Well synopsis you left me with egg on my face. I suppose i need to stay above the line with my comments. And personal attacks are well below the line. Point taken. I suppose the point is that, when liz shaw involves herself in discussion, as so often in craccum, her comments are so bizzare people disagree with the way she says things and not always what she says, (although what she says is easy to disagree with..) When the shit hits the fan liz feels desperate to defend herself to everyone and talks about herself, turning it into 'liz shaw v everyone' and the rest is history. If she had reasonable view points, which didnt involve blatant lies, ie 'recent data shows this.' then there would be no need for this to happen. And i know its old hat but the worst, WORST idea is that david irving is a racist, and no one wants to hear about it, but her ideas on that have left most people with some steadfast preconceptions. Myself included.

Whoops. To clarify. David Irving IS a racist. Thats a fact.

Sorry jon, i didnt get your email til then. Like i said, i hear you. Look, i posted serious comments, on on IRan and one on petrol. check it.

Lol its ok buddy, just watch what you say from now on, dont directly call out anyone into an arguement, despite the early warnings etc, you are actually greatly appreciated here, until now Liz has been the only highly oppinionated poster, its good to have "balance in the force"

Pffft. We're all opinionated, I just don't think anyone was keen to start going against her because it always turns into a 'flame war'. Or what Liz defines as a flame war.

you mean someone disagrees with her :P

It's much more satisfying to shutup liz at her own game, but then she just starts another thread with a subtlely different topic :shrugs:

Pretty fucking much. I try not to get into it because then you get all the PC crap with warnings and such. But if I bite my tongue much longer I'll be drooling blood. :ph43r:

I just saw this topic and I would like to add my 5 cents worth to the topic.

Toby, you say my opinions are bizarre, bizarre opinons would be thinking that murder is okay but I don't, bizarre would be thinking that we should all worship an ant, bizarre would be thinking that it is okay to eat cat food. I have none of these opinions and think none of these things are okay.

You also say that it was the way I voiced my opinions, I am going to ask you straight out here, mainly for my own benefit, but can you honestly say that my opinions on this forum excluding "the topic" have been bizarre and badly worded? I don't think you can because the truth of the matter is that they have all been researched, they have all been backed up and they have all been structued.

Toby, you said in the now deleted topic that I was unstable and that my writing in Craccum last year was of poor quality. This is probably the only time when I will say something negative about myself. My writing was poor last year, I can't even read it, it makes me cringe just even thinking about it for several reasons. I cringe at the quality and I cringe at the articles that did get published. I also cringe at the reaction because that is not what I am like.

Last year Toby, I was unstable, I was highly unstable in several ways but that is unrelated to my opinions in Craccum.

I look up to Paul Holmes and hold him with very high regard, he has been in the business for so long and gives inspiration to people like myself. I decided that i would tackle the controversial topics that nobody else was willing to tackle and did it badly.

In reference to David Irving, I was passed on information regarding him from somebody else, that person left out important details and therefore I was not given the full picture. I don't think he is a racist, I just think he genuinely believes the haulicast did not happen. History is composed of two words, his and the word story, a story is therefore told. in a story being told there are going to be events mentioned and events not.
The truth of the matter is taht none of us know for sure whether it happened or not, we have only the media to go on. It is a known fact that media touch up images so that celebrities appear "perfect", now if they can do this with pictures, what is to say that they won't with stories? Citizen Kane, a fictitious movie provides an excellent example of media lying outright.
i am not saying that is the case here, I am just saying that it needs to be taken into consideration because we were not alive at the time the haulicast took place.
And explain to me how denying a particular event can make someone racist?

I find it interresting toby that you say to me not to use data (that is how I have interpreted your post, correct me if I am wrong) because you are one minute saying "you are ignorant" and then when I post factual information you still aren't satisfied. I use data to back up my points. Isn't that what we are taught at university? Isn't that a part of the reason why, until recently my opinions have not been well received, because they were not backed up? It appears to me that this time you have contradicted yourself with these two comments.

Just for the record and for the moderators, this is not a flame, it is a reply and there is a subtle difference.

And toby, one last thing, i am not a lesbian, the thought of being with another chick dsigusts me. Having said that I am okay with homosexuality but I am not one.

I think you take someone having a different opinion to you FAR to seriously.
This is interesting because without different opinions there would not be debates, something which you seem to enjoy so much.

debating is fun when the TOPIC is discussed and different opinions go back and forth and are rebutted.

If you guys really, really, really want to flame eachother (like you just cant contain it in your wee little hearts)

We can make a special "flame all you want" board.

Though that idea is only "in the works"

I'm sure we contain ourselves, but there will be major tongue blood loss.

Well as much fun as it is to patronised, i will make a hasty retreat from inciting flame wars, as its called. But check it, if you can. When you make a point, you cant'prove' the point by saying 'recent data shows this' , what you should do is say 'in the 2002 consensus, or what ever the fuck. because to say there are less religious people in nz, and 'recent data shows this' is in actual fact, a lie, as you will see if you look at any recent consensus. ANd if you lied there, how can anyone believe any of your 'research.' Furthermore, if david irving 'genuinely believes the holocaust did not happen,' then the man is a fool and not worther of the title historian. It makes him a racist, vary clearly, because the implication of what he says is, 'i choose to ignore the completely sound evidence that the jewish people have suffered in the last century, and of course in the last 2 millenia,' why would someone deny that? Deny the families of jewish people alive today have had untold racism shined on them?

The truth of the matter is taht none of us know for sure whether it happened or not - liz shaw.

No, thats not true, everybody KNOWS it happened, 6 million jews died in europe. IN the space of 7 or so years. I understand the media twists things, of course they do, but you cant twist the genocide of 6 million people. To deny the suffering of an entire race is tantamount to racism. Would it be ok to say that african americans have always been treated fairly? is that true? do you think that lynching black people is fair? do you acknowledge that happened? of course you do, and if someone said it didnt happen, youd have to question their motive, and they too would be racist. Stupid, of course, but also racist. If

'somone passed on information regarding him from somebody else, that person left out important details and therefore I was not given the full picture'

then perhaps you will consider making a broader effort at research, because if you did you would realise the obvious facts. If you ONLY read david irvings version of history, you would have very little sympathy for the jewish cause in Israel, which perhpas is the case anyway...

does that explain it for you love?

abcdefghjklmnopqrstuvwxyz

*gigglesnorts*

No, I don't need a flaming thread, seriously. Though I do think dragonorchid is right when she says Liz does take differing opinions far too seriously. I mean, we're bound to snap when we're being told our opinions are stupid, rather than having them constructively and logically torn apart.

Yes, I do do my research nowadays. I have done a poll at the university today regarding a secret project I am working on for Craccum at this point in time. The data is very interesting and all will be revealed in the next few weeks.

Toby, I don't think his denial of an event makes him racist, it means he has fucked up views, sure, I would agree with that. I was deemed a racist last year with my crap article (you know the one) but I was merely saying that I don't think he is racist, unless he says "the jews deserve bad treatment" then there is no evidence. Can you provide me with some evidence that he is racist.

Fez, I do think we need a flaming thread, just in case there are to be flames.

yes, i can, and this is so tedius for everyone else and i apologise.

You have NOT addressed anything i said. Why, in the name of muhammed, would somebody deny something they KNOW to be true. Dont give me any of that post modern bullshit about realativity or anything else, the holocaust DID happen. Period. So why is he denying it? Do you think he denies the suffering of the Jews because he likes them? if a white man living in philladelphia said the cops there werent bent, hed get the chop because to say that african americans arent picked in is to side with the white oppressers, and assimilate your view point with theres. If you say jewish people were not the victims of genocide, or even that it wasnt really all that bad, then yes, you are a racist.