• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Shermer Tries To Ban Book

On one side, an attempt to use the courts to revoke free speech.

On the other, a vile liar-by-trade, whose speech is not worth hearing.

I don't like either of them, I hope they both lose.
 
ehcks said:
On one side, an attempt to use the courts to revoke free speech.

On the other, a vile liar-by-trade, whose speech is not worth hearing.

I don't like either of them, I hope they both lose.
Click to expand...

Shermer was in the wrong here, and the case has been dropped. Shermer clearly misrepresented things to his own lawyers.
 
That's somehow important? Shermer called him a racist instead of an anti-semite and the guy has held onto it for all these years even though Shermer has apologized to him on numerous occasions? Film at 11:00. :rolleyes:
 
When I clicked on the link in the OP I got a malware warning:
Access has been blocked as the threat Mal/ExpJS-BH has been found on this website.
Click to expand...

What's up?
 
Mondial said:
The publisher of Skeptic Magazine Michael Shermer has taken legal action to try and halt the distribution of a new book by David Cole called Republican Party Animal - www.countercontempt.com/archives/5232
Click to expand...


The link is to David Cole's page. Cole was a Holocaust denier and has not been known in the past for his honesty. A skeptic would want to hear Shermer's side of the story before drawing any conclusions.

Doghouse Reilly said:
Shermer was in the wrong here, and the case has been dropped. Shermer clearly misrepresented things to his own lawyers.
Click to expand...

Citation (with link please)?

ETA:

The only information I can find about this is from little David Cole running around the internet whining about what a bad man Shermer is. I did find this, however, from The Guardian of May 3 of last year.

Hollywood conservative unmasked as notorious Holocaust revisionist.

Republican Party Animals operator David Stein says he is really David Cole, and that he still holds controversial views

To those who knew him, or thought they knew him, he was a cerebral, fun-loving gadfly who hosted boozy gatherings for Hollywood's political conservatives. David Stein brought right-wing congressmen, celebrities, writers and entertainment industry figures together for shindigs, closed to outsiders, where they could scorn liberals and proclaim their true beliefs.

Over the past five years Stein's organisation, Republican Party Animals, drew hundreds to regular events in and around Los Angeles, making him a darling of conservative blogs and talkshows. That he made respected documentaries on the Holocaust added intellectual cachet and Jewish support to Stein's cocktail of politics, irreverence and rock and roll.

There was just one problem. Stein was not who he claimed. His real name can be revealed for the first time publicly – a close circle of confidants only found out the truth recently – as David Cole. And under that name he was once a reviled Holocaust revisionist who questioned the existence of Nazi gas chambers. He changed identities in January 1998.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/03/david-stein-cole-holocaust-revisionist
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'm sorry - I read this thread, and it's like walking into the middle of a very long conversation with no clue or context. Can I get a neutral summary of what the heck the problem is that this thread's supposed to be about?
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
The link in the OP contains all of the communications between Cole and Shermer's lawyers. Seems very clear cut to me.
Click to expand...

And since it's from such an unimpeachable source like Cole we must accept it as true and not give Shermer the least benefit of the doubt? I don't give page hits to frauds and Holocaust deniers like Cole. Perhaps someone could quote some relevant portions of the alleged exchange between the attorneys.

Checkmite said:
Okay, I'm sorry - I read this thread, and it's like walking into the middle of a very long conversation with no clue or context. Can I get a neutral summary of what the heck the problem is that this thread's supposed to be about?
Click to expand...

Not neutral, but it's about people accepting what they read on the internet at face value no matter its provenance .
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
And since it's from such an unimpeachable source like Cole we must accept it as true and not give Shermer the least benefit of the doubt? I don't give page hits to frauds and Holocaust deniers like Cole. Perhaps someone could quote some relevant portions of the alleged exchange between the attorneys.



Not neutral, but it's about people accepting what they read on the internet at face value no matter its provenance .
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous, that's not what the thread is about. I'm not going to do the work of collecting the relevant information for you when it's readily available. It's very clear that the exchange between Cole and the attorneys is legitimate, but since you refuse to look at it, you'd hardly be expected to be aware of that. If it's not, we'll soon be hearing about Shermer suing Cole for defamation and slander. I'm not holding my breath.

I don't really see why you're participating in a thread for which you refuse to read the relevant source material.
 
Checkmite said:
Okay, I'm sorry - I read this thread, and it's like walking into the middle of a very long conversation with no clue or context. Can I get a neutral summary of what the heck the problem is that this thread's supposed to be about?
Click to expand...

The links posted by Walter Ego seem to be fairly illuminating.

Take your pick, the left-wing Guardian or right-wing Washington Times.
 
Puppycow said:
The links posted by Walter Ego seem to be fairly illuminating.

Take your pick, the left-wing Guardian or right-wing Washington Times.
Click to expand...

The links don't have a whole lot to do with the topic of the thread, actually. The subject isn't whether Cole is an admirable person or not, it's the issue between Cole and Shermer.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
It's very clear that the exchange between Cole and the attorneys is legitimate, but since you refuse to look at it, you'd hardly be expected to be aware of that. If it's not, we'll soon be hearing about Shermer suing Cole for defamation and slander. I'm not holding my breath.

I don't really see why you're participating in a thread for which you refuse to read the relevant source material.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to read the "source material" but I'd rather have it from a more credible source that Cole/Stein, a known liar and fraud. Until then, as a skeptic, I'll continue to give Shermer the benefit of the doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom