Slashdot Mirror

The numbers gathered by the Nazis in WW2 agree with the numbers gathered after the war by people unsympathetic to the Nazis. How much more confirmation do you need before you cross the line from sceptic to denialist?

If we didn't have all those awful photos and films of holocaust victims and emaciated survivors, in 20 years once all the people are dead who lived through that time period revisionist historians could argue that the holocaust really wasn't all that bad, and people would believe them.

First-hand sources -- diaries, pictures, films, videos -- keep us all honest.

And yet there are still dumbshits who claim that it didn't happen. Why?

The professor's last name "Myers" should already tell you about that he is part of "DER EWIGE JUDE".

http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/st ills.shtml

I was not talking about science. I was talking about historiography. Big difference.

Well, then stay out of the discussion. The original poster was claiming Jesus cannot be prove scientifically. I was arguing that point.

But there is no historical sources to back this up. Read the entire article.

The entire article is representative of a minority view, which it itself admits. This is why it carries a disclaimer at the start of the article stating that the majority view (among Christians and non-Christians) is that the histority of Jesus is uncontested.

You must be joking!

Great argument.

OK, ask this question: WHO is denying Holocaust and why.

Example. People with an agenda to push are denying the Holocaust. People with an agenda to push are denying the existance of Jesus. Your obvious distate for Christianity shown in your post demonstrates you are not exactly an unbiased source.

Right! Who needs power and wealth? OK, I have one advice for you. Learn some history.

You have to be joking. Out of the twelve apostles, only one died a natural death. Paul spent a large portion of his life under arrest and being transported between jails. Yay for wealth and power for the gospel writers! Wealth and power for the Catholic church didn't come about until long after the gospels were written.

I have one advice for you. Learn some history. Good advice. Take it yourself.

Its nice to see that the ACLU has decided to protect my 5 year olds right to surf the net and enjoy the pron pop ups the these unethical perverts want to send.

It's nice to see that you prefer to let Witch-finder General Ashcroft into my computer and my bedroom rather than take responsibility to raise your own child.

Are you such a bad parent that you think a nanny-State can do a better job?

Your five year-old daughter might well be shocked by seeing porn on your computer; but I wager she'd be wakened by screaming nightmares for a month if she saw these pictures of the results of the Nazi Holocaust. (Note that two of the pictures, including the one of the emaciated children your daughter's age who were subjected to medical "experiments", are served up by a Florida public school system.)

Should we remove those pictures from the Internet to protect your daughter? Turn the Holocaust survivors' "never again" into "never again seen"?

What about pictures of Pol Pot's Killing Fields?

Will throwing those pictures down the memory hole make your job as parent any easier?

What about sanitizing inconvenient pictures of America's Iraq War?

Is you daughter too young for those pictures of her country's "accomplishments"? Shall we censor them too?

Or maybe it's a better idea you sit with your five-year old while she browses the internet?

Jews were required to leave so it was OK to kill them? Are you really arguing that?

Please tell me where I am arguing that. The parent poster seems to think those 6,000,000 Jews who were killed were from Germany. Since 6,000,000 is the official number, are you arguing that the Nazis didn't kill any Jews from any other country?

German Jews were often prevented from leaving under the assumption they would take their property with them.

You really don't know what you are talking about. The Jews had their property confiscated. A large collection of mansions in Berlin was converted into a school for the Hitler Youth. Things like artwork were put in national museums.

Why don't you read up on the Nuhremberg laws to start

> Additionally, most Nazi imagery is illegal in Germany, regardless of context or medium.

Nazi imagery is not illegal regardless of the context or the medium. It is illegal without appropriate historical context/annotation.

The German government deemed that a game for leisure doesn't provide the appropriate historical context, no matter how many soldiers and Nazis you may kill in it. There are ample German documentations and educational material all containing Nazi imagery. It is the single most important part in German history curricula. However, you'll probably have a hard time finding "Der Ewige Jude" uncut

Your statements are false. von Neumann was a Jew and his name reflects this (yiddish). Hungarians did not change their names because Hungary was part of the Austrian empire.

Moreover Hungary is notorious for heavily persecuting Jews during the Holocaust. On March 24, 1944 President Roosevelt had to officially warn Hungary to refrain from anti-Jewish measures.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/vjw/Hungary.html# The%20Holocaust

"Of the original 825,000 Jews before the war, 260,000 Hungarian Jews survived and 565,000 perished."

This is about one tenth of the victims killed during the Holocaust.

564,500 Jews were sent to the various death-camps run by the Nazis. 438,000 Jews were deported from Hungary to Auschwitz alone.

Read the history, dude:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/hungarian-photos/

http://www.jbuff.com/c090403.htm

The 'War on Terror' cannot be won by capturing anyone! You can only 'win' by solving the problems that only serve to create more and more terrorists.

Almost all modern terrorism is due to US foreign policy. It is not because terrorists "hate freedom". That is, franky an extremely naive view of the world, seperating people into blank and white views of "good" and "bad".

Give a muslim some fire and he'll be warm for a day. Dip him in pork grease and light him on fire, and he'll be warm for all eternity.

I would imagine there is a mistransaltion of the word annihilation.

Yes, you imagine a lot. Vernichtung is the german word meaning destruction or annihilation. Hitler used that word in many speeches regarding the Jews. In fact, here is the paragraph in question in its original german:

Wenn es dem internationalen Finanzjudentum in und auÃYerhalb Europas gelingen sollte, die VÃlker noch einmal in einen Weltkrieg zu stürzen, dann wird das Ergebnis nicht der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa!

As has been said elsewhere, it was simply not feasible for Germany to kill six million 130 pound mammals, AND elmininate their bodies through cremation. They did not possess the oil to do so.

If the germans didn't kill 6 million Jews, then where did they go? I don't see any Jewish people in Madagascar. Are you also saying that all videos and photographs of the Holocaust were fabricated in order to further the interests of the "Zionist lobby"? Are you hinting that maybe Hitler built death camps that could only be used for mass extermination and never used them? Why waste resources pretending to commit atrocities?

YOU support the racist Zionists, but when one objects to their tactics of deceit and subterfuge, he is called a racist.

I never said I supported the foundation of a Jewish state (I don't), and honestly I think Israel is partly responsible for the mess it is in. You are trying to forget the most horrific act humanity has ever witnessed, and that is saddening. If you have ever been to the Holocaust museum your mind will change. The truth is that the Holocaust did happen. 6 million people were murdered because of thier race. I suggest you look at this site before you refute my facts. It will dispell your revisionist myths about the Holocaust.

"stopping holocaust denial - as repugnant as most people might find those sites - is censorship, plain and simple. One of the costs of living in a free society is that not everything is warm and fuzzy - I wish more people would remember that."

Well said.

I've been involved in combatting Holocaust-denial on the net for ten years. I work with The Holocaust History Project, have transcribed and helped translate documents, including those about gas chambers, and have prepared information on deniers. I've even co-authored a lengthy and highly technical paper on chemistry of the Auschwitz gas chambers.

I think it's deplorable that Google has bent its knee to the German government in this way. Practically speaking, it's unfortunate because this gets the neo-Nazis and Holocaust-deniers more press (unintended consequences). And they do love this kind of attention, there is nothing they love more than being censored.

But more importantly, morally, it's wrong that these people are being censored. What they say is despicable. But until they start making credible threats against people, or telling harmful lies about individuals, instead of simply telling lies about a group of people, they should be allowed to have their say. Fairness demands that. And just because they would refuse to treat us with basic fairness, is no reason for us to be so afraid that we stoop to their level.

"stopping holocaust denial - as repugnant as most people might find those sites - is censorship, plain and simple. One of the costs of living in a free society is that not everything is warm and fuzzy - I wish more people would remember that."

Well said.

I've been involved in combatting Holocaust-denial on the net for ten years. I work with The Holocaust History Project, have transcribed and helped translate documents, including those about gas chambers, and have prepared information on deniers. I've even co-authored a lengthy and highly technical paper on chemistry of the Auschwitz gas chambers.

I think it's deplorable that Google has bent its knee to the German government in this way. Practically speaking, it's unfortunate because this gets the neo-Nazis and Holocaust-deniers more press (unintended consequences). And they do love this kind of attention, there is nothing they love more than being censored.

But more importantly, morally, it's wrong that these people are being censored. What they say is despicable. But until they start making credible threats against people, or telling harmful lies about individuals, instead of simply telling lies about a group of people, they should be allowed to have their say. Fairness demands that. And just because they would refuse to treat us with basic fairness, is no reason for us to be so afraid that we stoop to their level.

"stopping holocaust denial - as repugnant as most people might find those sites - is censorship, plain and simple. One of the costs of living in a free society is that not everything is warm and fuzzy - I wish more people would remember that."

Well said.

I've been involved in combatting Holocaust-denial on the net for ten years. I work with The Holocaust History Project, have transcribed and helped translate documents, including those about gas chambers, and have prepared information on deniers. I've even co-authored a lengthy and highly technical paper on chemistry of the Auschwitz gas chambers.

I think it's deplorable that Google has bent its knee to the German government in this way. Practically speaking, it's unfortunate because this gets the neo-Nazis and Holocaust-deniers more press (unintended consequences). And they do love this kind of attention, there is nothing they love more than being censored.

But more importantly, morally, it's wrong that these people are being censored. What they say is despicable. But until they start making credible threats against people, or telling harmful lies about individuals, instead of simply telling lies about a group of people, they should be allowed to have their say. Fairness demands that. And just because they would refuse to treat us with basic fairness, is no reason for us to be so afraid that we stoop to their level.

"stopping holocaust denial - as repugnant as most people might find those sites - is censorship, plain and simple. One of the costs of living in a free society is that not everything is warm and fuzzy - I wish more people would remember that."

Well said.

I've been involved in combatting Holocaust-denial on the net for ten years. I work with The Holocaust History Project, have transcribed and helped translate documents, including those about gas chambers, and have prepared information on deniers. I've even co-authored a lengthy and highly technical paper on chemistry of the Auschwitz gas chambers.

I think it's deplorable that Google has bent its knee to the German government in this way. Practically speaking, it's unfortunate because this gets the neo-Nazis and Holocaust-deniers more press (unintended consequences). And they do love this kind of attention, there is nothing they love more than being censored.

But more importantly, morally, it's wrong that these people are being censored. What they say is despicable. But until they start making credible threats against people, or telling harmful lies about individuals, instead of simply telling lies about a group of people, they should be allowed to have their say. Fairness demands that. And just because they would refuse to treat us with basic fairness, is no reason for us to be so afraid that we stoop to their level.

"stopping holocaust denial - as repugnant as most people might find those sites - is censorship, plain and simple. One of the costs of living in a free society is that not everything is warm and fuzzy - I wish more people would remember that."

Well said.

I've been involved in combatting Holocaust-denial on the net for ten years. I work with The Holocaust History Project, have transcribed and helped translate documents, including those about gas chambers, and have prepared information on deniers. I've even co-authored a lengthy and highly technical paper on chemistry of the Auschwitz gas chambers.

I think it's deplorable that Google has bent its knee to the German government in this way. Practically speaking, it's unfortunate because this gets the neo-Nazis and Holocaust-deniers more press (unintended consequences). And they do love this kind of attention, there is nothing they love more than being censored.

But more importantly, morally, it's wrong that these people are being censored. What they say is despicable. But until they start making credible threats against people, or telling harmful lies about individuals, instead of simply telling lies about a group of people, they should be allowed to have their say. Fairness demands that. And just because they would refuse to treat us with basic fairness, is no reason for us to be so afraid that we stoop to their level.

"stopping holocaust denial - as repugnant as most people might find those sites - is censorship, plain and simple. One of the costs of living in a free society is that not everything is warm and fuzzy - I wish more people would remember that."

Well said.

I've been involved in combatting Holocaust-denial on the net for ten years. I work with The Holocaust History Project, have transcribed and helped translate documents, including those about gas chambers, and have prepared information on deniers. I've even co-authored a lengthy and highly technical paper on chemistry of the Auschwitz gas chambers.

I think it's deplorable that Google has bent its knee to the German government in this way. Practically speaking, it's unfortunate because this gets the neo-Nazis and Holocaust-deniers more press (unintended consequences). And they do love this kind of attention, there is nothing they love more than being censored.

But more importantly, morally, it's wrong that these people are being censored. What they say is despicable. But until they start making credible threats against people, or telling harmful lies about individuals, instead of simply telling lies about a group of people, they should be allowed to have their say. Fairness demands that. And just because they would refuse to treat us with basic fairness, is no reason for us to be so afraid that we stoop to their level.

An open letter to Jamie McCarthy

Dear Jamie,
There's a reason people look at you like you're some kind of goddamn freak. We're pretty sure there's other reasons you won't show your face anymore; we've been reading slashdot long enough to remember the pictures the Holland Sentinel published of you with your slicked back greasejob haircut and hawkish little face. I remember thinking "God, I know Internet filters are bad, but the last fucking thing that is going to convince anyone of anything is this guy". You need to wash. You need to exercise. You need to get a haircut, and get a real job. Soon, VA is going to fire you, and you're going to be out in the real world. And that is going to be the shock of a fucking lifetime. You need to prepare.

As much as you delight in finding people despicable enough that you feel tormenting them is your righteous duty, I think it's pretty clear at this point that Michael Sims is not a Nazi. In fact, he knew the truth about you long before anyone else did. You and your friends may run THE CENSORWARE PROJECT, but anyone with a lick of sense now knows that you're personally responsible for writing the Censorware code that's now built into Slashdot. Let's be extremely clear about this: you define Censorware to be "software which is designed to prevent another person from sending or receiving information (usually on the web)". And you've checked mountains of code into CVS to prevent people with dissenting opinions from sending information on the web. It meets your definition, letter for letter. And guess what? Your Censorware is just as effective as every Censorware project you have ever railed against. How effective is that?

How effective is that? That's a great question. It's effective in exactly the same way NetNanny is effective. It stops technically non-proficient people in their tracks. They become victims of a robotic system that no one understands. Get a new account on this cool site, post a comment about how you had a hard time installing Linux, and BAMMO, you and your whole subnet are banned from posting. Congratulations. But it doesn't stop the clever, does it Jamie? How many times have you written articles about how the folks at Peacefire can walk rings around an Internet filter in 10 seconds flat? Well guess what?

I just spent the whole fucking day running circles around your pathetic little Internet filter. How does it feel to be a commercial software developer paid to block people from accessing something and failing?

Your points about Censorware were something you should have listened to. You and your pathetic system are a bleeding failure. Like your opponents, you have frustrated the weak and enraged the strong. Soon, you'll lose your job, and you're going to be sitting on the other side of an oak desk with someone trying to interview you looking at you, and your resume, like this.

And that, as they say, is poetic justice.

--Everybody on Plastic.com

An open letter to Jamie McCarthy

Dear Jamie,
There's a reason people look at you like you're some kind of goddamn freak. We're pretty sure there's other reasons you won't show your face anymore; we've been reading slashdot long enough to remember the pictures the Holland Sentinel published of you with your slicked back greasejob haircut and hawkish little face. I remember thinking "God, I know Internet filters are bad, but the last fucking thing that is going to convince anyone of anything is this guy". You need to wash. You need to exercise. You need to get a haircut, and get a real job. Soon, VA is going to fire you, and you're going to be out in the real world. And that is going to be the shock of a fucking lifetime. You need to prepare.

As much as you delight in finding people despicable enough that you feel tormenting them is your righteous duty, I think it's pretty clear at this point that Michael Sims is not a Nazi. In fact, he knew the truth about you long before anyone else did. You and your friends may run THE CENSORWARE PROJECT, but anyone with a lick of sense now knows that you're personally responsible for writing the Censorware code that's now built into Slashdot. Let's be extremely clear about this: you define Censorware to be "software which is designed to prevent another person from sending or receiving information (usually on the web)". And you've checked mountains of code into CVS to prevent people with dissenting opinions from sending information on the web. It meets your definition, letter for letter. And guess what? Your Censorware is just as effective as every Censorware project you have ever railed against. How effective is that?

How effective is that? That's a great question. It's effective in exactly the same way NetNanny is effective. It stops technically non-proficient people in their tracks. They become victims of a robotic system that no one understands. Get a new account on this cool site, post a comment about how you had a hard time installing Linux, and BAMMO, you and your whole subnet are banned from posting. Congratulations. But it doesn't stop the clever, does it Jamie? How many times have you written articles about how the folks at Peacefire can walk rings around an Internet filter in 10 seconds flat? Well guess what?

I just spent the whole fucking day running circles around your pathetic little Internet filter. How does it feel to be a commercial software developer paid to block people from accessing something and failing?

Your points about Censorware were something you should have listened to. You and your pathetic system are a bleeding failure. Like your opponents, you have frustrated the weak and enraged the strong. Soon, you'll lose your job, and you're going to be sitting on the other side of an oak desk with someone trying to interview you looking at you, and your resume, like this.

And that, as they say, is poetic justice.

--Everybody on Geekizoid

An open letter to Jamie McCarthy

Dear Jamie,
There's a reason people look at you like you're some kind of goddamn freak. We're pretty sure there's other reasons you won't show your face anymore; we've been reading slashdot long enough to remember the pictures the Holland Sentinel published of you with your slicked back greasejob haircut and hawkish little face. I remember thinking "God, I know Internet filters are bad, but the last fucking thing that is going to convince anyone of anything is this guy". You need to wash. You need to exercise. You need to get a haircut, and get a real job. Soon, VA is going to fire you, and you're going to be out in the real world. And that is going to be the shock of a fucking lifetime. You need to prepare.

As much as you delight in finding people despicable enough that you feel tormenting them is your righteous duty, I think it's pretty clear at this point that Michael Sims is not a Nazi. In fact, he knew the truth about you long before anyone else did. You and your friends may run THE CENSORWARE PROJECT, but anyone with a lick of sense now knows that you're personally responsible for writing the Censorware code that's now built into Slashdot. Let's be extremely clear about this: you define Censorware to be "software which is designed to prevent another person from sending or receiving information (usually on the web)". And you've checked mountains of code into CVS to prevent people with dissenting opinions from sending information on the web. It meets your definition, letter for letter. And guess what? Your Censorware is just as effective as every Censorware project you have ever railed against. How effective is that?

How effective is that? That's a great question. It's effective in exactly the same way NetNanny is effective. It stops technically non-proficient people in their tracks. They become victims of a robotic system that no one understands. Get a new account on this cool site, post a comment about how you had a hard time installing Linux, and BAMMO, you and your whole subnet are banned from posting. Congratulations. But it doesn't stop the clever, does it Jamie? How many times have you written articles about how the folks at Peacefire can walk rings around an Internet filter in 10 seconds flat? Well guess what?

I just spent the whole fucking day running circles around your pathetic little Internet filter. How does it feel to be a commercial software developer paid to block people from accessing something and failing?

Your points about Censorware were something you should have listened to. You and your pathetic system are a bleeding failure. Like your opponents, you have frustrated the weak and enraged the strong. Soon, you'll lose your job, and you're going to be sitting on the other side of an oak desk with someone trying to interview you looking at you, and your resume, like this.

And that, as they say, is poetic justice.

--Everybody on K5

An open letter to Jamie McCarthy

Dear Jamie,
There's a reason people look at you like you're some kind of goddamn freak. We're pretty sure there's other reasons you won't show your face anymore; we've been reading slashdot long enough to remember the pictures the Holland Sentinel published of you with your slicked back greasejob haircut and hawkish little face. I remember thinking "God, I know Internet filters are bad, but the last fucking thing that is going to convince anyone of anything is this guy". You need to wash. You need to exercise. You need to get a haircut, and get a real job. Soon, VA is going to fire you, and you're going to be out in the real world. And that is going to be the shock of a fucking lifetime. You need to prepare.

As much as you delight in finding people despicable enough that you feel tormenting them is your righteous duty, I think it's pretty clear at this point that Michael Sims is not a Nazi. In fact, he knew the truth about you long before anyone else did. You and your friends may run THE CENSORWARE PROJECT, but anyone with a lick sense now knows that you're personally responsible for writing the Censorware code that's now built into Slashdot. Let's be extremely clear about this: you define Censorware to be "software which is designed to prevent another person from sending or receiving information (usually on the web)". And you've checked mountains of code into CVS to prevent people with dissenting opinions from sending information on the web. It meets your definition, letter for letter. And guess what? Your Censorware is just as effective as every Censorware project you have ever railed against. How effective is that?

How effective is that? That's a great question. It's effective in exactly the same way NetNanny is effective. It stops technically non-proficient people in their tracks. They become victims of a robotic system that no one understands. Get a new account on this cool site, post a comment about how you had a hard time installing Linux, and BAMMO, you and your whole subnet are banned from posting. Congratulations. But it doesn't stop the clever, does it Jamie? How many times have you written articles about how the folks at Peacefire can walk rings around an Internet filter in 10 seconds flat? Well guess what?

I just spent the whole fucking day running circles around your pathetic little Internet filter. How does it feel to be a commercial software developer paid to block people from accessing something and failing?

Your points about Censorware were something you should have listened to. You and your pathetic system are a bleeding failure. Like your opponents, you have frustrated the weak and enraged the strong. Soon, you'll lose your job, and you're going to be sitting on the other side of an oak desk with someone trying to interview you looking at you, and your resume, like this.

And that, as they say, is poetic justice.

--Everybody on Trolltalk

An open letter to Jamie McCarthy

Dear Jamie,
There's a reason people look at you like you're some kind of goddamn freak. We're pretty sure there's other reasons you won't show your face anymore; we've been reading slashdot long enough to remember the pictures the Holland Sentinel published of you with your slicked back greasejob haircut and hawkish little face. I remember thinking "God, I know Internet filters are bad, but the last fucking thing that is going to convince anyone of anything is this guy". You need to wash. You need to exercise. You need to get a haircut, and get a real job. Soon, VA is going to fire you, and you're going to be out in the real world. And that is going to be the shock of a fucking lifetime. You need to prepare.

As much as you delight in finding people despicable enough that you feel tormenting them is your righteous duty, I think it's pretty clear at this point that Michael Sims is not a Nazi. In fact, he knew the truth about you long before anyone else did. You and your friends may run THE CENSORWARE PROJECT, but anyone with a lick sense now knows that you're personally responsible for writing the Censorware code that's now built into Slashdot. Let's be extremely clear about this: you define Censorware to be "software which is designed to prevent another person from sending or receiving information (usually on the web)". And you've checked mountains of code into CVS to prevent people with dissenting opinions from sending information on the web. It meets your definition, letter for letter. And guess what? Your Censorware is just as effective as every Censorware project you have ever railed against. How effective is that?

How effective is that? That's a great question. It's effective in exactly the same way NetNanny is effective. It stops technically non-proficient people in their tracks. They become victims of a robotic system that no one understands. Get a new account on this cool site, post a comment about how you had a hard time installing Linux, and BAMMO, you and your whole subnet are banned from posting. Congratulations. But it doesn't stop the clever, does it Jamie? How many times have you written articles about how the folks at Peacefire can walk rings around an Internet filter in 10 seconds flat? Well guess what?

I just spent the whole fucking day running circles around your pathetic little Internet filter. How does it feel to be a commercial software developer paid to block people from accessing something and failing?

Your points about Censorware were something you should have listened to. You and your pathetic system are a bleeding failure. Like your opponents, you have frustrated the weak and enraged the strong. Soon, you'll lose your job, and you're going to be sitting on the other side of an oak desk with someone trying to interview you looking at you, and your resume, like this.

And that, as they say, is poetic justice.

--Everyone Else on Slashdot

Less than a week ago, I posted some information to this site regarding the ongoing failure of their efforts to filter the site. Since then, my account has been effectively eliminated, as I expected would happen when I posted the information. Revolutionaries are seldom welcomed by the established power, after all.

No editor stepped forward to claim responsibility for the attack, but evidence points to Jamie McCarthy, as I was involved in a short exchange with him as a result of the aggressive editor moderation. During our brief discussion, "jamie" made the interesting claim that the bitchslap was never used on anyone except bots. This is a cynical attempt to deceive the slashdot readers.

Let's stick to the facts and examine the evidence:

While doing some unrelated research on the web, I happened upon this story of a truly unjust bitchslapping by either Hemos or CmdrTaco. I can only assume that "jamie"'s non-reply to my question about modslap indicates that he is aware that this had taken place. I understand that this is probably not news to several other posters. I must point out that Taco repeatedly refers to the modslap script as "bitchslap" in his correspondence. There is no almost no difference between the two.

The article describes an incident in which a user was bitchslapped for not moderating according to the beliefs of the slashdot editors.

Even as I was writing the article on slashcode, I was not aware of how serious the problems at slashdot are. Here is an incident in which the editors were happy to unleash a bitchslap on almost no provocation. I repeat, "If you don't mod the way he likes, your moderating days are over, and your karma plummets to bitchslap levels."

While the bitchslap script is apparently still in operation, modslap is probably not used in it's original form. I do know that karma can be lost for unsatisfactory meta-moderation, as I have seen this happen to one of my accounts, during a period in which that account had not posted or moderated anything. What this evidence does reveal is that the slashdot staff have no particular loyalty either to their readers, or to freedom of speech. They are willing to suppress your posts and your account according to their own opinions.

"jamie"'s comments reveal a confused attitude towards the meaning of freedom of speech, as does this excerpt from his website:

I believe strongly in free speech. I believe just as strongly that no one is required to nod along with a liar, and pretend that he is making valid points: to pretend that crackpots deserve equal billing on the marquee.

Evidently, Jamie McCarthy thinks that "crackpots" should be afforded fewer rights than us right-thinking people. I wonder what sort of free speech rights he thinks should have been given to "crackpots" like Galileo? Or modern "crackpots" like Richard M. Stallman?

Besides Seth Finkelstein, do any of the contributors to the now defunct censorware.org actually understand what free speech means? I advise Jamie, and the other slashdot editors to read, or re-read John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty" and Voltaire's "Essay on Tolerance" to remind them why free speech is not conditional on what is being said.

Less than a week ago, I posted some information to this site regarding the ongoing failure of their efforts to filter the site. Since then, my account has been effectively eliminated, as I expected would happen when I posted the information. Revolutionaries are seldom welcomed by the established power, after all.

No editor stepped forward to claim responsibility for the attack, but evidence points to Jamie McCarthy, as I was involved in a short exchange with him as a result of the aggressive editor moderation. During our brief discussion, "jamie" made the interesting claim that the bitchslap was never used on anyone except bots. This is a cynical attempt to deceive the slashdot readers.

Let's stick to the facts and examine the evidence:

While doing some unrelated research on the web, I happened upon this story of a truly unjust bitchslapping by either Hemos or CmdrTaco. I can only assume that "jamie"'s non-reply to my question about modslap indicates that he is aware that this had taken place. I understand that this is probably not news to several other posters. I must point out that Taco repeatedly refers to the modslap script as "bitchslap" in his correspondence. There is no almost no difference between the two.

The article describes an incident in which a user was bitchslapped for not moderating according to the beliefs of the slashdot editors.

Even as I was writing the article on slashcode, I was not aware of how serious the problems at slashdot are. Here is an incident in which the editors were happy to unleash a bitchslap on almost no provocation. I repeat, "If you don't mod the way he likes, your moderating days are over, and your karma plummets to bitchslap levels."

While the bitchslap script is apparently still in operation, modslap is probably not used in it's original form. I do know that karma can be lost for unsatisfactory meta-moderation, as I have seen this happen to one of my accounts, during a period in which that account had not posted or moderated anything. What this evidence does reveal is that the slashdot staff have no particular loyalty either to their readers, or to freedom of speech. They are willing to suppress your posts and your account according to their own opinions.

"jamie"'s comments reveal a confused attitude towards the meaning of freedom of speech, as does this excerpt from his website:

I believe strongly in free speech. I believe just as strongly that no one is required to nod along with a liar, and pretend that he is making valid points: to pretend that crackpots deserve equal billing on the marquee.

Evidently, Jamie McCarthy thinks that "crackpots" should be afforded fewer rights than us right-thinking people. I wonder what sort of free speech rights he thinks should have been given to "crackpots" like Galileo? Or modern "crackpots" like Richard M. Stallman?

Besides Seth Finkelstein, do any of the contributors to the now defunct censorware.org actually understand what free speech means? I advise Jamie, and the other slashdot editors to read, or re-read John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty" and Voltaire's "Essay on Tolerance" to remind them why free speech is not conditional on what is being said.

"Arial photos of numerous camps (including Auschwitz) so detailed that you could see people smoking cigarettes. But you sure as hell couldn't see people being smoked - especially en masse, as they supposedly were."

Holocaust-deniers ignore the aerial photographs which do show the smoke from burning pits. Some of these photos, taken moments apart by the planes flying overhead, actually allow stereoscopic views which show, in effect, a 3-D view of the smoke rising over the Auschwitz death camp.

Prof. John Zimmerman talks about these in his essay Body Disposal at Auschwitz. He writes (I'm omitting his footnotes):

...when the June26 [1944] photo was first analyzed in a Central Intelligence Agency study in 1979 it was noted that ground scarring near CrematoriaIV and V, consistent with the eyewitness testimony about burning pits, was visible.

The other photo was taken on May31, a time when deportations were occurring. This photo was not analyzed in the original CIA study. The full extent of the extermination process is not recorded on this photo. However, it needs to be kept in mind that this is a still photo taken at a particular point in time, not round the clock surveillance.

Nevertheless, the May31 photo does reveal important information not addressed by deniers. In 1994 Mattogno assured his readers that the May31 photo did not show a "trace of smoke" or "pits, crematory or otherwise."The problem is that at the same time his monograph appeared, a book published on Auschwitz showed smoke rising from a pit near KremaV, the same place all of the eyewitnesses said bodies were being burned.This was the same May31 photo. It had actually first been reproduced showing the smoke in 1983.

The May31 photo also showed something that was spotted by Dr. Nevin Bryant, supervisor of cartographic applications and image processing at Caltech/NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He identified prisoners being marched into KremaV.

Mattogno claimed in 1995, the year following the publication of the May31 photo, that the smoke was not from burning bodies but most probably from trash. However, it is known that this is not the case because KremasII and III each had a trash incinerator. Therefore, there would not have been a reason to burn trash in the open. Moreover, as will be seen, there are three pits near KremaV in the photo. Mattogno simply had no explanation for the presence of this smoke.

Jamie McCarthy

"In the story's submission the submitter posted a link to Neo-Nazi content but not to pornographic content."

Obviously you didn't click the link (which was my addition, not a submitter's). It points to a collection of papers and speeches by my late friend Stig Hornshøj-Møller, who had researched the Nazi propaganda film Der ewige Jude.

Stig had argued, and persuasively demonstrated, that the 1941 Nazi propaganda film is no longer a threat to democracy, and that screening it for young people in particular can help them understand Nazi use of propaganda. And yet the film is still strictly regulated by Germany, to the point where instructors have to apply to the government for permission before using it even in the classroom.

Go check out his work. It's fascinating (IMHO) to see how the film has changed in sixty years from a tool of persuasion, to an object to be feared, and, finally, hopefully, to a historical document to be learned from.

Jamie McCarthy

The Holocaust History Project is a free archive of documents, photographs, recordings, and essays regarding the Holocaust, including direct of Holocaust-denial.

"Before spouting off about things of which you know nothing, do some research."

Please do. I'd like to respond to you personally to offer some good research sources, but you posted anonymously so I can't.

One good source that debunks 66 common Holocaust-denier fantasies is the "66 QAR" (questions, answers, replies). It happens to be written by two friends and myself and it's a little old (1996, I think) but it's still very much on-target. Most of the lies you'll hear about the Holocaust are addressed in here.

For information specifically about Auschwitz, I recommend The Holocaust History Project's website, at http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/. Disclaimer: I happen to be the site's webmaster. Please note that we include reproductions of several documents which deal specifically with the annihilation of the Jews at that death camp.

You may want to read and listen to Hitler's own intentions for the Jews, which he and Goebbels made the climax of a 1940 propaganda film so you know it wasn't just something he said off the cuff.

And you'll also want to listen to Heinrich Himmler's description of the final solution, given in a private talk to SS leaders in 1943. Himmler, Hitler's #2 man, describes how the Nazi intentions are being carried out. Luckily for historians, Himmler recorded his speeches, and this tape was one of the few that survived:

"I want to also mention a very difficult subject before you, with complete candor. It should be discussed amongst us, yet nevertheless, we will never speak about it in public. ... I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. 'The Jewish people is being exterminated,' every Party member will tell you, 'perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, a small matter.' ... We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who would kill us."

If you're interested in the antisemitic movement to deny the Holocaust, which calls itself Holocaust "revisionism," the best source to start with is Deborah Lipstadt's book Denying the Holocaust. It discusses the origins of such groups as the Institute for Historical Review, which you name; really they're just fancy, pseudoscientific wrappers around the same racism and hate that the world has known since, well, since human beings existed I suppose.

If you have any questions about specific matters, please feel free to email me personally.

Jamie McCarthy

"Before spouting off about things of which you know nothing, do some research."

Please do. I'd like to respond to you personally to offer some good research sources, but you posted anonymously so I can't.

One good source that debunks 66 common Holocaust-denier fantasies is the "66 QAR" (questions, answers, replies). It happens to be written by two friends and myself and it's a little old (1996, I think) but it's still very much on-target. Most of the lies you'll hear about the Holocaust are addressed in here.

For information specifically about Auschwitz, I recommend The Holocaust History Project's website, at http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/. Disclaimer: I happen to be the site's webmaster. Please note that we include reproductions of several documents which deal specifically with the annihilation of the Jews at that death camp.

You may want to read and listen to Hitler's own intentions for the Jews, which he and Goebbels made the climax of a 1940 propaganda film so you know it wasn't just something he said off the cuff.

And you'll also want to listen to Heinrich Himmler's description of the final solution, given in a private talk to SS leaders in 1943. Himmler, Hitler's #2 man, describes how the Nazi intentions are being carried out. Luckily for historians, Himmler recorded his speeches, and this tape was one of the few that survived:

"I want to also mention a very difficult subject before you, with complete candor. It should be discussed amongst us, yet nevertheless, we will never speak about it in public. ... I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. 'The Jewish people is being exterminated,' every Party member will tell you, 'perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, a small matter.' ... We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who would kill us."

If you're interested in the antisemitic movement to deny the Holocaust, which calls itself Holocaust "revisionism," the best source to start with is Deborah Lipstadt's book Denying the Holocaust. It discusses the origins of such groups as the Institute for Historical Review, which you name; really they're just fancy, pseudoscientific wrappers around the same racism and hate that the world has known since, well, since human beings existed I suppose.

If you have any questions about specific matters, please feel free to email me personally.

Jamie McCarthy

"Just a correction, according to spamhaus media3 is hosting not 1 but 21 spam sites, the largest on the list, and considering media3 is a grand total of a few class C networks, thats a pretty high percentage of their customers being spammers."

Just some corrections of your correction. :)

1. The Spamhaus list is here.

2. Not a single one of the IP numbers listed there sends spam. Let me repeat that: you could drop every one of those IP numbers off your network and it would not stop a single piece of spam from reaching you. Those are websites. Spamhaus and MAPS don't like ths products those websites are selling and that is why they (and over a thousand other websites) are blocked.

3. Media3 has 42 Class C blocks, which means that 0.2% of their IP numbers house websites which sell spam-friendly software (but, again, those IP numbers are not sending spam). I would not say 0.2% is a "high percentage."

The situation is analogous to a censorware company blackmailing a service provider into removing Holocaust-denial material, by blocking thousands of innocent websites. Now, I don't like Holocaust denial, but standing up for free speech means standing up for speech I don't believe in.

This situation is no different (except that, on my scale of evil, spammers aren't even close to those who want to rehabilitate Hitler).

Jamie McCarthy

This exploit only works on Microsoft Internet Explorer running on Microsoft Windows. Your user-agent is Mozilla/3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K), so you would not be affected.

I can understand that Junkbuster, blocking cookies, might prevent the exploit from working, but I don't understand why the site thinks I'm running Mozilla on a Mac?!?!?