Should the Holocaust thread be public again?

[ian neal]

Given the recent articles by Rachel and Blairwatch on Nick Kollerstrom which make reference to this thread, I strongly believe this thread should be put in the public domain whilst being kept locked

I certainly have nothing to hide from that thread since I alopng with some notable others spent considerable time challenging those promoting holocaust revision and its association with 9/11 over 16 pages but to keep it hidden makes it appears as if there is something to hide. Whilst there is certainly content there which is every bit as offensive as Nick's article, the thread is certainly highly relevent to the debate and should be public.

At present and for the past 6 months this site's moderation has been the overall responsibility of Tony, so it's your call Tony.

Thanks

Ian

[Stefan]

My opinion is that there will always be a tension between a free-speech policy and the perception this is a 9/11 site. Most of us want the former, some seem to want to latter and are oblivious that the two are like oil and water.

Until we brand this site so it is simply an open discussion-any thing goes forum and SPECIFICALLY NOT a 9/11 truth site, we are always going to face these problems.

I don't want to see Holocaust denial in the context of any campaign I am a part of.

That said, I have no desire to inhibit free speech.

Once (if? Please!) this site is PROPERLY re-branded and it is a "free-speech-zone" then I would propose this:

That discussion of evidence for/against a holocaust should be allowed, but any user displaying anti-Semitism is IMMEDIATLEY banned. No second chances.

During those discussions, I saw a lot of referral to Israel, or far-right Zionists as "the Jews" - which was left totally un-moderated. That is frankly disgusting - dustbinning the posts should have been the least that happened - the users offending should have been expelled.

[kbo234]

[ian neal]

What I'm asking is not whether discussion of the holocaust should be allowed on this site. I haven't been involved in the site's moderation for the last 6 months and I will soon no longer be involved in any way other than perhaps as an occasional poster, so what I think really doesn't matter and I'm truly past caring

What I'm asking is that considering there is a 16 page thread in the private section in which I and others repeatedly and consistently challenged posters, set out in some detail where the boundary of free speech lay and asked why the holocaust is so damned important to a minority who post here and given that Rachel links prominently to this thread (with the implication that we must be hiding something terrible), I want to see this thread made public again so that this is clear.

Unless I hear otherwise from Tony I will reinstate the thread (but still keep it locked) at midnight tonight

[Rory Winter]

I fully agree with your decision to make the thread public but keep it locked. That will defeat accusations such as the one made by Aunty Rachel that we have skeletons to hide.

Best to be open & upfront.

That, of course, will not be enough for the Rachels and their fellow-travellers in the Zionist Lobby. They are predators. We need to be firm with them while putting out a disclaimer on Nick's provocative statements that we are, as things stand, a forum where free and open discussion is permissible within certain parameters of civilised behaviour.

We should be clear where we stand and firm with those who attack us. Any sign of retreat or defensiveness will be taken as a sign of defeat and they will just up-the-ante with further attacks.

As for discussion of the Shoa or Holocaust, this too should be permissible within said parameters.

The alternative is to make exceptions to certain subjects such as the Holocaust, Icke's Reptilians, NPT & BW, the Europe Issue and the like and to make it clear that the Forum is limited to discussion concerning 911, 77 and similar suspected False Flag incidents. That would require tight editing of the kind that Messrs Cromwell & Edwards practise on the Medialens Message Board. Tony attempted something similar but fell foul of the open nature image the Forum had acquired.

People like Rachel run blogs which are tightly controlled. She is her own agent, as it were. Unlike us they are the sole arbiters of what goes on & what stays off. They perceive the vulnerability of an open forum and exploit it mercilessly. Where 911 and 77 are concerned that appears to be their raison d'etre. That's to be expected from people who are not our friends, people who barrack and attack us in public & indulge in yahboo name-calling.

Running the Forum has been a learning process from which we can benefit once the final decision is made in what form we are to continue. All I would say is that if the emphasis is put on a campaign then that would require a tighter control, if on a forum then depending on the character of that forum tight editing or a looser control would be called for.

In all eventualities we should have nothing to hide from those whose minds are so devious that they project their own contorted shadows on the rest of us. In the above context you'll know what I mean.

[insidejob]

Questioning the Holocaust is pretty serious in the West given the acceptance of this perspective and the emotional attachment that Jewish people and non-Jewish people have about the Holocaust. But this site should not be about banning ideas.

I certainly used to fervently believe that the anti-Jewish Nazis had a final solution to Jewish people. I liked the BBC series, ‘The Nazis, a warning from history’. But there were some basics I was clueless about. I couldn’t tell you how many Jewish people there were in the Nazi occupied countries before the Holocaust and after.

What this means is that this site should ban posts that propose the idea that there were no gas chambers without evidence to back it up. Evidence should be the watchword. And it should be evidence rather than anecdote.

[Rory Winter]

Sorry, moved to http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=116321#116321

[TonyGosling]

Ian can you explain clearly what purpose your making this thread public again has served?

Correct me if I'm wrong but all I see is a pointless and at times offensively frivolous treatment of one of history's most serious acts of genocide - which has nothing whatsoever to do with the mission statement of this forum.

[ian neal]

[karlos]

Surely we have to be consistant.
If that thread is damaging to the cause - the cause being spreading the message that 911 and 7/7 were inside jobs, then the thread should stay hidden.
If Rachel and other critics have suffered a few broken links on their blogs then so what serves them right.

[kbo234]

[karlos]

[ian neal]

I'm not discussing the WWII holocaust here (or anywhere else) and Tony has clearly said he doesn't want to see it discussed on the forum in future. Discussion of zionism, particular zionists and Israel is allowed. But that is not the subject of this thread. The subject is very specific: whether or not the holocaust thread should be public.

[Busker]

Thanks gents.

A firm line of this one is very much appreciated.