Are there points that have been missed or censored?

[Moderator]

The Moderators of this forum see all kinds of posts which claim that we do not permit views that supposedly support the standard story line, due to their hateful nature we are often compelled to delete them. We are, however, sensitive to such opinions when legitimately stated.

As I peruse through our vast archives, for the life of me, I cannot find one question that is part of the story that we have not permitted discussion.

Can anyone think of any Believer points that we have not allowed? Can anyone think of any Believer points that are missing?

If so, please state them.

Thanks, Moderator1

[David]

Post my "number 1 question" thread.

[Moderator]

And what is that?

- Moderator1

[Haldan]

All the threads that I have posted has been answered.

[Moderator3]

David:

Knowing your position, you're "number 1 question" makes little sense.
I assume you want to debate the Einsatzgruppen yet again. Ok, there are a lot of existing threads here on that topic. The Einsatzgruppen have not been censored as a topic. Some of your nonsensical posts have been deleted, however. Don't play games, please.
M3

[Potyondi]

My posts have routinely been censored or deleted.

[Moderator]

Potyondi:

Judging from:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1232
you have been making posts which are outside the subject matter of this forum. I note the 'again' in the subject line. We have guidelines which you agreed to when you signed up.

As far as I can tell nothing of yours has been deleted / censored for on-subject content. In fact, this forum welcomes arguments from advocates of the story as it is alleged.

Moderator1

[Scott]

Why was my post of 7/22/04 11:15 am deleted?

[Moderator3]

According to info. that I have, your post (in the recent Krege thread, I believe) was redundant and overtly personal. The content of that deleted post contained nothing that was not already stated in the same thread. Therefore, pertinent content was not censored. Having a redundant and overtly personal post deleted is not the same as censoring a viewpoint. This is a moderated board with simple and clear guidelines, please review them.
M3
ps: I see that no one is pointing out an actual viewpoint relevant to this forum that was censored.

[Juan]

IMHO, It'd be a better policy to let posts that are redundant, etc etc as long as they're not offensive and/or off-topic. Just add a Mod's comment at the end, emphasizing that there's no obligation to reply and warning the poster.

Also, deleted posts could be archived somewhere to avoid guessing.

That's a healthy way to avoid accusations of partiality that are sometimes, from my point of view, understandable.

Hope this helps,

Juan.

[Moderator3]

Juan:
Thanks for your comments. The problem with allowing redundant posts (some will be inevitable, ofcourse) is that the thread becomes hopelessly cluttered, making the thread difficult to follow. We must remember the new guy who is curious and looking for answers. One of the common tactics in any debate is for one side to deliberately distract and confuse the points that are being made. Drawing out a thread, with repetitious posts can be one those tactics, hence the guideline against it.

As for archiving deleted posts; that is much too time consuming for the Moderators here. Besides, unless a post is seen in the context of the thread, it's reason for being deleted will be obscured. Redundant posts, attempts to change the subject, off-topic posts etc. must be read within the context of the thread in order understand why they were deleted.
i.e.:
A post on alleged human soap, when the thread is about alleged gas chambers, is clearly off-topic; but when simply set them aside in some designated 'memory hole' cache the real reason for it's deletion is lost.

Anyway, the point of all this is that there is no censorship of actual views which support or refute any topic related to the holocaust story. We have, however, seen many a sore loser use that as an excuse for seeing their views refuted.
M3

[Moderator3]

Trojan:

Your last post here was much too aggressive, hence it's gone; however I will address your points .

On "anti-Revisionist views"
There are many posts at this forum by yourself, Andrew Mathis, Cortagravatas, David, an Israeli guy, Hebden, and more that do indeed present the views in support of the standard story, I suggest that you look at them.

Your obsession with Hannover
It seems much too personal, and futhermore the points you spoke of were addressed by Hannover in the thread you mentioned. And, as you admit, Hannover apologized for a cited incident; no need for moderation there. You, as do others, enagage in much too much repetition. You get a response, but keep on posting the same thing while ignoring the response you received or while dodging a challenge to support your position.

As was previiously stated, deletion of offending posts are not the same as censoring views.

As Moderator 2 mentioned to you earlier, you should start trying to refute rather than complain (I'm paraphrasing here).
M3

[Goethe]

Well, I see that no one can show a censored viewpoint. That is what the moderators seem to want to know. Without some form of moderation we end up with a lot namecalling and BS. The guidelines seem pretty mild to me.

[Hannover]

I notice that AshesAreBurning cannot name one topic related to the subject of this forum that has been 'censored'. Oh well.

- Hannover

[kk]

Moderators, keep up the good work, please.