Questions on Nick Terry's suitability to issue challenge

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Blogbuster
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:35 pm

Questions on Nick Terry's suitability to issue challenge

Postby Blogbuster » 8 years 8 months ago (Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:43 am)

Dr Nick Terry of HolocaustControversies recently issued a challenge over on RODOH, welcoming revisionists to debate the Holocaust with he and his pals. (I'd post the link, but I'm not inclined to drive Internet traffic to RODOH)

There have been questions raised on the hate blog watch forum as to his suitability and/or credibility to issue such a challenge, and that discussion can be found here:
http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/227 ... -hypocrisy

My own questions come to mind as the purpose behind the RODOH challenge?
Is that forum really so desperate for readership that they will continually try to purge members from CODOH and entice them their forum?

Isn't the debate that Terry advocates for simply the day-to-day discussion that occurs here everyday? Every poster on CODOH is either making a point against the Hoax, or a believer attempting to debunk those points.

What value add does a new challenge by Terry, over on a forum that is well known for underhanded activity, unruly behavior, censorship, and (if you believe HBW, perhaps even criminal), truly offer anyone?

Blog Buster
Blog Buster!

Anders
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Questions around Nick Terry's suitability to issue chall

Postby Anders » 8 years 8 months ago (Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:41 pm)

Why is Nick Terry so terrified of debating on the codoh forum? He and all his HC pals post here anyway (In just this one codoh thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6166&hilit=nick+terry Nick Terry, Jonathan Harrison, Mike Peters, Joachim Neander and Roberto Muehlenkamp all post), so why do they NEED to debate on a forum where the "moderator" allows them to ignore questions and refuse to back up their absurd claims with proof?

Why do they want a "debate" when what they are being asked to do is provide the proof of their absurd mass murder claims?

BB

What value does a new challenge by Terry, over on a forum that is well known for underhanded activity, unruly behavior, censorship, and (if you believe HBW, perhaps even criminal), truly offer anyone?


The "value" for the deniers like Terry and his HC pals is that they can continue to obfuscate under the guise of debate and continue to avoid the uncomfortable fact that they have lied themselves into a corner and are being forced to put up or shut up. But over at rodoh, they can continue their lies and sophistry without having to answer any questions or provide any proof of their absurd mass murder claims.

If they could actually defend their absurd claims, they would. And they wouldn't be afraid to do it here. But they can't, so they play the endless "debate" (i.e. - obfuscate) game.

It allows them to pretend that the ball isn't in their court.

But we all know that it is.

For example:

It is a historical fact that not one of the 54 fraudulently alleged “huge mass graves” of Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka has ever been proven to contain so much as - 1 / 1,000 of 1 % - of the alleged buried bodies, and not so much as one single person has ever been proven to have died by means of poison gas in a homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor or Treblinka.


They hoaxers continue to deny the above historical fact yet they cannot offer any proof to dispute it. They pull their hair out, spit and scream at their computers and demand more "debate." But their's nothing to debate. Facts are facts and the hoaxers are the true deniers of historical facts. Again, if they could offer proof, they would. It's just like the moderator here who warned Nick Terry in the tread link that I provided:

Mr. Terry,
Your post depends on the accuracy of the gas chambers story, your avoiding that topic renders all else concerning cremations irrelevant. It is in your best interests to support your cremations assertions with information that Hannover requests. It is, afterall, you who has falsely claimed that this forum 'censors' extermationists. One would think that you would relish the opportunity to set Revisionists straight. I can only repeat what has been said, "Here's your chance", what are you waiting for?
Mod3


And what did Nick Terry do when offered "the opportunity to set Revisionists straight?"

He ran away from the thread and ended his part in the "debate" the moment he was asked to put up or shut up.

So his "suitability and/or credibility" to offer any challenge is zero.

User avatar
Blogbuster
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:35 pm

Re: Questions around Nick Terry's suitability to issue chall

Postby Blogbuster » 8 years 8 months ago (Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:54 am)

I for one am curious to know what Nick Terry's reponse is to the HBW comments about his suitablity to even put forth a challenge, especially when he has refused to accept so many challenges put forth to him and his group in the recent past?

Mr. Terry, we all know you frequent CODOH since you spend so much time trying to steal it's membership,.. how do you respond to the above mentioned thread on HBW?

BB
Blog Buster!

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Re: Questions around Nick Terry's suitability to issue chall

Postby PotPie » 8 years 8 months ago (Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:50 pm)

I've never been inclined to register at RODOH, in no small part due to experiences there a few years ago a friend of mine had. In short, "deniers" are immediately put upon by staff who not only personally insult them along with other users (this is "real debate" apparently), but dig around in their personal user information inside of their profile with their admin privileges digging for juicy tidbits. So no, I don't go there, and I'd advise against such a thing.

User avatar
Blogbuster
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:35 pm

Re: Questions around Nick Terry's suitability to issue chall

Postby Blogbuster » 8 years 8 months ago (Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:51 pm)

PotPie wrote:I've never been inclined to register at RODOH, in no small part due to experiences there a few years ago a friend of mine had. In short, "deniers" are immediately put upon by staff who not only personally insult them along with other users (this is "real debate" apparently), but dig around in their personal user information inside of their profile with their admin privileges digging for juicy tidbits. So no, I don't go there, and I'd advise against such a thing.


PotPie,
I couldn't agree with you more. However, many of the key posters there are caught up in a lot worse activity then insults. There is a discussion about it over on HBW: http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/230 ... town--Good


BB
Blog Buster!

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Re: Questions around Nick Terry's suitability to issue chall

Postby PotPie » 8 years 8 months ago (Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:45 pm)

Blogbuster wrote:PotPie,
I couldn't agree with you more. However, many of the key posters there are caught up in a lot worse activity then insults. There is a discussion about it over on HBW: http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/230 ... town--Good


BB


I think the point of admins fishing in user profiles like that was for the purpose of getting usable, and hopefully private, info so they could post that info in public and "out" that person in front of everyone. Behaving that way and then saying your forum is "real open deabte" is a pile of steaming BS.

You can argue and accuse all you want about this forum, but that kind of filth never goes on here.

As far as your link, I'm not familiar with any of it (have been away dealing with college classes). Looks interesting, though. I notice that Mathis left and had his posts deleted long ago, perhaps he finally realized its not intelligent for someone with professional career goals to post poo-poo personal insults on a blog using his business title.

User avatar
Blogbuster
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:35 pm

Re: Questions on Nick Terry's suitability to issue challenge

Postby Blogbuster » 8 years 8 months ago (Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:46 am)

Hello PotPie,

You raise interesting points about the conduct of the RODOH moderators. It stands to reason that they are, and should always be, considered as an untrustworthy lot. Firstly, for the reasons you have outlined, which have been confirmed by so many people exploited and attacked on that forum in the past, but there is also the question of the lack of credibility of the members and moderators.

The fact remains that the more senior members like Nick Terry, Mathis, and Muehlenkamp, have allegedly been linked to fraud on multiple levels, and we have all witnessed the censorship and support that the mods like NexGen have afforded them.

As you have stated, the mods have in fact divulged private information about revisionist members, and provided that info to their buddies, to harass and harangue those that opposed them. The notion of any fair and true debate at RODOH purely farcical.

However it goes even further than that. As we we see in the links I have posted that, Dr. Terry and Roberto Muehlenkamp's nemesis, the Hate Blog Watch people claim, and with great enthusiasm I might add, that the original Holocaust Controversies bunch were involved in forged historical documents and photographs.

They also claim that those same individuals vandalized their hoax site http://www.deathcamps.org, which, if you visit, you will find disclaimers' warning people to avoid Terry, Romanov, and Muehlenkamp.

If this evidence bares out, then who on the RODOH forum could, or should be considered a credible opponent to debate the factuality of the Holocaust?

Certainly not people who have dabbled in fakes, forgeries and vandalism.

At least one wouldn't think so?

Blog Buster

Update: It there is a new discussion about what is termed the "Bitch Slapping of Roberto Muhlenkamp and Nick Terry", that discusses their ongoing attempts to pilfer the very same website that banned them both. (Quite telling) here is the link:

http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/232 ... CH-SLAPPED
Blog Buster!

Anders
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Questions on Nick Terry's suitability to issue challenge

Postby Anders » 8 years 8 months ago (Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:04 pm)

Thank you for that link BB. This was my favorite post:

Hey Roberto,

You keep writing on RODOH that you are making the CODOH revisionists nervous. From my vantage point they don't look nervous to me. In fact it appears as if you have lost any ability to debate them at all, since you are a founding member of the criminal hate blog team: Holocaust Controversies!

If you had any balls you would step up and respond as has been requested here hundreds of times.

But your balls were obviously removed when your wife dumped your bald ass, and left you in that decaying shit-hole you live in, in Lisbon. Talk about a loser....

IPT



BB, you made some very important points, especially

"It stands to reason that they are, and should always be, considered as an untrustworthy lot."

and

"The fact remains that the more senior members like Nick Terry, Mathis, and Muehlenkamp, have allegedly been linked to fraud on multiple levels"

and

"However it goes even further than that."



FYI, Roberto has recently reneged on a promise to pay Brian Laine (As can be seen on the VNN forum) a possible $15,000.00! After agreeing a deal and after Brian Laine upheld his end of the deal, Roberto reneged by publicly proclaiming that "there won't be a cent" given to Brian Laine.

I agree with you that these charlatans behavior goes beyond the unethical and is actually criminal. However, you go on and on about the Three Stooges, and rightfully so, but how can you talk about all that unethical and crimianl activity without mentioning the person who owns the rodoh site and lets it all that crap happen?

One other thing that might be of interest to you BB. It has just been revealed that Roberto is posting on the Skeptic Magazine forum using the sockpuppet "Mathew Ellard."

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Re: Questions on Nick Terry's suitability to issue challenge

Postby PotPie » 8 years 8 months ago (Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:28 pm)

WOW!!! I only nominally paid attention to this stuff and just now poked around on deathcamps.org looking for these pages myself... Its all true, I love it!

:lol: :cheers:

That is some hilarious shit!

http://www.deathcamps.org/sergeyandnick.html

LMFAO!!!!

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Re: Questions on Nick Terry's suitability to issue challenge

Postby PotPie » 8 years 8 months ago (Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:34 pm)

Blogbuster wrote:However it goes even further than that. As we we see in the links I have posted that, Dr. Terry and Roberto Muehlenkamp's nemesis, the Hate Blog Watch people claim, and with great enthusiasm I might add, that the original Holocaust Controversies bunch were involved in forged historical documents and photographs.


Interesting... Where can I find out more info on this? I'd like to weigh the evidence of their actions myself.

*EDIT* I seem to have found a forum page with accusations, at any rate, and a confirmation of some kind of shenanigans by the ARC guys. What on earth in the hell has been going on here while I've been in class?

Oh God, and if this isn't enough, check out Terry's Exeter page:

http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/history/ ... /teaching/

Dr Nicholas Terry
Modules Taught
•HIH1296 - Forging Modern Europe
•HIH1537 - Divided Germany 1945-1990
•HIH2001 - Doing History: Perspectives on Sources
•HIH3575 - The Cold War



Now THAT is hilarious! PERSPECTIVES ON SOURCES? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!

OH wait wait wait.. It's getting worse...

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/39171 ... -historian

Holocaust denial is slowly becoming a thing of the past, according to a leading authority who claims there are only three or four "pure denial experts".

Dr Nicholas Terry, founder of the anti-denial blog Holocaust Controversies, told a Leicester University conference that denial these days has "great brand recognition, but almost zero customers".

Dr Terry, a historian at Exeter University, said: "My assessment is that there have been around 100 authors since the 1940s who have written what can be considered pure denial books or pamphlets.

User avatar
Cloud
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:27 pm
Location: The Land of Political Correctness

Re: Questions on Nick Terry's suitability to issue challenge

Postby Cloud » 8 years 8 months ago (Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:08 am)

PotPie wrote:Oh God, and if this isn't enough, check out Terry's Exeter page:

http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/history/ ... /teaching/

No photograph. Department webpages sometimes show photos of their faculty and graduate students, but apparently not this one.

Is this what he looks like?

PotPie wrote:OH wait wait wait.. It's getting worse...

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/39171 ... -historian
.

After going to your link, I find this:
Orthodox Historian wrote:"The big names of the eighties and nineties are mostly over 60. Very few under-60s are stepping up to replace them.

He's kind of right about that. Poring over thousands of documents, analyzing them, and then writing books that explain them to laypersons probably takes a significant chunk of one's lifespan. How many in their 20s or even their 30s have done this?

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Re: Questions on Nick Terry's suitability to issue challenge

Postby PotPie » 8 years 8 months ago (Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:18 am)

Cloud wrote:Is this what he looks like?


