How do you stop a skeptics board being flooded by fanatics

ISAW

psi wrote:

I addressed my post to Davros, not you. Don't worry your pretty little head about who I'm referring to, its not your concern.

Dont patrionise me! I will concern myself with whatever I think fit.


No, because, quite frankly, its none of your business and you're not answerable. If you want to know, do the work, if you don't, then stop wasting my time.

Well you did start to tell me how people behave around here, so if you only just arrived, I find that presumptious in its own right. Even still, there is no arguement.

And I clarified that I have been involved in Skeptic circles for years and what I referred to is that ad hominem is not a proper debate since it attacks the person rather than the argument.

You just expect to be involved in a point I made to Davros that has nothing to do with you.

You made a post to a public open forum. If you want to raise a matter with Davros then PM him and dont post stuff in a public forum which you claim is for only one person to comment on.

And you again presume too much. YOU DID NOT STATE in your original post whether you referred to something in the past or not. I asked you to clarify. If you think it has nothing to do with me and believe AS YOU CLAIMED that it is not worth ressurecting then why did you post to a public forum?
[/QUOTE]

Well then don't get involved in matters you know nothing about.

Well then dont raise matters you are not clearly defining if you dont want me to question them.

And dont raise matters which when you are questioned about you claim are matters so far back they are not worth discussing. If you dont want to discuss them then why did you raise the matter?

davros

Another million posts to wade through after work... I've just read this thread and discovered that Psi was accusing me of something or other a couple of pages back though it sailed over my head. So I'll have to read it again. And then there are the infamous holocaust threads to catch up on...

Standby...

davros

psi wrote:

You allow people to cloud threads with half trruths and opinions without ever following up poster requests for facts.

I don't like to interfere in the substance of a discussion. Posters are fully capable of asking for facts themselves and can draw their own conclusions if they don't get them. I'm nobody's nanny and I'm not stepping in just to declare one side the winner.

It's very easy to tune out threads that don't hold your interest. Just don't open them! I tune out whole boards this way - works great and I save tons of time. I'm also spared the fact-free nonsense of the Paranormal board by this simple trick.

davros

Obni wrote:

In addressing the original point of the thread, I would have to admit that part of the reason for so much time and effort being expended by all posters in debating the holocaust or 9/11 with ET is that they are fascinating subjects. Why else would so many conspiracy and revisionist sites exist, and the ones that exist get such a volume of hits?

...

For my own part, I must admit I have actually learned something from Turley and Eriugena about my own (lack) of debating skills. Take someone who's been living in a cave since they were born (not Bin Laden ) and sit them in a room with myself and ET, and I doubt I could put forward as apparently robust a case as ET in terms of volume of argument, references, and indeed the history of the debate to date. That is not to concede that they would be more convincing because their arguments have any basis or value, I'm simply comparing their e-oratory skills. After a few weeks it becomes apparent they also use the old and effective tactic of pounding away at the same points again and again, but despite that they are interesting examples of how it is virtually impossible to convince someone with a deep belief (however fallacious) to change their stance (and I'm sure they believe the same about most of us). I think that's something that has to be accepted; when you debate with a creationist or CAM merchant your going to get nowhere. In a lot of cases all that ISS can acheive will be simply getting the ISS point of view into the public arena.

Excellent, thoroughly agree, couldn't say it half so eloquently myself.

The Corinthian

ISAW wrote:

thats bollix! Stormfront etc. do NOT follow the rules that skeptics do! To argue that they have the same principles and standards of debate is nonsense.

Actually it would appear on the matter of challenging doctrine they are. This was my point, and your antagoistic response would tend to support this.

In any case holocaust denial is not a balance of two opposing views no more than posting references to child porn and advocating that is worthy of equal respect.

Interesting analogy, worthy of any fanatic.

ISAW wrote:

Your quote from me does not support the point you made. I did not say we should not discuss the holocaust in a fair debate. I pointed out the spamming of holocaust denial literature which had not been supported.

You pointed out how it had already been debunked before so we shouldn’t have to discuss it further. Oddly that was my point.

You quote from PSI does not support it either since if YOU were paying attention you would have noticed I asctually asked Psi to clarify since I didnt know if he was referring to me.

It does as I was responding to a statement denying that anyone had called putting forward such views as irresponsible and Psi did. He even used the same word.

DublinWriter

Easy. Draw a pentagram and invoke the spirit of Ra with a series of chanting and ritual dancing.

ISAW

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually it would appear on the matter of challenging doctrine they are. This was my point, and your antagoistic response would tend to support this.

They are NOT being skeptics as you maintain. There are acceptable rules for debate and for what is a good source. Holocaust deniers do NOT follow those rules. Academics, historians, skeptics, scientists, lawyers DO follow those rules.

Interesting analogy, worthy of any fanatic.

I note you do not deny its relevance. If someone came into this forum and stated they were skeptical of child abuse and there is no forensic evidence for it would you say they are being skeptics and challenging doctrine? Please answer that. If they quoted from sites that also advocated child sex would you consider that acceptable scepticism?

You pointed out how it had already been debunked before so we shouldn’t have to discuss it further. Oddly that was my point.

I also pointedou that this is a meta argument i.e. we are not rehearsing the minutiae of argument we are discussing the rules surrounding such subjects.

It does as I was responding to a statement denying that anyone had called putting forward such views as irresponsible and Psi did. He even used the same word.

It does NOT. You should have picked out the NOUN not the ADJECTIVE. The original point by KCF was

Nobody has suggested that it is irresponsible to discuss the holocaust and I think the notion is ridiculous.

to which you replied with the suggestion that the following quote from me was asserting discussion of the holocaust is irresponsible

This board is being used to spam Holocaust denial stuff which had been soundly debunked elsewhere.

I pointed out to you my quote does NOT assert discussion of the holocaust is irresponsible. You seem to


Nor does PSI's quote mention the HOLOCAUST which was in KCF original quote i.e. irresponsible to discuss THE HOLOCAUST. Indeed I since pointed out to you that PSI had clarified by his own replies that he was referring to something else which involvs a personal conflice between himself and Davros.

You commit a logical fallacy.

KCF: Nobody is suggesting it is irresponsible to run.
ISAW: Running is something which others can do. I prefer to walk.
PSI: It is irresponsible to sleep.

Corinthian: KCF is wrong since ISAW prefers not to do it and PSI mentions irresponsibility of doing something else.

See what I mean?

davros

Could we generalise this discussion a bit? Without picking out particular posts or posters, is this forum a venue for fanaticism?

The Corinthian

ISAW wrote:

They are NOT being skeptics as you maintain. There are acceptable rules for debate and for what is a good source. Holocaust deniers do NOT follow those rules. Academics, historians, skeptics, scientists, lawyers DO follow those rules.

You misunderstand, I wasn’t suggesting that that they are behaving as sceptics, but that so-called sceptics are behaving like them.

ISAW

The Corinthian wrote:

You misunderstand, I wasn’t suggesting that that they are behaving as sceptics, but that so-called sceptics are behaving like them.

And you included a quote from ME in your sample of that. So please show how I am behaving like them or withdraw the accusation.

As to Davros request to generalise the discussion I would like you to show me ANYWHERE in any forum I behaved where it did not conform to standard practice for debate or where I did not withdraw what I could not back up.

If you cant show that then withdraw your example of me as an example of that.

robindch

> is this forum a venue for fanaticism?

Yep.

> No it isn't!

Yes, it is!!

> Where's your evidence? Withdraw the accusation!!!

Not until you withdraw yours first, you fraud!

> I never made an accusation; I am stating FACTS!!

[...etc, ad nauseam...]

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

And you included a quote from ME in your sample of that. So please show how I am behaving like them or withdraw the accusation.

As to Davros request to generalise the discussion I would like you to show me ANYWHERE in any forum I behaved where it did not conform to standard practice for debate or where I did not withdraw what I could not back up.

If you cant show that then withdraw your example of me as an example of that.

ISAW made an existence claim in another thread: natural law exists. I made repeated attempts to get ISAW to demonstrate the existence of natural law. All I ever got was evidence that some people believe in the existence of natural law, as if I didn't know that already. We are still waiting for a demonstration for the existence of natural law. Interestingly, when I pressed the question, demands started to be made for me to be banned.

Poisonwood

Eriugena wrote:

ISAW made an existence claim in another thread: natural law exists. I made repeated attempts to get ISAW to demonstrate the existence of natural law. All I ever got was evidence that some people believe in the existence of natural law, as if I didn't know that already. We are still waiting for a demonstration for the existence of natural law. Interestingly, when I pressed the question, demands started to be made for me to be banned.

What has this to do with this thread? Typical deflection. Back on topic.

Eriugena

Poisonwood wrote:

What has this to do with this thread? Typical deflection. Back on topic.

Scroll up and read the thread beginning here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2638580&postcount=70. If you think I am off topic then you must be consistent and point that out to the others including two moderators.

ISAW

Poisonwood wrote:

What has this to do with this thread? Typical deflection. Back on topic.

It has nothing to do with the thread and in any case I posted him ample evidence of natural law. I also warned him about his modus operandi. But fanatical holocaust deniers have ways of ressurecting arguments already dealt with back into the thread. He can find the answers in those threads since I have been ignoring him and did all this and warned him about the fact that I would ignore him BEFORE it happened and that if he didnt change his modus operandi he would be in deeper trouble. He didnt heed me. Pity. I suggest you put him on your ignore list also.

meditraitor

ISAW wrote:

It has nothing to do with the thread and in any case I posted him ample evidence of natural law. I also warned him about his modus operandi. But fanatical holocaust deniers have ways of ressurecting arguments already dealt with back into the thread. He can find the answers in those threads since I have been ignoring him and did all this and warned him about the fact that I would ignore him BEFORE it happened and that if he didnt change his modus operandi he would be in deeper trouble. He didnt heed me. Pity. I suggest you put him on your ignore list also.

I believe the case for the holocaust is well proven(millions of Jews murdered in concentration (death) camps), and the exact amount can never proven, but it is millions(enough death in any language),now this is were our paths seperate, you have not at any point in this thread disproven the arguments E&T have put to you(this is pointed squarly at KFC too).
I would even go so far as to say that you are helping their cause, by taking the moral and ethical high ground and making a bollox of the argument.
You cannot win because what they are saying is not the same as what you seem to be reading, you years of anti-anti semetic banner waving(?) have closed your eyes to any sort of functioning debate about the revising details regarding the holocaust and it makes normal people (like me ) look at your petty teenage dbating skills and wonder is there more been hidden(no) from humanity regarding this atrocity thereby questioning the honesty of the survivors and cohorts to tell what happened during those horrible years and use it to stop any future horrors.,.
Medi

ISAW

meditraitor wrote:

I believe the case for the holocaust is well proven(millions of Jews murdered in concentration (death) camps), and the exact amount can never proven, but it is millions(enough death in any language),now this is were our paths seperate, you have not at any point in this thread disproven the arguments E&T have put to you(this is pointed squarly at KFC too).

You would be wrong there. First it is not for me to post evidence for their claims. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Next if you can show I did ot support any claim I made then please do so! Excepyion: If you are stating I did not support a claim that natural law exists I wont discuss that here. go back and look at the thread and see the court judgements and historical works and citations I gave. I also enquired that if people believed Nuremberg was a farce than according to what principle wa sit wrong. If they claim crimes against humanity were invented so culdnt be wrong then what does the origin or THEIR definition of right and wrong come from?

I would even go so far as to say that you are helping their cause, by taking the moral and ethical high ground and making a bollox of the argument.
You cannot win because what they are saying is not the same as what you seem to be reading, you years of anti-anti semetic banner waving(?)

I suggest you read the posts i made since I believe you will not find evidence for this either. I continually refer to gypsies slavs and others. Where have you ANY evidence that I have been fightind against anti-semetics for years?

have closed your eyes to any sort of functioning debate about the revising details regarding the holocaust and it makes normal people (like me ) look at your petty teenage dbating skills and wonder is there more been hidden(no) from humanity regarding this atrocity thereby questioning the honesty of the survivors and cohorts to tell what happened during those horrible years and use it to stop any future horrors.,.
Medi

Your personal attacks against me are doing nothing to help your arguement. Indeed you ae just piling up more problems. what is you evidence I am a teenager or that teenagers have petty debating skills? I have met teenagers who are adept debaters. Your evidence that you are normal is based on your own opinion? And I havent closed my eyes to anything. I have claimed that in a general sense fanatics are not welcome here unless they follow standard debating protocols.

One standard is. Make a claim. Propose a test for that claim which will show if the claim is false. Do the test. Fanatics seem to fall down at step one. They will not clearly state the claim. Mind you "the WWII planned extermination of people did not happen" is a clear statement. i have "psychic powers" is NOT clear.

It is usually better to start in someting you are not biased about though this does happen. Questions like "i wonder if..." are good. But people who already believe the holocaust did not happen should begin with something else like "is it possible to predict the future" and not in something they already believe.

There are psychological theories about this. For example, why do fanatics not dismiss or change their belief even when they evidence is shown toi them when they are wrong?

I wonder will you change or withdraw your unsupported claims about me or will you continue to assert them and still claim you are normal. I will leave it for others to judged whether you are based on your adherence to normal debating procedures.

Last night I met a really interesting person who among other things is a sports historian. His father said the next best thing to winning gracefully is losing gracefully.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

It has nothing to do with the thread and in any case I posted him ample evidence of natural law.

ISAW made an existence claim, i.e. that natural law exists. All that they posted was evdience that some people believe in the existence of natural law. We are still waiting for a demonstration of the existence of natural law.

I also warned him about his modus operandi.

ISAW is neither a Mod nor an Admin and has only joined this group very recently.

But fanatical holocaust deniers have ways of ressurecting arguments already dealt with back into the thread.

None of the evidence and arguments I presented were faced let alone dealt with except with charges of nazism and anti-semtism by those who responded.

He can find the answers in those threads since I have been ignoring him and did all this and warned him about the fact that I would ignore him BEFORE it happened and that if he didnt change his modus operandi he would be in deeper trouble.

The claim that natural law existsed was made first, therefore according to ISAW's arbitrarily declared rules of debate, they should make the demonstration first.

He didnt heed me. Pity. I suggest you put him on your ignore list also.

Having failed in their campaign to have me banned, they now launch a campaign to have me ignored!

meditraitor

ISAW wrote:

meditraitor wrote:

I believe the case for the holocaust is well proven(millions of Jews murdered in concentration (death) camps), and the exact amount can never proven, but it is millions(enough death in any language),now this is were our paths seperate, you have not at any point in this thread disproven the arguments E&T have put to you(this is pointed squarly at KFC too).

You would be wrong there. First it is not for me to post evidence for their claims. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Next if you can show I did ot support any claim I made then please do so! Excepyion: If you are stating I did not support a claim that natural law exists I wont discuss that here. go back and look at the thread and see the court judgements and historical works and citations I gave. I also enquired that if people believed Nuremberg was a farce than according to what principle wa sit wrong. If they claim crimes against humanity were invented so culdnt be wrong then what does the origin or THEIR definition of right and wrong come from?



I suggest you read the posts i made since I believe you will not find evidence for this either. I continually refer to gypsies slavs and others. Where have you ANY evidence that I have been fightind against anti-semetics for years?



Your personal attacks against me are doing nothing to help your arguement. Indeed you ae just piling up more problems. what is you evidence I am a teenager or that teenagers have petty debating skills? I have met teenagers who are adept debaters. Your evidence that you are normal is based on your own opinion? And I havent closed my eyes to anything. I have claimed that in a general sense fanatics are not welcome here unless they follow standard debating protocols.

One standard is. Make a claim. Propose a test for that claim which will show if the claim is false. Do the test. Fanatics seem to fall down at step one. They will not clearly state the claim. Mind you "the WWII planned extermination of people did not happen" is a clear statement. i have "psychic powers" is NOT clear.

It is usually better to start in someting you are not biased about though this does happen. Questions like "i wonder if..." are good. But people who already believe the holocaust did not happen should begin with something else like "is it possible to predict the future" and not in something they already believe.

There are psychological theories about this. For example, why do fanatics not dismiss or change their belief even when they evidence is shown toi them when they are wrong?

I wonder will you change or withdraw your unsupported claims about me or will you continue to assert them and still claim you are normal. I will leave it for others to judged whether you are based on your adherence to normal debating procedures.

Last night I met a really interesting person who among other things is a sports historian. His father said the next best thing to winning gracefully is losing gracefully.

Grace - "A characteristic or quality pleasing for its charm or refinement."
not knowing you personally im only guessing relative to your posts here, but grace is something you lack, what has you so bitter.

Fanatic - "A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause."
IMO this describes you perfectly (only from your posts I might add)

Interesting - "To arouse the curiosity or hold the attention of: -Your opinions interest me-"
IMO this doesnt descibe you (only from your posts I might add)

YOU POST Where have you ANY evidence that I have been fightind against anti-semetics for years

YOu also post EARLIER IN THE THREADWell I wouldnt know about that. I admit I only arrived. But am involved in skeptical debate for years. I meant that argument ad hominem is fallacious

You should read your own posts before you reply brother..

How can I attack you personally ISAW, I dont know you, (just relative to your posts here),

Believe me when I say it, your reply and debate style are neither common or technically sound,

I would normally leave a discussion like this alone but your (KFC not far off)such a nuisance :eek: (relative to posts ) i had to have my two cents.

Looking forward to your reply
Medi

robindch

> None of the evidence and arguments I presented were
> faced let alone dealt with [...]

They were generally dealt with to the satisfaction of all except you.

> except with charges of nazism and anti-semtism

You'll recall that you ludicrously asserted that a historian's political leanings were irrelevant when assessing whether or not the historian can be trusted.
You will also recall that all of the sources of information you referenced were from Nazi apologist websites and that you were asked, by me, to state whether or not you were anti-semitic, or a Nazi apologist.

You refused to answer either question, from which, as I've said several times before, we are reasonably able to assume that you are not willing to answer the question because you are either, or both, anti-semitic and a Nazi apologist.

> Having failed in their campaign to have me banned, they
> now launch a campaign to have me ignored!

Good heavens, what a fine, proud sense of self-importance -- the only places that these campaigns existed is in your own hyperactive, and now apparently paranoid, imagination

- robin.

KCF

meditraitor wrote:

I believe the case for the holocaust is well proven(millions of Jews murdered in concentration (death) camps), and the exact amount can never proven, but it is millions(enough death in any language),now this is were our paths seperate, you have not at any point in this thread disproven the arguments E&T have put to you(this is pointed squarly at KFC too).

As far as I'm aware, there have been no arguments put - by anybody - in this thread about the holocaust. Can I have some of whatever you're smoking?

meditraitor

KCF wrote:

As far as I'm aware, there have been no arguments put - by anybody - in this thread about the holocaust. Can I have some of whatever you're smoking?

Now see thats what Im talking about, you've just jumped up in my estimation from stubborn, self rightious plonker to normal dude with opinion, and sense of humor :rolleyes: which always helps, but snap out of that "BAN him/her crap" its not very pretty(as me maa used to say)

KCF

meditraitor wrote:

Now see thats what Im talking about, you've just jumped up in my estimation from stubborn, self rightious plonker to normal dude with opinion, and sense of humor :rolleyes: which always helps, but snap out of that "BAN him/her crap" its not very pretty(as me maa used to say)

I don't think that it's crap. Whenever a board (or any other soapbox) manages to attract an audience, you find that people attempt to use that board purely to reach an audience, despite the fact that their purpose is contrary to the goals of the board. Sometimes the culprits are advertisers and spammers, sometimes they are 'voices in the wilderness' with unpopular political agendas. This can lead to the board being destroyed as a useful resource for those people who actually support its goals.

How do you think that this problem should be dealt with - in the general case?

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> None of the evidence and arguments I presented were
> faced let alone dealt with [...]

They were generally dealt with to the satisfaction of all except you.

That is untrue on both counts. Nothing was presented in rebuttal.

> except with charges of nazism and anti-semtism

You'll recall that you ludicrously asserted that a historian's political leanings were irrelevant when assessing whether or not the historian can be trusted.

Then you are saying that the argumentum ad hominem is a valid form of argument.

You will also recall that all of the sources of information you referenced were from Nazi apologist websites and that you were asked, by me, to state whether or not you were anti-semitic, or a Nazi apologist.

I have not posted anything from "Nazi apologist websites".

You refused to answer either question, from which, as I've said several times before, we are reasonably able to assume that you are not willing to answer the question because you are either, or both, anti-semitic and a Nazi apologist.

I told you that I would not dignify such impertinent and inquisitorial questions with a response. The intelligent reader can assess the arguments and evidence on their own merits.
> Having failed in their campaign to have me banned, they
> now launch a campaign to have me ignored!

Good heavens, what a fine, proud sense of self-importance -- the only places that these campaigns existed is in your own hyperactive, and now apparently paranoid, imagination

Then you have not been following the thread: ISAW and KCF have called for my banning.
KCF:

In terms of how to deal with it, unfortunately, excluding them or their favoured topics of conversation from the forum is the only solution.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2630620&postcount=1

ISAW:

I vote ban him.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2631455&postcount=3

meditraitor

KCF wrote:

I don't think that it's crap. Whenever a board (or any other soapbox) manages to attract an audience, you find that people attempt to use that board purely to reach an audience, despite the fact that their purpose is contrary to the goals of the board. Sometimes the culprits are advertisers and spammers, sometimes they are 'voices in the wilderness' with unpopular political agendas. This can lead to the board being destroyed as a useful resource for those people who actually support its goals.

How do you think that this problem should be dealt with - in the general case?

Is there a problem with these guys, I dont know, your interpretatoin on their posts as anti-semetic and nazi apologetic is not as clear to me as it to you,

If they were anti-semetic they would have been banned, plain and simple.

The solution is in place to stop this type of piosonous agenda(bans, mods etc), neither of these guys/girls have clearly shown this, they only show a good debating technique thoough.. maybe this is the real crux of the argument, you feel like they have shown you up ?

Or i could be wrong (and/or anti-semetic),

Medi

Eriugena

meditraitor wrote:

Is there a problem with these guys, I dont know, your interpretatoin on their posts as anti-semetic and nazi apologetic is not as clear to me as it to you,

If they were anti-semetic they would have been banned, plain and simple.

I reckon you are right about that.

The solution is in place to stop this type of piosonous agenda(bans, mods etc), neither of these guys/girls have clearly shown this, they only show a good debating technique thoough.. maybe this is the real crux of the argument, you feel like they have shown you up ?

This is correct.

Or i could be wrong (and/or anti-semetic)

This is not.
cheers!

KCF

meditraitor wrote:

Is there a problem with these guys, I dont know, your interpretatoin on their posts as anti-semetic and nazi apologetic is not as clear to me as it to you.

If they were anti-semetic they would have been banned, plain and simple.

Have you followed the 3 or 4 holocaust threads closely at all?

If they had said "let's kill the jews" they would have been. However, even your average knuckle-dragging white-supremacist has enough wit to realise that they won't get far with that approach. In my opinion, the whole point of holocaust denial is as a wedge strategy, to allow anti-semitism and the whole bag of nazi-nasties to appear as a respectable intellectual tradition.

meditraitor wrote:

The solution is in place to stop this type of piosonous agenda(bans, mods etc), neither of these guys/girls have clearly shown this, they only show a good debating technique thoough.. maybe this is the real crux of the argument, you feel like they have shown you up ?

Or i could be wrong (and/or anti-semetic),

I think that you are wrong and agree with Robin above about the implications that can be drawn from their failure to answer questions about their political/racial sympathies. I think that if you were to peruse the relevant threads closely, you might see my point.

I also think that if you really feel that Turley shows a 'good debating technique' I have underestimated the strength of the stuff that you're smoking - I'll pay top dollar?

meditraitor

KCF wrote:

I also think that if you really feel that Turley shows a 'good debating technique' I have underestimated the strength of the stuff that you're smoking - I'll pay top dollar?

:rolleyes:



Gave up that stuff, getting too old,

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

Have you followed the 3 or 4 holocaust threads closely at all?

If they had said "let's kill the jews" they would have been. However, even your average knuckle-dragging white-supremacist has enough wit to realise that they won't get far with that approach. In my opinion, the whole point of holocaust denial is as a wedge strategy, to allow anti-semitism and the whole bag of nazi-nasties to appear as a respectable intellectual tradition.

What you really should say is "in the opinion of Deborah Lipstadt et al." Such opinions should be accompanied by some attempt at proof.

One thing is for certain. The ones here who have been batting this charge of nazism/antisemitism at yours truly would not have dared make such charges in their own names. They know what would happen to them.

KCF

Eriugena wrote:

One thing is for certain. The ones here who have been batting this charge of nazism/antisemitism at yours truly would not have dared make such charges in their own names. They know what would happen to them.

Actually, I hate to inform you that they (or at least this one of them) don't have any idea what would happen to them. Care to share?