Not Banned

[Hebden]

Mr. Wendel, the Moderator of the Third Reich Forum, recently denied our claim that we had been banned from his forum. To wit:

Hebden has not been banned, he did however recieve several warnings during his time here.

One of these warnings even merited its own thread:

I've told you several times to drop your unfriendly and condescending attitude and the last few days I've recieved pms from several members complaining about you attitude, so for the last time: Change your attitude or leave the forum!

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6297

Naturally, we ignored this effrontery only to find that shortly afterwards our account had become inactive. Our subsequent email to Mr. Wendel drawing his attention to this problem was ignored.

A few days ago we decided to put Mr. Wendel's denial to the test by requesting that our account be re-activated. After two days of stalling on his part, we prompted him again and drew this response:

Hi again,

> Problem resolved?


I'm waiting to hear from you that I will not have to recieve any complaints about condecending attitude on your part from the other members of the forum, like I did the last time you were in the forum.
And also that you (as a favour to myself if nothing else) would not use "we" instead of "I" when writing in the forum.
Once I recieved assurances about the above, I will look into the problem.

/Marcus

To which we replied:

Sir,

So in addition to expecting an Englishman of all people to compromise his freedom of expression, you are effectively asking us to vouch for the sensibilities of every other potential reader of your forum. We cannot allow ourself this conceit.

Until you provide us with the text of aforesaid complaints so that we can know both the identity of the authors and the posts which they found objectionable, how may we judge what about our humble efforts was perceived to be at fault? Failing this, we shall be inclined to suspect that the content of our posts and not their style was the actual source of the discontentment.

We contend that any impartial and discerning survey of our posts to the Forum would conclude that they in toto represent a model of regard for scholarly proprieties.

>And also that you (as a favour to myself if nothing else) would not
>use "we" instead of "I" when writing in the forum.

Favour 1. n. an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual....

>Once I recieved assurances about the above, I will look into the
>problem.

The requested favour now appears to have become a condition. Please clarify.

When you do manage to locate the problem with our account, we would be pleased to be made aware of the technical details.

Best regards, Mr. Hebden

Mr. Wendel's reply is awaited....

[Hannover]

That would be the same Mr. Wendel (aka: Max, Hans) who trumpets the laughable 'soap made from Jews' and 'jumping buckets of of human flesh at Auschwitz'.

- Hannover

[Sailor]

The Third Reich Forum does say right up front: No Holocaust denial, or something to that effect. I am not quite sure what they mean with “Holocaust denial”. Apparently one has to swallow the whole cock-and-bull story as presented, else one is in denial.

Someone must have complained about me after I posted this picture:



I regret that I ever posted there.

[neugierig]

I posted at the TRF for a while and may do so again. It is, however, difficult, since Holocaust denial is not allowed and the term ’Holocaust’ is not exactly defined. As well, I live in the ’True North strong and FREE’, but just look at Zündel’s trial’s and tribulations and you know how FREE we really are up here.

Wilf

[Scott]

That would be the same Mr. Wendel (aka: Max, Hans) who trumpets the laughable 'soap made from Jews' and 'jumping buckets of of human flesh at Auschwitz'.

No, Marcus Wendel of Sweden owns the Third Reich site, and like all site owners he sets the rules. Hans of Germany (who posted here as Max) was at one time the Moderator of the Holocaust & Warcrimes section at the TR forum.

[Hannover]

Thanks for the clarification, I stand corrected.

A quick point, you said:

...and like all site owners he sets the rules.....

Incorrect. The Moderator of this forum sets the rules for it, but is not the site owner. John Ball is the owner and the next in line is the Webmaster.

- Hannover

[Scott]

Thanks for the clarification, I stand corrected.

A quick point, you said:

...and like all site owners he sets the rules.....

Incorrect. The Moderator of this forum sets the rules for it, but is not the site owner. John Ball is the owner and the next in line is the Webmaster.

- Hannover

Thanks for the clarification. Fair enough.

[Hebden]

Mr. Wendel's reply is awaited....

We're stilll awaiting....

[Hebden]

Mr. Wendel's reply is awaited....

We're stilll awaiting....

The above message must have hit home, because Mr. Wendel promptly sent us the following reply to our last email:

Hi,

I can only understand your mail to mean that you will not change the attitude that caused problems during your last visit, so I will not be taking a look at what might be preventing you from logging into the forum.

btw. Complaints made to myself or the other moderators are naturally not shared with others, nor info on who makes them.

/Marcus

So there you have it for the record:

We are not banned from the TRF, we're just not allowed to post there. Alles klar?

One wonders whether it's possible that this pusillanimous pussyfooter could have believed we would have deigned to return and grace his third rate forum.

[Karl S]

So there you have it for the record:

We are not banned from the TRF, we're just not allowed to post there. Alles klar?

Hebden, don't you see the brilliant logic?

"We can't ban you, but you s**head must understand that we can't allow you to post!"

[Hebden]

So there you have it for the record:

We are not banned from the TRF, we're just not allowed to post there. Alles klar?

Hebden, don't you see the brilliant logic?

"We can't ban you, but you s**head must understand that we can't allow you to post!"

We are put in mind of the email we once received from a certain Mr. John Morris:

Dear Mr. Hebden,

Thank you for your note. As a rule, I don't carry on discussions by
private e-mail with Holocaust "Revisionists." As another rule, I don't
join web-based discussion forums. Therefore, this will be my only
reply to you.
First off, I had already read some of your messages at
thirdreichforum.com: one participants tipped me that my name came
up in the discussion. I have no doubt that this reply will be wasted someone
who wonders whether there might be a sinister agenda at work in Robert
Van Pelt's omission of a single word when quoting a readily-accessible
and popular secondary source.

My original message was posted in a usenet newsgroup before I could
verify my claim, but I was confident that I would be able to verify it
if challenged. Since it was never challenged, I let it go. It was an
educated guess based on the following: that Einsatzgruppen C was
operating in the Kiev-Zhitomir area at approximately the time of the
Serniki and Ustinovka massacres; that Martin Gilbert listed the Serniki
massacre in his 1988 _Atlas of the Holocaust_. Because Gilbert listed
the Einsatzgruppen Reports in his general bibliography, I simply
assumed that was his source for listing the massacre at Serniki.

In short, I jumped to a conclusion that I shouldn't have. In the
meantime, I had no idea that Ken McVay had archived the usenet post at
his Nizkor website. I asked Ken to remove the file until I could
verify your query in case the information I gave was erroneous.

While you were so impatient for my reply, I was waiting for a reply
from Konrad Kwiet, the consulting historian in the Australian war
crimes case which commissioned Richard Wright's studies. Kwiet
informed me that Einsatzgruppen did not report activities in Serniki.
The figures for Serniki may well be subsumed in the figures for
Zhitomir, but there would be no way of telling now. None of the
published excerpts from the Einsatzgruppen Reports mention Ustinovka.

Kwiet also asked me to clarify my request for information about the
Serniki and Ustinovka cases. I am still waiting for his second reply.
If he doesn't reply soon, I shall ask Richard if he recalls exactly
what contemporaneous historical evidence was presented aside from his
forensic archaeology report. And that is the reason for my slowness in
responding: I was, and am, interested in treating your request for
information seriously.

Suffice it to say, however, my original claim was in error that the
Serniki and Ustinovka studies corroborate the Einsatzgruppen Reports.

In the meantime, the web page is down at my request because it was in
error. If, however, you (all) lose your copy, you can root it out of
the google newsgroups archive.

Regarding your perplexity that Richard did not discuss the other
evidence employed in the trial: I suspect it was because he wanted to
tell his own story and to focus on the usefulness of archaeology in
forensic investigations rather than to rehearse the entirety of the
trials. It seems to me fairly clear from his remarks were not made in
a vacuum and that he is discussing Nazi crimes and not some other
crimes.

Lastly, I have taken the liberty of bcc'ing this to the kind soul who
let me know where I was discussed. Heaven forfend that you should
scruple to misquote or misrepresent my remarks to you.

Cheers,
John Morris

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=5047

Short of telepathy, one wonders how Mr. Morris still intended to meet our request for information given his desire not to enter further correspondence with us.

[Hebden]

The good thing about this thread is that it makes it less likely we will be banned from this forum.

[Hannover]

The only reason that you would be banned from this forum is failure to adhere to the posted guidelines.

- Hannover

[Hebden]

Actually, there was another reason altogether as to why we began this thread.

We were eager to see if Mr. Roberto or other paragons of free speech at the TRF would link to our thread so as to expose the deplorable deceit of their malodorous Moderator.

Alas, we were to be disappointed if not suprised.

If Mr. Voltaire, the man who famously said: 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was alive today, we would say to him: 'Oh, stop lying, you posturing French twit.'

For not only did Mr. Voltaire not die defending free speech, he didn't even come close. And this in 18th century Europe! He couldn't even have been trying.

He did at least die quite wittily, for his reported last words, on being asked by a priest to renounce Satan, were: "Now, now, my good man, this is no time for making enemies."

[Malle]

Hebden,

Please don't hold your breath. The Moderators at TRF are ridicules.

But from my point of view, you are an honest man. So, if you are banned there, something tells me you are right.

Keep up your good posts! ( I don't like them!!)