How do you stop a skeptics board being flooded by fanatics

meditraitor

Eriugena wrote:

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.

Right thats it :mad:

Eriugena,KFC,ISAY and turley are all gob****s (not one of ye's has a clue)

Now there's a common cause for ye's

Medi

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

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?

Under the laws of libel, the onus would be on youto substantiate those charges. As that would be impossible, you would lose. Perhaps you have never heard of such laws?

Poisonwood

Can you libel someone you don't know ... and no-one else knows? I don't think so. Your character cannot be impugned because no-one knows who you are. You too are operating under the cover of a pseudonym and are therefore protected from character assassination in the eyes of the public (though you may be a tad hurt yourself ... bless).

KCF

Eriugena wrote:

Under the laws of libel, the onus would be on youto substantiate those charges. As that would be impossible, you would lose. Perhaps you have never heard of such laws?

I feel that you would be unlikely to prove that the 'charges' caused substantial defamation to the character of your anonymous identity on the internet. In any case, people have merely drawn their own conclusions from your failure to answer the questions put to you. It would be very difficult to build a libel case when the chief witness for the prosecution refuses to say whether the claims are true or not.

Eriugena

Poisonwood wrote:

Can you libel someone you don't know ... and no-one else knows? I don't think so. Your character cannot be impugned because no-one knows who you are. You too are operating under the cover of a pseudonym and are therefore protected from character assassination in the eyes of the public (though you may be a tad hurt yourself ... bless).

I did say if one was to post in one's real name: "would not have dared make such charges in their own names."
This relates to a point I made earlier in another thread about internet anonymity.

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

I feel that you would be unlikely to prove that the 'charges' caused substantial defamation to the character of your anonymous identity on the internet.

I'm not talking about internet anonymity. You would not dare say those things if we were all known here under our real names.

In any case, people have merely drawn their own conclusions from your failure to answer the questions put to you. It would be very difficult to build a libel case when the chief witness for the prosecution refuses to say whether the claims are true or not.

Look, in a libel case it goes as follows:
you say that X is an antisemite/nazi.
X sues you.
You then have to prove that those charges are correct.
If you were to make those charges against me in real life, you would lose.

Poisonwood

Nothing could happen to them if they made such charges in their real name ... BOTH (libeler and your) names which would have to be known. So stop moaning. The mod can deal with breaking of board ettiquette if needs be.

Eriugena

Poisonwood wrote:

Nothing could happen to them if they made such charges in their real name ... BOTH (libeler and your) names which would have to be known. So stop moaning. The mod can deal with breaking of board ettiquette if needs be.

Have you a reading problem or what? I am contrasting the internet with real life. In real life, those here who made those charges would never have done so fo the reasons given. Therefore one of the conclusions we can draw, is that internet anonymity makes cowards feel brave.

Poisonwood

Calm down eri ... we crossed posts, that's all. Dear dear.

You have still failed however, to let us into your feelings about Nazism and Jews. Care to plug the gap?

Eriugena

Poisonwood wrote:

Calm down eri ... we crossed posts, that's all. Dear dear.

You have still failed however, to let us into your feelings about Nazism and Jews. Care to plug the gap?

Big and vague questions. What in particular?

KCF

Eriugena wrote:

Big and vague questions. What in particular?

A brief summary of your opinions would do nicely.

On another note, do you really think that a direct, specific question like "what is your opinion on x" can be described as 'vague'? In your world what standard of specificity is considered sufficent to make a question answerable?

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

A brief summary of your opinions would do nicely.

That would not be possible as this topic of conversation does not seem welcome here and it would be difficult to address it without starting a thread - I don't do sound bites.

On another note, do you really think that a direct, specific question like "what is your opinion on x" can be described as 'vague'?

It all depends on what X is. If X is America then that would be hopelessly vague. If X was the middle east policy of GW Bush then that would not be so vague.

KCF

Eriugena wrote:

That would not be possible as this topic of conversation does not seem welcome here and it would be difficult to address it without starting a thread - I don't do sound bites.

slither, slither, slither....

You don't do answers actually. You have been asked this question directly 6 times in recent threads (along with other more specific questions which you fulminated against as being loaded). Some of those threads were specifically about the holocaust and predated anybody expressing the opinion that you should not be welcome here.

You will probably now switch back to your former excuse: "ad hominem...falllacious...disgraceful....teeth gnashing...witchhunt...blah blah". In a presumably vain attempt to head you off at the pass, I'll try to explain to you why enquiring about the political position of a historian is nothing to do with the 'ad hominem fallacy', in terms that you might understand.

If, for example, a book appeared in print which claimed that Stalin's death camps were a 'capitalist smear' and so on, do you think that the author's membership of a stalinist communist party might be relevant to your evaluation of the work? (in fact many such books have appeared in the last 50 years and, yes, all were written by stalinists or their fellow travellers).

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

If, for example, a book appeared in print which claimed that Stalin's death camps were a 'capitalist smear' and so on, do you think that the author's membership of a stalinist communist party might be relevant to your evaluation of the work? (in fact many such books have appeared in the last 50 years and, yes, all were written by stalinists or their fellow travellers).

I would be more interested in looking at the book, its sources,and how those sources are treated than getting into a tizzy about the author's political leanings known or imputed.

As it happens, I believe there is a lot of revisionism to be done in respect of the Gulags and the Stalin period in general. I mean, I was brought up to believe that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of c. 60 million people. But if you ask me what that belief is actually based on, well, I don't know and I bet the one's who assert it so confidently don't actually know either.

For example, there is a book called 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis by Lenni Brenner. This is a collection of primary sources illustrating the relationship between the Nazis and the Zionists. These sources are not generally well-known because they show a high degree of closeness between these two groups. Now Brenner is both a communist and a Jew but an ardent anti-Zionist. But neither his ethnic affiliations nor his politcial affiliations has anything to do with the sources themselves. It might explain why he rather than a Zionists would bring such documents to light but any suggestion of foul-play by Brenner because he was a communist and an anti-Zionist would be a smear designed to divert attention from these embarassing sources.

KCF

Eriugena wrote:

I would be more interested in looking at the book, its sources,and how those sources are treated than getting into a tizzy about the author's political leanings known or imputed.

Judging on your form, as long as it was published only by communist party members, or on lone lunatic websites and denigrated by every respectable historian in the world, it would pass the test.

But, leaving aside the hilarious gap between your professed and practiced standards, in a more general way what you are advocating is rank idiocy. A human being can personally investigate only a tiny fraction of the information in the world. They get around this problem and manage to arrive at intelligent opinions by making generalisations based on heuristic rules. One such useful heuristic is that if a particular fact is only disputed by people who have a political or financial interest in the fact being dismissed, then you can safely believe the fact.

In the case of Stalin and the soviet union, the gulag-deniers were simply wrong and the heuristic was correct. In that case it was infinitely more difficult to apply the rule since the volume of pro-stalinist propaganda was enormous and many of his sympathisers went to great lengths to conceal their sympathies - and they were infinitely better at it than your nazi chums.

Eriugena wrote:

As it happens, I believe there is a lot of revisionism to be done in respect of the Gulags and the Stalin period in general. I mean, I was brought up to believe that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of c. 60 million people. But if you ask me what that belief is actually based on, well, I don't know and I bet the one's who assert it so confidently don't actually know either.

What you call 'revisionism' is what most people call research. Obviously everything should be open to question and historians constantly revise our understanding of all past events - that's their job, they could hardly get away with publishing new research papers simply confirming that everything was exactly as their predecessors said it was. But what you have been spouting here is not 'research' it's deliberate and intentional falsification in pursuit of a (downright nasty) political agenda.

Of course researchers look at the numbers and particular events, revise their analysis of them in light of new information and so on. There are legions of them working away at this as we speak. But some conclusions don't change: We know the essence of historical claims about Stalin are true. The case about the holocaust is much, much easier to see.

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

Judging on your form, as long as it was published only by communist party members, or on lone lunatic websites and denigrated by every respectable historian in the world, it would pass the test.

So I ahve gone from being a nazi to a Stalinist! You seem to care little for consistency or credibility.

But, leaving aside the hilarious gap between your professed and practiced standards, in a more general way what you are advocating is rank idiocy.

What gap?

In the case of Stalin and the soviet union, the gulag-deniers were simply wrong and the heuristic was correct. In that case it was infinitely more difficult to apply the rule since the volume of pro-stalinist propaganda was enormous and many of his sympathisers went to great lengths to conceal their sympathies - and they were infinitely better at it than your nazi chums.

My chums? You see this is where it blows up in your face. I have long suspected you of some kind of Troskyite leanings based on certain give-away motifs in your earlier postings. So if you are a Trot then it couldbe said you have an interest in blackening Stalinism.

What you call 'revisionism' is what most people call research.

You have never heard of revisionism in historiography?

Obviously everything should be open to question and historians constantly revise our understanding of all past events

Except when we come to the subject of the holocaust; there are tabboos, certain topics are off-limits otherise you will be attacked, smeared and jailed if you live in a country which has laws against that kind of inquiry. The only historical event that has to have laws to protect it - does that not make you even slightly suspicious?

-

Poisonwood

Eriugena wrote:

Big and vague questions. What in particular?

Ok, based on your wide reading on the subject, how many Jewish women, children and men do YOU think the Nazi regime murdered?

(A ballpark estimation will suffice. Instead of the reported c.6 million ... was it, in your estimation, say 4 million or 4,000? You know what I mean so please don't prevaricate).

KCF

Eriugena wrote:

My chums? You see this is where it blows up in your face. I have long suspected you of some kind of Troskyite leanings based on certain give-away motifs in your earlier postings. So if you are a Trot then it couldbe said you have an interest in blackening Stalinism.

ad hominem...gnash gnash...fallacious...how dare you accuse me of having a political agenda....splutter...there are libel laws you coward...use your real name..grrr


Nope, I'm not a trot. I think trotsky was a thoroughly nasty piece of work. An opportunist and mass murderer whose politics degenerated after his exile into the farcically unrealistic.

Now, what do you think of hitler?

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

ad hominem...gnash gnash...fallacious...how dare you accuse me of having a political agenda....splutter...there are libel laws you coward...use your real name..grrr


Nope, I'm not a trot. I think trotsky was a thoroughly nasty piece of work. An opportunist and mass murderer whose politics degenerated after his exile into the farcically unrealistic.

Now, what do you think of hitler?

I didn't ask you if you were a Trot or anything else. I also couched the rest of the post in the conditional mood, i.e. if . . . then.

KCF

Eriugena wrote:

I didn't ask you if you were a Trot or anything else. I also couched the rest of the post in the conditional mood, i.e. if . . . then.

Leaving aside the fact that you 'long suspected' me of being one, essentially the same thing that I believe about you and fascism, you seem to have forgotten that I did ask you what you thought of Hitler.

Waiting for an answer....

Eriugena

Poisonwood wrote:

Ok, based on your wide reading on the subject, how many Jewish women, children and men do YOU think the Nazi regime murdered?

(A ballpark estimation will suffice. Instead of the reported c.6 million ... was it, in your estimation, say 4 million or 4,000? You know what I mean so please don't prevaricate).

As I know of no plan to exterminate Jews I object to the use of the word murder in your question. For example many partisans were shot or hanged on the eastern front who also happened to be Jews. But they weren't killed as Jews rather as unlawful combatants (pre-1949 the Geneva Convention did ot recognise irregular combatants)
For Jewish deaths in German controlled areas during the war of all causes I would go along with the suggested figure of between 350 - 500k.

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

Leaving aside the fact that you 'long suspected' me of being one, essentially the same thing that I believe about you and fascism, you seem to have forgotten that I did ask you what you thought of Hitler.

Waiting for an answer....

My views about Hitler? What you really want to ask me is this: am I a nazi sympathiser or revivalist or something. The simple answer is no. But do I subscribe to a demonic picture of Hitler? No. You must remember that when the holocaust story ceases to command belief, when you see at is as the fraud it is because you have looked at the sources, the picture of people like Hitler changes. He ceases to be an evil monster and becomes more human, more accessible to realistic appraisal, and therefore more difficult to assess.

KCF

I see. You object to the use of the word 'murder' in association with the deaths of somewhere around a half a million jews in Nazi territory and you think hitler wasn't an evil monster but "more human [and] difficult to assess".

Am I dreaming or were you saying that calling you an anti-semite and a nazi apologist was libel?

Perhaps you'd care to list some of Hitler's 'nice' qualities?

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

I see. You object to the use of the word 'murder' in association with the deaths of somewhere around a half a million jews in Nazi territory and you think hitler wasn't an evil monster but "more human [and] difficult to assess".

Am I dreaming or were you saying that calling you an anti-semite and a nazi apologist was libel?

Perhaps you'd care to list some of Hitler's 'nice' qualities?

Why can't you try at least to take things seriously for a change? What do you think was going on in Europe at the time? WWII? How many people died in that cataclysm? Ten's of millions perhaps? So we would expect that there would be Jewish casualties as well. If there was no deliberate extremination plan being carried out then their deaths are war deaths.

Juts because someone does not subscribe to the 'evil monster' view of history (Hitler in his case) does not make them a nazi or antsemite. That is absurd beyond belief.

A nazi - a member of NSDAP or admirer or revivalist etc.
an anti-semite - someone who hates Jews.

So as neither of these describes my views, anyone saying otherwise would be libelling me.

davros

Sorry, way too much thread closing going on around here but this thread is too far off topic to be rescued, not to mention it just being a slagging match. If anyone has any non-personal comments on this topic ("flooding" of skeptics board), please begin a new thread.

And I promise an instant smiting to anyone who mentions the Holocaust, Jews or Nazis on the new thread