From dvdthomas@aol.com Thu Dec 12 07:45:11 PST 1996
Article: 85252 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dvdthomas@aol.com (DvdThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Clearing the air about CODOH
Date: 11 Dec 1996 22:35:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <19961211223500.RAA08151@ladder01.news.aol.com>
References: <58mtbs$mve@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com

>Subject: Re: Clearing the air about CODOH
>From: kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC)
>Date: 11 Dec 1996 10:09:00 -0800
>Message-ID: <58mtbs$mve@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
>
>In article <32afc712.58654239@news.zilker.net>, 
>mike@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>>Nope. Yale didn't understand that CODOH doesn't respond when debate is
>>offered or when some of Mr. Smith's material is refuted. Silence is
>>their response. About three lengthy emails have been sent to CODOH and
>>Mr. Smith. One was posted here in this group. the others will appear
>>on Nizkor soon with out the benefit of any response from CODOH. We
>>have to then assume that they have no response. How damning is that
>>silence in the course of debate? How damning is a nonresponse when
>>CODOH is seeking an "open" debate?
>
>CODOH responded in 1994, good sir:
>
>"You misunderstand the mission of CODOH.   We're  in  the  business of 
>promoting open debate, not necessarily engaging in it."(Ross Vicksell)

My thanks to Ken McVay for saving me the time of saying this same thing
then having it described as some new way to duck an issue.  In the event
anyone is wondering why CODOH takes that stance, it's because it was
founded to address the simple fact that material which disagrees with the
officially accepted account of events is not readily available.  If people
are not aware that there are reasonable questions about these accounts,
there is not likely to be much discussion or resolution.  Some dismiss
this concern as being unnecessary in any case, since the present accounts
are entirely accurate and sufficient and beyond question.  That is their
right to feel that way, just as it CODOH's and anyone else's right to
respectfully disagree.  

CODOH at first tried to find two or more volunteers to engage in an online
debate, with CODOH providing revisionist reference material for the
discussion.  People who considered doing this either monitored or
participated in alt.revisionism for a while and their reaction was
universally on the order of, "You call this snakepit a debate?  Sorry, I
don't have time for that stuff," and split.  I notice that very few people
educated in disciplines that could contribute materially to a meaningful
discussion participate here on behalf of any position, and the vulgar,
sneering name calling from all points of the compass is a major reason
why.  After a time I formed an opinion, which I see no reason to change,
that there is no desire at all on the part of the majority of the
participants to engage in a productive debate.  Most seem intent on
venting their anger or hate at others whom they imbue with a perception of
evil intent that is a product of their own fancies.  That gets dreary in a
hurry, and resolves nothing.  Call somebody a name and they come around to
your viewpoint eventually, right?  Hell no, and everybody knows that.

After rejecting the abusive avenue, CODOH became dormant until the Web
came along.  Then the goal switched to archiving revisionist information
for public availability there.  The only bilateral talk of Web debate was
between Jamie McCarthy and the Zuendelsite, which fizzled.  The only
connection of CODOH to debate has been the information posting and the
regular snide remarks from this forum alluding to intentions that were
never there.

That last leads to this.  CODOH is an organization to which I offer some
amount of gratis labor.  CODOH is not me.  I am an individual, and I am
not CODOH.  I will debate matters in which I have both interest and
knowledge, which leaves out a lot of what appears here.  Consider my
choice to insist on some modicum of civility (I refuse to engage in
name-calling exchanges) and it leaves out most of what appears here.  (By
civility, I don't mean pinky-lifted British high tea speech, I mean not
saturated with scorn and vulgarity.)  So I cruise alt.revisionism at odd
intervals, comment on what interests me, and that's that.

Hope this clears the air about several things.

David Thomas
_________________________________________________________

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man,
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began;
That the Dog returns to his Vomit, and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the fire;
And after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

--Kipling

David Thomas
CODOH (http://www.codoh.com/)

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor