"CODOH" stands for "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust", the Holocaust denial organization founded by Bradley Smith.
Recently the so-called "Revisionist Forum" has become the official forum of CODOH's website. For several years the forum has been run by UCLA library assistant Jonnie Hargis ("Hannover"), though now several other persons may help to moderate it. The forum is known for its severe censorship of opposing viewpoints - many prominent online anti-deniers have been banned from it basically for effectively debunking deniers' arguments (though false excuses have been given for their banning). But not only anti-deniers are banned. For example "revisionist" Scott Smith, head of alternative forum "RODOH" ("Real Open Debate on the Holocaust") has also been banned.
Bans are not the only tools of censorship at CODOH forum. Many posts just do not make it there (if the poster is in pre-moderation mode), many are deleted, some are edited before appearing. I have experienced this myself, as did many other participants, whether "revisionists" or anti-"revisionists". Not a perfect "1984" emulation, but pretty close.
Recently a Portuguese denier AS Marques, who for some time has been participating in discussions at CODOH forum (and was initially welcome there) complained about Hargis' practices at Bradley Smith's blog. After several replies Smith has simply deleted the whole thread, but you can read most of it here.
So, what do we have here? A "revisionist" complains about Orwellian practices at a "revisionist" forum. Bradley Smith, this self-described libertarian, striving for the "Open Debate on the Holocaust", turns the blind eye on the complaint, dreams up excuses for Hargis' behavior, and then sends the complaint and the ensuing discussion to the Memory Hole.
That's Open Debate for you, folks.
Update: AS Marques says in the comments that his comments were deleted by his request.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
It appears Bradley has the same delete key as Hargis ;)
The world of CODOH is Orwellian. I try to stay away from it.
For your information, I was the one who asked Smith to delete my posts from his blog.
"For your information, I was the one who asked Smith to delete my posts from his blog."
Why?
was AS Marques' request to take down the posts before or after I copied them over to RODOH?
No matter: they're not lost to the Memory Hole. The remarks were made, and show up B.S., Hannover and others as fake free-speechers.
Well, I feel better knowing that:
1) The posts were deleted at asmarques request. It was about him and he doesn't really need to give a reason, does he?
2) The posts were off-topic for Bradley Smith's original blog entry on Jesus and the Mel Gibson film.
3) The posts were placed at Bradley Smith's personal blog rather on than the his Holocaust blog.
Still, deleting stuff is not a good idea generally. But, in all fairness, Lipstadt deletes any comment from Revisionists at her blog, regardless, so there you have it.
But she's not the one calling for open debate.
> True, but she's not for free-speech either, is she?
Yes she is.
> And Lipstadt will only snipe at Butz on TV; obviously she doesn't have the courage to debate his supposedly patently-wrong ideas.
Why should she lend him credibility, by debating him?
Why should she "lend him credibility" by sniping at him instead of with debate? Answer: Because she can do so without accountability since he is thereby unable to confront his detractor's arguments, lies and distortions. You can do that with the confidence of the Saved when you already possess the unalloyed Truth. She's about as much in favor of free-speech as a leopard changing its spots.
Well, you can't prove that she has no courage for debate and that she is against free speech. She called for Irving's release, remember? You have no evidence at all that she was not sincere. And if someone refuses to debate the likes of Kent Hovind or flat earthers, this only means that they know that these people are dishonest and/or cranks, not that they're "afraid" of debate.
SERGEY:
<< She called for Irving's release, remember? You have no evidence at all that she was not sincere. >>
You can tell by the way that she worded it that she wasn't the least bit sincere.
She may as well have prayed for mercy on the souls of those burned at the stake for heresy.
> You can tell by the way that she worded it that she wasn't the least bit sincere.
You can tell by the way that she worded it that she sincere.
Is-Too/Is-Not.
But you're defending Lipstadt and I'm defending Irving.
I rests me case.
;-)
Poor Scott, confused as always. Could not prove any of his accusations against Lipstadt (thus "Is-Too/Is-Not", which by default means he lost), and brings up defence of Irving, even though that was not the issue here (although Lipstadt's defence of Irving is).
;-)
Scott was right. Lidstadt was not sincere.
http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-on-judge-in-irvings-austrian-case.html
Sergey,
could you be so kind as to go to this forum and save them from falling in the trap of holocaust denial? If someone can do it, you can. (Aside from the holocaust crap its a pretty decent conspiracy forum - if you like that genre)
http://www.outlawjournalism.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1244&start=880
OH, I'm afraid I've no time for setting newbies straight. Introduce them to RODOH.
Post a Comment