Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Guest Columnist

Ladies and Gentlemen, Scott Smith of Real Open Debate on the Holocaust.

Read more!
I used to write book reviews for Germar Rudolf's Revisionist before his rendition to the Bundestablishment, and I wrote a couple of movie reviews for Ted O' Keefe before the JHR got closed down.

I started the RODOH message forum back in 2003.
www.rodoh.us

Basicaly I've known Dr. Mathis for a few years now. I used to post on the old CODOH bbs and he was a reliable opponent.

Then the CODOH board was shut down and some of us started our own message boards. I didn't like the censorship policies at Hannover's "Revisionist Forum" so I started my own, called "Real Open-Debate On the Holocaust," since the CODOH bbs was defunct. I didn't invent the title but I find it ironic and even a tribute to Bradley Smith's ideas and what CODOH stands for: Open Debate.

Even though Andrew Mathis is vulgar and no friend of Revisionism or Revisionists, we have an understanding and a mutual respect, and for freedom-of-speech. I let him speak his mind on my forum and he hasn't disappointed me yet. Real debate lets the opposition have its fair say.

This has made me unpopular with some Revisionists. CODOH eventually acquired Hannover's forum as its own, and in addition to banning the opposition I am now banned from using Hannover's, now CODOH's, message board because I allow Mathis to post on mine. The two have a mutual vendetta going on.

Other than refusing to try to conceal Hannover's real name, it is not true that I collect personal information about Revisionists to make it public, which is what is said about me. Some of the anti-Revisionists that do post on my forum regularly might do so in their own personal blogs, however, which I have nothing to do with, and no control over.

Long story short--I think Dr. Mathis is quite serious in debating Hannover. Back in 2003-04 he and Paul Grubach were going to debate, but they couldn't agree on a format. Mathis did not want it published in the Revisionist and Grubach didn't want to publish it online at RODOH. So it fell though.

However, Dr. Robert Countess stepped up to the plate and agreed to debate Mathis. Eventually Mathis declined but he did arrange to have another anti-Revisionist take his place, Steve Mock, who did a fine job indeed. This was called the "Scholars' Debate" at RODOH and everybody said that it couldn't be done. Only a couple of Revisionists agreed to help me.

It turns out that Dr. Countess didn't contribute a lot and in November of 2004 told me that he was terminally ill and dropped out. That was devastating news but I was planning on continuting myself to wrap it up but then I was hit by a car while riding my bicycle home from work. Anyway, the effort was a good learning experience for me but I'm not 100 percent satisfied with our performance. One flaw in my plan was that our moderation panel couldn't get along in setting the rules (especially as to length) and I had to abandon that hat and join the Revisionist team myself or nothing would have happened.

You can read the Scholars' Debate here if you are interested:

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm23.showMessage?topicID=2.topic

I'm also not pleased that so many Revisionists refused to help debate when they have been making such noises about precisely this for so long.

The best way to prove Mathis wrong is for Hannover (and any Revisionists that want to help him) to engage Dr. Mathis in the challenge. Mathis is bending over backwards to make it fair. Yes, there is a personal element at work here, but Dr. Countess wasn't afraid to help the Revisionist cause.

I really think that Revisionists ought to consider this one. I don't want to get involved myself this time but I would be willing to host the matter--although Hannover may not agree to that aspect since there is some bad blood between us on account of my being banned at his forum. Dr. Mathis is flexible on the terms and it need not involve RODOH at all.

Feel free to forward this as you wish.

Best,
Scott Smith

1 comment:

Philip Mathews said...

The coward will never agree.

Why put yourself in a position requiring thought and effort when one can mindlessly post and repost the same denier bullshit year after year, while deluding yourself into thinking you are making a devasting impact on established history?

Maybe if some of the other deniers were to tell him honestly just how pathetic his efforts in service of "Revisionism" are, he might be shamed into making some sort of effort. But I doubt it.