked:
The main question is whether there were homicidal gas chambers in Bunker 1 at KL Auschwitz. There are a number of witnesses who say there were, and nothing so far to indicate that there weren't.

You replied:
Anyone who would attempt this could be accused of denying the Holocaust and be banned from future posting on this forum. You are not quite fair in your conclusion.
Neither are you. As pointed out in my post above, including a thread reference, LFS has already denied the existence of homicidal gas chambers in both Bunkers 1 and 2. That’s why I said:
Again, the primary issue isn't whether small aspects of their accounts may be mistaken, but whether what they're all talking about -- homicidal gas chambers in Bunker 1 -- is something that never existed. In other words, whether the homicidal gas chambers at Bunker 1 are, as LFS put it, "mythical."

see the "Nazi Gas Chambers" thread at:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=165
This thread is in response to that denial, as is the new Bunker 2 thread at:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=54706

Although you posted on the thread, you may have missed LFS's remark six weeks ago:
So, what we can concludes?
Basically, that, for admission of Pressac same, don't exist any documentary proof (or better, any proof) of the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz or in Birkenau.
But also that only at the time of the witchcraft trials, these examples of adminicula (parts of proof, presumptions, traces) have anyone significance and validity: so the black cat, the smell of sulphur or others stupidities have induced many judges or ordinary people to trust in the existence of wizards, demons and witchcrafts.
see the "Nazi Gas Chambers" thread at:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=75

LFS is still posting here though, isn't he?

I don’t know how you feel about being the object of sleazy insinuations, but I find it irritating. This most recent suggestion is the third from you which suggests that I am challenging others to answer questions when they will be banned for their honest answer. Here are the other two incidents:
To deny the existence of homicidal gas chambers is to my understanding equivalent to denying the Holocaust. And this is against the rules of this forum and will result in the banning of the poster. Please correct me if I am wrong.

To deny the Holocaust can be punished in Germany with up to five years in jail. Even the legal defence of a Holocaust denier in Germany is difficult if not impossible because the defending attorney may find himself in a situation of Holocaust denial. Too bad.

The debate of the existence of homicidal gas chambers is on this forum a dangerous topic.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#479300
Mr. David Thompson wrote:
It is possible to answer my questions without denying that the holocaust took place. It is also possible that a poster might have the opinion that the Nazi government did murder millions of Jewish, Gypsy, Polish and Russian civilians, but committed the killings by gunfire and other forms of lethal ill treatment rather than gassing.

You may want to check this with the bossman.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#479621
You also posted this sentiment:
David Thompson:
Hundreds of people said they saw something. If that something was never there, why did all those people say it was? How exactly is the question too broad and vague to answer? Why is it too difficult to debate?

A statement like "hundreds of victims, defendants, bystanders, subsequent witnesses and court proceedings, involving a dozen or more nations over a time frame of 60+ years, who said that there were homicidal gas chambers" would form in my opinion the basis of a belief. And I don't think that I care to debate someone elses believes. That is asking for trouble.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#480039
But you certainly didn’t have any problem the very next day expressing your beliefs on the subject:
In my opinion the concept of the Holocaust homicidal gas chambers should have been abandoned long ago. It is artificially kept alive only with the help of laws against Holocaust denial (Up to 5 years imprisonment in Germany, in Austria I think up to 20 years). This will last only a short time, until someone will certainly shout "But the emperor has no clothes on!"
And everyone will laugh.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#480688
In that post, you not only denied the existence of a homicidal gas chamber in Bunker 1 at KL Auschwitz; you denied that there were any homicidal gas chambers at all. But you're still posting here, aren't you? Under those circumstances, why would you insinuate -- two weeks after you denied that there were any homicidal gas chambers at all -- that:
Anyone who would attempt this [deny the existence of a homicidal gas chamber in Bunker 1 at KL Auschwitz] could be accused of denying the Holocaust and be banned from future posting on this forum.

Did you forget what you had written -- and gotten away with -- earlier? Or were you just being insincere when you posted your third innuendo on the subject of banning?

I asked you this question before, and you wouldn’t answer it. Normally I would let it pass, but since you seem a little “hung up” on the subject, I’ll ask it again:
Konrad -- You said:
"Non-denial deniers" Mr. WalterS? Very clever! It seems to me that the a non-denial denier is the result of the rules of this forum. Maybe one day someone opens a forum where anti-revisionism is not allowed. I am just trying to figure out how to call the occasional anti-revisionist who may have succeded to sneek in to such a forum. Any idea?


Why would a person want to participate in a forum where he didn't agree with the rules? What kind of person would play the part of a deceiver, in order to be able to post in a forum?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#480688
So how about it, Konrad? Why would a person want to participate in a forum where he didn't agree with the rules? What kind of person would play the part of a deceiver, in order to be able to post in a forum?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 16 Jul 2004 16:00

LFS -- The H&WC section rules are posted at:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

Under the caption "Claims and Proof," you will find this written:
The fifth rule of the forum is: "When quoting from a book or site, please provide info on the source (and a link if it is a website)."

If a poster raises a question about the events, other posters may answer the question with evidence. If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.

This requirement applies to each specific claim. In the past, some posters have attempted to evade the proof requirement by resort to the following tactics, none of which are acceptable here:

A general reference to a website, or a book without page references; citations or links to racist websites; generalized citations to book reviews; and citations to unsourced articles.

Noncomplying posts are subject to deletion after warning.
You have repeatedly violated this rule, and have also been repeatedly warned about your violations. The above post is yet another example of your failure to back up your historiographical fantasies and comply with forum rules. Beginning now, I will delete all unsourced claims which appear in your posts.

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 16 Jul 2004 16:29

David Thompson wrote:LFS -- The H&WC section rules are posted at:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

Under the caption "Claims and Proof," you will find this written:
The fifth rule of the forum is: "When quoting from a book or site, please provide info on the source (and a link if it is a website)."

If a poster raises a question about the events, other posters may answer the question with evidence. If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.

This requirement applies to each specific claim. In the past, some posters have attempted to evade the proof requirement by resort to the following tactics, none of which are acceptable here:

A general reference to a website, or a book without page references; citations or links to racist websites; generalized citations to book reviews; and citations to unsourced articles.

Noncomplying posts are subject to deletion after warning.
You have repeatedly violated this rule, and have also been repeatedly warned about your violations. The above post is yet another example of your failure to back up your historiographical fantasies and comply with forum rules. Beginning now, I will delete all unsourced claims which appear in your posts.
I have edited my "HISTORIOGRAPHICAL PHANTASIES" (sic!) with quotations and references to sources (none revisionistic!). Ah, i forget You cant't check my "HISTORIOGRAPHCAL PHANTASIES" because You don't have neither the book "Anatomy of Auschwitz Death Camp" nor the multivolume work (5 volumes) "Auschwitz 1940-45". So how You can speak of "HISTORIOGRAPHICAL PHANTASIES"? Very few here have posted so much primary, secondary sources, quotations from books in german, french, english, italian languages with translations of documents.
Really i think that You have personal problems with me. I take notice of this.
When and how i have repeatidly violated the rules of the forum is really a phantasy: Your phantasy. And if You want bans me from Forum, You do.
Another expression of freedom of speech will be given.

Best Regards

LFS

Konrad
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Jun 2004 00:41
Location: USA

Post by Konrad » 16 Jul 2004 17:28

David Thompson wrote: Why would a person want to participate in a forum where he didn't agree with the rules? What kind of person would play the part of a deceiver, in order to be able to post in a forum?
Definitions:
Forum = A public meeting or assembly for open discussion.

Debate = A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal.

I have nothing against you forum rules, Mr. Thompson. They are none of my business, I have enough other problems.

But I find this hilariously funny.

Konrad

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 16 Jul 2004 17:56

Dear Mr. David Thompson,

1) I'm still waiting for examples of my presumed "repeatdly violations of rules".
2) How You can qualifies my assertions as "historiographical phantasies" if You don't can check my sources (which are in 90% of cases to nonrevisionists works)?
3) How You can definies my last post on Bunker 1 as "offending"?
4) I have provided ALL sources, not "some". I wait for rectification from You.

An answer for one time (because i have answered ALL your questions, whetever or not You agrees with my opinions -- if i have forgotten one question give my notice i will provided) will be appreciated.

Best Regards

LFS
Last edited by Lucius Felix Silla on 16 Jul 2004 17:59, edited 1 time in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 16 Jul 2004 17:57

Konrad -- You failed answer the questions again.

LFS said:
Really i think that You have personal problems with me. I take notice of this.
If you take notice of the rules, there won't be a problem.

Note to readers -- After reading my warning, LFS edited his offending post to provide some sources. See:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#492290

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 16 Jul 2004 17:57

David Thompson wrote:Konrad -- You didn't answer the questions again.

LFS said:
Really i think that You have personal problems with me. I take notice of this.
If you take notice of the rules, there won't be a problem.

Note to readers -- After reading my warning, LFS edited his offending post to provide some sources. See:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#492290
No- ALL sources are provided, not "some". I wait for rectification.

Best Regards

LFS

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 16 Jul 2004 18:53

LFS -- You said:
How You can definies my last post on Bunker 1 as "offending"?
Before you edited it following my warning, none of your claims were documented.

You also remarked:
No- ALL sources are provided, not "some". I wait for rectification.
Where's the source for these statements:
He was interrogated on February 26, 1945, by the Soviets and later, on May 10 and 11 of the same year by the Poles. He was never able to identify the location where 'Bunker 1' had stood.

As for instances of your failures to present supporting documentation for your claims, here are some of my earlier remarks to you on that subject:

2 examples
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 72&start=0
1 example
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=15
1 example
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=45
1 example
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 93&start=0
1 example
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=489633
1 example
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=486405
2 examples
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=150
3 examples
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=120
1 example
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=15

Other posters have also complained about your failures to provide support for your claims, but I don't propose to take up any more time with this matter. You've had your warning. Henceforth, if your posts do not comply with the rules of this forum, I will delete them in part or in their entirety.

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 16 Jul 2004 20:02

David Thompson wrote:LFS -- You said:
How You can definies my last post on Bunker 1 as "offending"?
Before you edited it following my warning, none of your claims were documented.

You also remarked:
No- ALL sources are provided, not "some". I wait for rectification.
Where's the source for these statements:
He was interrogated on February 26, 1945, by the Soviets and later, on May 10 and 11 of the same year by the Poles. He was never able to identify the location where 'Bunker 1' had stood.

As for instances of your failures to present supporting documentation for your claims, here are some of my earlier remarks to you on that subject:

2 examples
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 72&start=0
1 example
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=15
1 example
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=45
1 example
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 93&start=0
1 example
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=489633
1 example
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=486405
2 examples
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=150
3 examples
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=120
1 example
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=15

Other posters have also complained about your failures to provide support for your claims, but I don't propose to take up any more time with this matter. You've had your warning. Henceforth, if your posts do not comply with the rules of this forum, I will delete them in part or in their entirety.
This is simply H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S. All singular claims provided to You are falses. One have simply to check. If sometimes i don't provides immediately the source is because i take for granted that You understand and have the reference to check my assertion. On only single case (Natzweiler case) i'm wrong. Can happen. Mr.xcalibur kindly have suggested this for me and i have admitted my error.

Best regards

LFS

User avatar
Allen Milcic
Member
Posts: 2903
Joined: 09 Sep 2003 20:29
Location: Canada

Post by Allen Milcic » 16 Jul 2004 20:10

Konrad wrote:
David Thompson wrote: Why would a person want to participate in a forum where he didn't agree with the rules? What kind of person would play the part of a deceiver, in order to be able to post in a forum?
Definitions:
Forum = A public meeting or assembly for open discussion.

Debate = A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal.

I have nothing against you forum rules, Mr. Thompson. They are none of my business, I have enough other problems.

But I find this hilariously funny.

Konrad
Sir:

I'm not sure I understand the hilarity - you are posting in a privately owned Forum that requests of participants to adhere to a set of (rather lax) rules of behaviour. By applying for and accepting membership on the Forum, you are also willingly accepting the rules of behaviour as set out by the Forum administration. You are welcome to advance your propositions, positions and opinions within these set rules; if you are unhappy with the rules, or unable to adhere to them, then you are free to post elsewhere. If, on the other hand, you have nothing against the Forum rules, then post within the guidelines and quit whining.

Allen/

Konrad
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Jun 2004 00:41
Location: USA

Post by Konrad » 31 Jul 2004 02:18

David Thompson wrote: I don’t know how you feel about being the object of sleazy insinuations [An indirect (and usually malicious) implication], but I find it irritating.
It was not my intent to insult you.
David Thompson wrote: So how about it, Konrad? Why would a person want to participate in a forum where he didn't agree with the rules? What kind of person would play the part of a deceiver, in order to be able to post in a forum?
It seems that I am blacklisted by the moderator. Well, asi es la vida. :D

These rules are not my rules, they are yours. You should be bothered by them, not me.

And I resent that "deceiver" bit, especially coming from a moderator, whose principal job should be to moderate, not to insult.
Konrad wrote:In my opinion the concept of the Holocaust homicidal gas chambers should have been abandoned long ago.
I stand by this, after studying all material, technical and documentary evidence and eye witness testimonies, as is available to me on this subject.

And my advice was well intentioned.
Allen Milcic wrote: Sir:

I'm not sure I understand the hilarity - you are posting in a privately owned Forum that requests of participants to adhere to a set of (rather lax) rules of behaviour. By applying for and accepting membership on the Forum, you are also willingly accepting the rules of behaviour as set out by the Forum administration. You are welcome to advance your propositions, positions and opinions within these set rules; if you are unhappy with the rules, or unable to adhere to them, then you are free to post elsewhere. If, on the other hand, you have nothing against the Forum rules, then post within the guidelines and quit whining.

Allen/
Sorry for my late answer. I lost track of this thread (posting too much).

I am neither unhappy with this forum's rules nor unable to adhere to them. I couldn't care less. I simply do not understand how a "privately owned" forum invites posters to debate certain topics and at the same time posts rules that could lead to the banning of the poster if his expressed opinion is opposite from the moderator's or the webmaster's point of view.


kb

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 31 Jul 2004 02:43

I have nothing against you forum rules, Mr. Thompson. They are none of my business,

Code: Select all

I have enough other problems
.
Why do I find this too easy to believe?

User avatar
Phil V
Member
Posts: 1635
Joined: 21 May 2002 12:18
Location: Australia (usually)

Post by Phil V » 31 Jul 2004 04:04

Konrad wrote:
David Thompson wrote: I don’t know how you feel about being the object of sleazy insinuations [An indirect (and usually malicious) implication], but I find it irritating.
It was not my intent to insult you.
David Thompson wrote: So how about it, Konrad? Why would a person want to participate in a forum where he didn't agree with the rules? What kind of person would play the part of a deceiver, in order to be able to post in a forum?
It seems that I am blacklisted by the moderator. Well, asi es la vida. :D

These rules are not my rules, they are yours. You should be bothered by them, not me.

And I resent that "deceiver" bit, especially coming from a moderator, whose principal job should be to moderate, not to insult.
Konrad wrote:In my opinion the concept of the Holocaust homicidal gas chambers should have been abandoned long ago.
I stand by this, after studying all material, technical and documentary evidence and eye witness testimonies, as is available to me on this subject.

And my advice was well intentioned.
Allen Milcic wrote: Sir:

I'm not sure I understand the hilarity - you are posting in a privately owned Forum that requests of participants to adhere to a set of (rather lax) rules of behaviour. By applying for and accepting membership on the Forum, you are also willingly accepting the rules of behaviour as set out by the Forum administration. You are welcome to advance your propositions, positions and opinions within these set rules; if you are unhappy with the rules, or unable to adhere to them, then you are free to post elsewhere. If, on the other hand, you have nothing against the Forum rules, then post within the guidelines and quit whining.

Allen/
Sorry for my late answer. I lost track of this thread (posting too much).

I am neither unhappy with this forum's rules nor unable to adhere to them. I couldn't care less. I simply do not understand how a "privately owned" forum invites posters to debate certain topics and at the same time posts rules that could lead to the banning of the poster if his expressed opinion is opposite from the moderator's or the webmaster's point of view.


kb
If you don't like the rules - leave.

No one forces you to come here.

MB

xcalibur
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 15:12
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by xcalibur » 31 Jul 2004 04:54

Konrad wrote:
David Thompson wrote: I don?t know how you feel about being the object of sleazy insinuations [An indirect (and usually malicious) implication], but I find it irritating.
It was not my intent to insult you.
David Thompson wrote: So how about it, Konrad? Why would a person want to participate in a forum where he didn't agree with the rules? What kind of person would play the part of a deceiver, in order to be able to post in a forum?
It seems that I am blacklisted by the moderator. Well, asi es la vida. :D

These rules are not my rules, they are yours. You should be bothered by them, not me.

And I resent that "deceiver" bit, especially coming from a moderator,
whose principal job should be to moderate, not to insult.
Konrad wrote:In my opinion the concept of the Holocaust homicidal gas chambers should have been abandoned long ago.
I stand by this, after studying all material, technical and documentary evidence and eye witness testimonies, as is available to me on this subject.

And my advice was well intentioned.
Allen Milcic wrote: Sir:

I'm not sure I understand the hilarity - you are posting in a privately owned Forum that requests of participants to adhere to a set of (rather lax) rules of behaviour. By applying for and accepting membership on the Forum, you are also willingly accepting the rules of behaviour as set out by the Forum administration. You are welcome to advance your propositions, positions and opinions within these set rules; if you are unhappy with the rules, or unable to adhere to them, then you are free to post elsewhere. If, on the other hand, you have nothing against the Forum rules, then post within the guidelines and quit whining.

Allen/
Sorry for my late answer. I lost track of this thread (posting too much).

I am neither unhappy with this forum's rules nor unable to adhere to them. I couldn't care less. I simply do not understand how a "privately owned" forum invites posters to debate certain topics and at the same time posts rules that could lead to the banning of the poster if his expressed opinion is opposite from the moderator's or the webmaster's point of view.


kb

Then you are the only one. Perhaps you should start a forum of your own.

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 20:54
Location: Arlington, TX

Post by WalterS » 01 Aug 2004 00:12

I don't know why Konrad should be worried about the Forum rules regarding Holocaust denial. They aren't enforced, anyway.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”