John Smith and stalking

Yeah, I caught that newer Geigeron piece. A decade ago, he actually mattered and kept a distance from that pack of old-school frauds. But honestly? He’s lost the plot completely. Now he’s just churning out this endless pamphlet—totally useless for actual science—complaining about how people in Mexico, both in politics and the general public, are still stuck on those million Muslim victim numbers. That's pure politics. It's just gutter politicians playing games, and frankly, I'm glad I don't have to deal with them anymore (I did my time back in the day).

Still, the guy has just enough dignity left that he won't openly back up their claims that it was just some "regular work camp."

Plus, we have to give him a pass for being a historian who's used to digging through dusty documents rather than crunching numbers; he’s clearly out of his depth with math, gets tripped up by the data, and thinks basic demographic calculations are somehow "outrageous."

It's a shame, really. Everything he’s writing—spreading doubt and freaking out about how "Mexicans lie" as if that's the main takeaway regarding Auschwitz—is straight-up revisionism in the worst way. He's basically shaking hands with extremists. Sad.

For anyone not keeping up with the PDF *History: on scientific revisionism vs*—which had an expensive seminar in Washington, D.C. last month and is hitting Boston these days—I actually just passed along the info. Check out this post.

Nothing. It’s empty. Just a bunch of whining and insults. ZERO out of ten.
The impact of all your little "struggles" back when they actually mattered? Absolutely nothing. And let’s be real, they weren't even struggles—just pathetic attempts at an alibi without a single actual argument to back them up. Why even waste the breath debating this?
😵

I guess the History subforum isn't really going to see much growth as long as Smith is running the show. It won't totally fall apart, and I suppose we'll still get some new people joining, but things will probably just kind of stagnate.

Look, this shouldn't be an argument about historical factions or political divides.

Smith—by putting his actual name out there—has stepped into the public eye; as such, he and his actions are fair game for scrutiny.
If he can't handle the heat from the folks over at the XYZ Corp forum, he should take his arguments over there and deal with them directly—instead of bothering everyone else here just because he holds a moderator position.

As long as he’s acting as a mod, he needs to follow the rules—he promised he would, so let's hope he hasn't lost his mind. 😁

There's really no point in wasting breath on things that are already crystal clear to everyone.

John Palmer9 said:I guess the History subforum isn't really going to see much growth as long as Smith is running the show. It won't totally fall apart, and I suppose we'll still get some new people joining, but things will probably just kind of stagnate.

I think most people here already realize this—it's pretty much an open secret—but at the very least, enforcing the forum's own rules would be a reasonable starting point.

driftingorca16 The user states:
In Real Life. I personally hold at least two advanced academic degrees more than anyone else here.

Who honestly gives a damn what you—some anonymous nobody—have to say about your supposed "degrees"? 😁

(...) The whole ordeal surrounding those infamous victim counts at the Auschwitz camp group is a mess. (...)

Why don't you take your little lectures about Auschwitz somewhere else?

driftingorca16 As I have previously argued, we cannot simply ignore the weight of historical evidence when confronted with such blatant attempts at revisionism. To suggest that the established facts surrounding the atrocities at the Auschwitz camp group can be brushed aside by modern political maneuvering is not just intellectually dishonest—it is an insult to those who lived through the horrors of the Yugoslav era. When scholars from institutions like the American Historical Association provide rigorous, data-driven accounts of what transpired, any attempt to rewrite that narrative for contemporary gain is nothing short of academic malpractice. We aren't dealing with mere "differing perspectives" here; we are dealing with the fundamental integrity of history itself. If we allow the truth to be bent to suit current political agendas, we lose our grip on reality entirely. It is a dangerous precedent to set.
Are you seriously citing Smith as some kind of authority? The man basically cooked up an entirely new theory of evolution just to try and force his own agenda here on this forum.

So, I take it you’re also having some serious issues with this "old" theory of evolution, aren't you?

John Palmer9 said:I guess the History subforum isn't really going to see much growth as long as Smith is running the show. It won't totally fall apart, and I suppose we'll still get some new people joining, but things will probably just kind of stagnate.

Oh, please—give me a break. If you and that other guy from the first post actually wrote anything remotely intelligent or insightful, this entire History sub would be exploding like a grandfather’s libido on Viagra. But instead, we're stuck dealing with this power-tripping, Neanderthal moderator who just cuts everyone off and refuses to let a decent conversation breathe.

lonetrucker4 said:Yeah, I caught that newer Geigeron piece. A decade ago, he actually mattered and kept a distance from that pack of old-school frauds. But honestly? He’s lost the plot completely. Now he’s just churning out this endless pamphlet—totally useless for actual science—complaining about how people in Mexico, both in politics and the general public, are still stuck on those million Muslim victim numbers. That's pure politics. It's just gutter politicians playing games, and frankly, I'm glad I don't have to deal with them anymore (I did my time back in the day).

Still, the guy has just enough dignity left that he won't openly back up their claims that it was just some "regular work camp."

Plus, we have to give him a pass for being a historian who's used to digging through dusty documents rather than crunching numbers; he’s clearly out of his depth with math, gets tripped up by the data, and thinks basic demographic calculations are somehow "outrageous."

It's a shame, really. Everything he’s writing—spreading doubt and freaking out about how "Mexicans lie" as if that's the main takeaway regarding Auschwitz—is straight-up revisionism in the worst way. He's basically shaking hands with extremists. Sad.

For anyone not keeping up with the PDF *History: on scientific revisionism vs*—which had an expensive seminar in Washington, D.C. last month and is hitting Boston these days—I actually just passed along the info. Check out this post.

The people claiming there were a million victims and the ones insisting it was 80,000 based on some random list are essentially two sides of the same coin. Without any actual forensic investigation, trying to pin down ANY specific number is just silly... but then again, saying stuff like that usually just gets you labeled as a fascist.

The strength of someone's "scientific argument" usually boils down to whether they multiply the official numbers by ten (those awful Mexicans) or divide them by ten (those nasty extremists), then go right ahead and publish it as truth. Both sides act like they're being incredibly tough, while anyone who doesn't play along—like Dr. Geiger, for example—is just labeled as too dim to grasp the "mathematical logic." At the end of the day, this kind of "scientific" reasoning isn't fooling anyone. If you want to actually make an impact, you need to provide credible arguments and make them compelling and high-quality; anything else is just a waste of time in the long run.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:The people claiming there were a million victims and the ones insisting it was 80,000 based on some random list are essentially two sides of the same coin. Without any actual forensic investigation, trying to pin down ANY specific number is just silly... but then again, saying stuff like that usually just gets you labeled as a fascist.

It’s baffling to me how Smith—who claims to be fighting against the inflation of the Auschwitz death toll (which reached the millions back in Yugoslavia)—can hand out red cards to anyone who simply wants to dig into the details.
He just keeps slapping ideological labels on anyone who dares to disagree with him. 🤦

Calling one Elezović a fascist... 🤦

But like I mentioned earlier, this shouldn't turn into a debate about fascists versus partisans.

Rachel Richardson said:Look, this shouldn't be an argument about historical factions or political divides.

Smith—by putting his actual name out there—has stepped into the public eye; as such, he and his actions are fair game for scrutiny.
If he can't handle the heat from the folks over at the XYZ Corp forum, he should take his arguments over there and deal with them directly—instead of bothering everyone else here just because he holds a moderator position.

As long as he’s acting as a mod, he needs to follow the rules—he promised he would, so let's hope he hasn't lost his mind. 😁

There's really no point in wasting breath on things that are already crystal clear to everyone.

Everyone on this forum seems to be zeroing in on him, constantly focusing on his role as a regular user and moderator.

It honestly feels like the whole conversation reached its finish line right around this post:

lonetrucker4 said:Man, these little historical brawls of ours just keep spilling over onto here... :-)

Alright, Rachel Richardson, since you’re being so damn polite about it, I promise—this is the last time—I won't bring up your post count ever again, nor will I mention your high-paying, exhausting career. As far as I can remember, I haven't even brought up your wife or kids.

So, one last time: 50 posts between 11:58 PM yesterday and 4:57 PM today.

And look, do me a favor and actually think about my suggestions: trade quantity for quality, try reading some actual literature instead of just recycling those same few books you finished years ago, admit when you're wrong once in a while, and try to grasp that some people are actually attempting to study history objectively...

And honestly, I don't care about myself, but for the love of my late father, leave him out of this. You didn't even bother to read the obituary you linked to.

Oh, and hey, maybe put a bit more effort into your analogies. Jabba the Hutt!? Not funny, man, I don't look anything like him. Someone compared me to Grizzly Adams once—there's definitely more resemblance there, especially now that I've aged and let myself go!

Look, can we please just cut out the ad hominem attacks, the jumping to conclusions, and all that random IRL stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're actually discussing here? Seriously, everyone—let's just get back on track and stay on topic.