the impossibility of debate on most forums

[Balsamo]

Well Eric,

Good Job...If your intention was to create a mess!
Looks like you wanted to summerize all CODOH in one single thread, hoping to keep a openend and clear discussion.
It is like asking "do you like or hate the USA?" or "Here is why i think Jesus never existed?" or "Why i believe in God!"

What you did is putting the most wellknown Revisionist's arguments (the good and the bad ones) in one block! and asked "What do you think?"

What were your expectations? really

Carolyn said
this is why I don't believe in the "quiet reasonableness" promoted by Kingfisher

On the contrary...i would said that is why your ideological and political inspired postings won't never be accepted except by your fans!
If you would want to "convert" anyone, even only have a serious discussions on this subject, I would suppose it like schooling...it's a long process...step by step...teached by qualified persons...( I mean a person that have sufficiant knowledge of each of the points you refered to.
You don't learn a kid to read by giving him the bible to read for next week!

You started by stating that All the alledged Nazis crimes were invented to distract the people from the crimes committed by the Allies and the Russians! Of course, no need to prove or support all those Allies' crimes, they are "WELL-KNOWN", but of course, the Germans never committed any crimes as they were no proven gaz chambers at Brikenau... Well to settle the atmosphere of a further debate, it is a bit strong don't you think?

Then follows

the IMT of Nuremberg was only after intense lobbying of the "world Jewish congress"!

- First this is nonsense...Morgenthau, wich could be described as a jewish influence, never supported the trials and would have love to have all the Nazis shot...But maybe Stalin was Jewish, as well as de Gaulle and Jackson...? As it is well known that the first GRAND trial was all about the suffering of the Jews...
- Second from the start - because we are not even at the end of the begining of the subject of your debate- it's indeed raised the question of your knowledge of the IMT- as you don't give any sources to support this assertion.
- Third, who ,among your leftist forumers has a real knowledge of those trials?

There can't be a real debate in those conditions...only exchanges of baseless opinions...
As i see it, it would have quickly degenerated in a debate about the Jews, their politics, their powers, their conspiracies, etc...and Anti-Semitism in the end...A mess as i said!

I mean you could have started by proposing "Let's all read Stäglish and let's discuss the book next week"! or only adressed your opinion on the IMT (with sources)...The same way you could have provided a link so that every could at this great movie that is "Der Ewige Jude" before discussing it.

What you tried to do is to kidnap a monk to trying convince him that is life has been a waste and that God do not exist"

So again, what did you expect?

[The Warden]

It's the internet, people.

Get over it.

[Balsamo]

It's the internet, people.

Get over it.

This way, at least, it does not end in riots and streetfightings!

[SevenUp]

It's the internet, people.

Get over it.

????? It's all we got.

[gbrecht]

It's the internet, people.

Get over it.

????? It's all we got.

You are so wrong, you can easily go to any public forum and let your thoughts be known. Just bring soap on a roap.

[Carolyn Yeager]

Eric, this is why I don't believe in the "quiet reasonableness" promoted by Kingfisher. As you see, it didn't work although you had everything in perfect order. I wonder why Kingfisher is proud that you used his arguments in order to fail. Well, I'm kidding because I would rather that you had gained a convert or two. But here's the thing: I don't think most on that forum ever read it; I couldn't really read it myself. If they read it, it was quick and they didn't try to think about or digest any of it. It was too much all at once.

It has to be something powerful - one thing at a time - that grabs their attention. They may scream and howl, but they can't deny because it's demonstrably true! Quiet reasonableness can work over time with someone who is open to listening and thinking, but to those who are not (most) it is just passing wind. It makes no impression.

thanks for your reply carolyn. i always enjoy reading your contributions to this board, but i'm not sure i agree with your stance on debating tactics. aside from the fact that t's not really in my nature to be in-your-face combative, i think it it might be premature to conclude that my effort "failed". i wasn't expecting any damascene "conversions" and even if that had happened, the chances of anybody declaring reasonable doubts in that atmosphere was zero. the best i could hope for was to expose some people to a new perspective and maybe plant seeds for the future. i certainly wasn't immediately converted by the first lucid presentation of the revisionist case that i heard but the damage was done to my presuppositions (perhaps only on a unconscious level) which led me to where i am now on the subject. the first damage to my "belief system" was simply finding out that zyklon-b had a legitimate use and was not manufactured by ig farben for the sole purpose of gassing jews (which i had naively assumed from the propaganda).

i certainly made a lot of mistakes in that debate and it has been a learning experience for next time. i should have narrowed the focus even more -- perhaps say, to gas chambers at auschwitz or the veracity of the witness, disproof of which should discomfit any disinterested believer -- and i shouldn't have tried to take on so many questions at once. i still think i was right though not to try to match my main opponent's volume of posted links and quotes and to keep my statements brief as these extended ping-pong quoting sessions are just off-putting to most people (and nobody much clicks on the links anyway).

i think the best you can achieve in these situations is not to appear like the caricature antisemite neonazi irrational "denier" that the holocaust promoters have implanted in ordinary people's heads with their propaganda. the cognitive dissonance that this creates should then do the job on anybody with any intelligence.

Dear eric,

You imply that my stance on "debating tactics" is "in-your-face combative." Interesting. Do you get those words from your own reaction/interpretation to what I've written here, or from a couple of posters who have been using those words more and more often to describe me. I would call them repetitive-boring.

But lets look at what you said. It was you yourself that said you had failed; I was only picking up on that. It's true we never know who might have changed their thinking in some small way by hearing us, though they don't say so. But if your objective was to have an ongoing, serious debate on the subject, you did fail to accomplish that. But it is near impossible, so you set yourself an impossible task. I once put in a lot of effort on a discussion group that I had been a part of for several years, to have a real "discussion" about the holocaust. Several members agreed to do it, and I know they meant it. But they didn't know what they were getting into. I had voluminous amounts of information to give them, and they didn't know jack-sh-t. They had no idea how complex it was. So they quickly quit. In fact, only one guy every presented anything, which I quickly refuted; then a few others applauded him, even though they didn't know anything about it. This is how it always goes. It's not possible to have a real debate; we can barely have debates on CODOH forum.

the first damage to my "belief system" was simply finding out that zyklon-b had a legitimate use and was not manufactured by ig farben for the sole purpose of gassing jews

That's it. One simple thing that is incontestably true is what you use. You don't have to explain the whole event; no one even wants to hear all that. Too hard. Just one simple fact. Zyklon B was there for the purpose of disinfection/delousing to prevent disease! They used a lot of it because they did a lot of disinfecting. Revolutionary thought. It's a good idea to remember what impressed you, and to use that because that is alive in you, you have feeling for it and that transfers to the other person. That excitement you feel when you remember when something "woke up" in you. Not the droning on of what you've read by other people. Those others on that forum may have been right to tell you they didn't want to hear what you read from other people. You see?

Just what is the caricature antisemite neonazi irrational "denier"? Hmmm? Someone who doesn't think like they do? Aren't those just labels/insults that are given to anyone who defends holocaust revisionism? Aren't you playing their game if you're going to be afraid of or behave so as to avoid their manner of scaring people. This tells them that you don't want to be those things, so they will be sure to call you those things. If it really didn't bother you, they wouldn't bother.

Truth is all that matters. Like the Zyklon B thing. Figure out what's absolutely true, that resonates with you, and bring that up. And repeat it and repeat it. Don't let them avoid it and change the subject. Force it down their throats. Is that too in-your-face?

[David Baker]

If anyone really needs an example of revisionist censorship in the media, read Michael Hoffman's review of David Mamet's book "Wicked Son: Anti-semitism...", blah blah blah, (Emphasis added...) in the amazon.com book page. In the "Comments" section of Mr. Hoffman's review, you'll see my name, David L. Baker. However, you'll NOT see ANY of my revisionist statements. They were all carefully deleted. One other telltale trait of exterminationist influence is their preservation of Jewish responses to my statements (Some were so 'intimidating', the authors decided to delete them, lest they be considered as being prone to violent confrontation..) This example is TAME compared to what occurred during the Jewish campaign to silence other brave revisionists such as Zundel, Cole, Rudolph, Irving, Smith and a host of other researchers. For those of you who believe you have the right of free speech and free expression in this particular field, you are 'gravely' mistaken.

[Hektor]

Eric, this is why I don't believe in the "quiet reasonableness" promoted by Kingfisher.....
It has to be something powerful - one thing at a time - that grabs their attention. They may scream and howl, but they can't deny because it's demonstrably true! Quiet reasonableness can work over time with someone who is open to listening and thinking, but to those who are not (most) it is just passing wind. It makes no impression.

thanks for your reply carolyn. i always enjoy reading your contributions to this board, but i'm not sure i agree with your stance on debating tactics. aside from the fact that t's not really in my nature to be in-your-face combative, i think it it might be premature to conclude that my effort "failed". i wasn't expecting any damascene "conversions" and even if that had happened, the chances of anybody declaring reasonable doubts in that atmosphere was zero. ...

The right debating tactics depend on the conditions and audience. With a serious audience that is willing to stick to rules of scientific debate, quite reasonableness will work. If it's more polemic and the audience is more crude, entertaining tactics may work. And don't forget that being under threat may call for even other tactics as well, considering the choice of claims you make and evidence presented.

Quite reasonableness also will do well, when your opponents get outrageous and start threatening and insulting you. And that can be especially funny . Your real problem will be there, when the other site is well prepared, while you are still amateurish in the game. I guess this is where Nizkor & Co. did score some points in the early days of the internet. They just had piles of information to come up with to which beginners didn't really know how to respond. You did actually well. Apparently you haven't convinced any of your opponents, but I think you've shaken their confidence in the orthodox view.
Their response of censoring you, even banning you and changing your posts may have had the most potent effect of some of the silent observers. The matter how it's dealt with may be more convincing then the arguments and facts of either side.

[David Baker]

Hektor, in a court of law, where testimony is subjected to rules of evidence, the so-called "Holocaust" dissolves into a plethora of familiar Jewish atrocity anecdotes. NONE of the 'eyewitnesses' to the Holocaust will testify under oath in a court of law. They'll show up, if they're offered a 'reasonable' honorarium..) at one of their lynching parties to whine and dine, but they eschew attending forums in which the invitations are labeled "Summons".

[HelenChicago]

Hektor, in a court of law, where testimony is subjected to rules of evidence, the so-called "Holocaust" dissolves into a plethora of familiar Jewish atrocity anecdotes. NONE of the 'eyewitnesses' to the Holocaust will testify under oath in a court of law.

In many jurisdictions, the holocaust is granted "judicial notice," i.e., it is assumed to be true and cannot be disputed or questioned in any fashion. And those so-called "eyewitnesses" rarely testify under oath after seeing how easily their fairy tales can be exposed under competent (and courageous) cross-examination.

[Hektor]

....

the IMT of Nuremberg was only after intense lobbying of the "world Jewish congress"!

- First this is nonsense...Morgenthau, wich could be described as a jewish influence, never supported the trials and would have love to have all the Nazis shot...But maybe Stalin was Jewish, as well as de Gaulle and Jackson...? As it is well known that the first GRAND trial was all about the suffering of the Jews...
- Second from the start - because we are not even at the end of the begining of the subject of your debate- it's indeed raised the question of your knowledge of the IMT- as you don't give any sources to support this assertion.
- Third, who ,among your leftist forumers has a real knowledge of those trials?
....

One should bear in mind the following:

To Chris Dodd, his father is heroic. Even so, the letters include some uncomfortable passages.

Consider these Sept. 25, 1945, observations from Tom Dodd, who would emerge as second in command on the American prosecution team:

“You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge — you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial — for their own sake. For — mark this well — the charge ‘a war for the Jews’ is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made again and again. The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge. Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter —it is distasteful to me — but I am disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other and with everyone else.”

Chris Dodd tells me that when he reads this letter, “I first of all cringe a little bit because I wonder what he’s driving at.”...
http://www.projo.com/news/mcharlesbakst ... fbfe6.html

[David Baker]

Helenchicago, those judges who take "Judicial Notice" of the Holocaust know full well the consequences if they don't play along with Jews. Judges are paid handsomely to adjudicate certain issues with, shall we say, scripted precedents. I'm afraid our society has been rotted to the core by such flagrant corruption, and unless we revolt, we'll be enslaved by the practitioners of profligate political-correctness, and liberal/judicial 'altruism'.

[nathan]

"Eric Blair" wrote:

i cited richard baer

What exactly was cited?

Is there any reason the small vaguely leftish website cannot be named?