Yeah, that's him... Nowdays, apparently, he's pudgier.

http://sergeyromanovwatch.blogspot.com/ ... mment-form

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Re: Questions on Nick Terry's suitability to issue challenge

Postby PotPie » 8 years 8 months ago (Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:19 pm)

Boy, I make a single post about these guys being banned by ARC and already I'm being attacked by Muehlenkamp at RODOH for it. That just brings up another reason to mind why I've never wanted to post over there, on top of the as I previously mentioned fishing that admins do in profiles of revisionist users.

Well, dear Roberto... ARC said it, not me. Deal with it like a big boy.

http://deathcamps.blogspot.com/2010/03/ ... m-arc.html

As you were, buttheads.

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Re: Questions on Nick Terry's suitability to issue challenge

Postby PotPie » 8 years 8 months ago (Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:45 pm)

Whether or not the accuastions made here about the HC group trying to do something to ARC is true, there's another, far more relevant thing going on.

According to this, http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... fakes.html the HC group accused ARC staff of posting fraudulent materials and not checking sources. In an apparently shocked, horrified response, the HC guys recoiled and complained. These complaints were brushed off and ignored.

So... What's new about that?

Revisionists have pointed out in detail this kind of thing going on chronically in holocaust historiography going how far back? Are they paid attention to? Why should you be, HC bloggers?

I ended up writing a CODOH-published paper on Filip Mueller due to the research I did on Mueller which no mainstream historian even bothered with. By the time I came to the end of my research, I realized that Mueller was a far bigger faker than I had remotely realized. Sergey Romanov came across some of the oddities in Mueller's testimonies that pointed toward him being a fraudulent witness and presented those things to a web forum for historians. Nobody touched it with a 10-foot pole. The question is, why didn't someone thoroughly research people like Mueller before sourcing him all over the place? Surely an even casual read of his various testimonies bared more than obvious that the guy is a prolific liar. Why was it up to holocaust revisionism to do this work and lay it out?

Worse! Why is it that once revisionism exposed this clown, were his testimonies not pulled from serious historical websites and omitted from holocaust studies? Nobody, be it the HC blog or anyone else, has ever debunked my essay on Mueller and thus saved Mueller's trashed reputation (in fact because they cannot and we all know it). They simply pretend as if the evidence for Mueller's deceit isn't there and continue to cite him and peddle his memoir to the gullible and emotional. At best, in the case of the HC blog, they simply pretend he doesn't exist. Has anyone removed Mueller's crap from their shelves or excluded him from new research? NOPE! Why should they pay attention to YOU and your complaints of faked material? Pressac was also exposed for using a fake, and I mean completely fabricated and non-existent, citation and nobody uttered a peep about it. Van Pelt, the understudy of the aforementioned faker, was all too happy to use the faked testimony of Mueller to spackle together the bits of holocaust narrative he was writing about, regardless if Mueller's testimony severely contradicted the mainstream account he was promoting, such as the boarding-up of the Birkenau morgue chutes. Then again, that's what happens when you're such a lazy butt you don't look up the totality of his testimony to see if he's not contradicting himself or otherwise fluffing up his story... Or if you're just a willful liar and don't care.

Guys, they do this shit all the time... Wake the hell up.
Last edited by PotPie on Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blogbuster
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:35 pm

Re: Questions on Nick Terry's suitability to issue challenge

Postby Blogbuster » 8 years 8 months ago (Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:20 pm)

PotPie,

Being attacked by Muehlenkamp of RODOH for a simple statement you made here is par for the course. I am not a member of the Hate Blog Watch forum, although I do read the posts frequently. I used to be a regular visitor to RODOH and that is where I chanced upon the whole HC/ARC thing.

I found the circumstances around the affair hard to dismiss and the accusations put forth by Sergey Romanov were highly implausible. So I did a little investigation of my own, even wrote to the ARC people. However ARC members were unwilling to provide more than a cursory overview, and I was unable to to ascertain the exact nature of what actually went down. Yet one thing was clear, the HC boys did something very underhanded!

From what I learned, they were all most certainly involved with some form of forgery, either a document or photo, or both. They also embarked on a blatant smear campaign and subsequent malware attack. This I believe has been proven.

How the HBW group came about is at this time unclear to me but I would venture to say that they obviously aren't fans of Nick Terry, and Roberto Muehlenkamp.

Some of these HBW posts are extremely funny though!

BB
Blog Buster!


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests