Good God, not another one of those threads. Hell, 3/4 of Miller's posts were in defense of himself and he had how many ... 2,500 posts? What can be put on the table that's new and hasn't been discussed already for months?

If such a debate is to take place it is my opinion it should be between Miller and someone from this board appointed by the White Nationalist Community to conduct a debate against Miller. If such a debate is conducted in any other manner it will inevitably degenerate into a free for all spam fest.

If people start to express agreement with this idea then I'll set up a nominations thread, and we can then proceed to make this plan a reality.

Good God, not another one of those threads. Hell, 3/4 of Miller's posts were in defense of himself and he had how many ... 2,500 posts? What can be put on the table that's new and hasn't been discussed already for months?

Yes, but not since all of this has hit the fan recently. I understand he's been banned from this forum and all of his posts deleted.

If such a debate is to take place it is my opinion it should be between Miller and someone from this board appointed by the White Nationalist Community to conduct a debate against Miller. If such a debate is conducted in any other manner it will inevitably degenerate into a free for all spam fest.

If people start to express agreement with this idea then I'll set up a nominations thread, and we can then proceed to make this plan a reality.

Good idea, maybe even appoint more than one representative to take him on one at a time. Sounds fair to me, because I do know how this forum can degenerate into a mudslinging fest.

Good idea, maybe even appoint more than one representative to take him on one at a time. Sounds fair to me, because I do know how this forum can degenerate into a mudslinging fest.

I'd think it best to have just one representative, and then elect someone to moderate the debate. People wishing to add to the debate would submit their questions/ideas to the moderator of the debate, and the moderator would decide whether the said information is worthy of making its way into the debate. The moderator would also be responsible for making sure both parties’ answer the questions submitted to them. I fear questions might be avoided without the moderator also being responsible for this aspect of the debate.

Now I have to go run some errands and when I get back I'll start the nominations thread. I'll also reply to some other posts that I've been meaning to reply to.

One of the first principles of our Anglo-Saxon legal system that I still believe in is the right to face one's accusers. Glenn Miller has offered to debate any of his detractors one-on-one, and has challenged anyone on this board to do so. Let's see all the cards face up on the table.

rich
http://www.whitealert.com

No further debate is necessary. Mr. Miller has had an incredible opportunity to present his defense of the known facts. The jury has weighed the facts, and passed rightful judgment.

Guilty on All Counts.

I'd think it best to have just one representative, and then elect someone to moderate the debate. People wishing to add to the debate would submit their questions/ideas to the moderator of the debate, and the moderator would decide whether the said information is worthy of making its way into the debate. The moderator would also be responsible for making sure both parties’ answer the questions submitted to them. I fear questions might be avoided without the moderator also being responsible for this aspect of the debate.
Now I have to go run some errands and when I get back I'll start the nominations thread. I'll also reply to some other posts that I've been meaning to reply to.

Miller plea bargained with the Feds, it makes no difference what resulted from it, which is all the anti-Miller side needs to know to oust him. The pro-Miller side is more tolerable and takes the matter of his circumstances into consideration. They seem to think that if his circumstances are presented just one more time the opposition will change their minds. Won't happen, the debate will solve nothing.

Should it ever occur to begin with, at what point should the debate stop?

Miller plea bargained with the Feds, it makes no difference what resulted from it, which is all the anti-Miller side needs to know to oust him. The pro-Miller side is more tolerable and takes the matter of his circumstances into consideration. They seem to think that if his circumstances are presented just one more time the opposition will change their minds. Won't happen, the debate will solve nothing.

Should it ever occur to begin with, at what point should the debate stop?

I didn't say the debates purpose was to determine the guilt or innocents of the accused. I didn't even say that the debates purpose was for Miller to have a chance at restoring his credibility. I thought the debate was a good idea for the purposes of show. It's all the better, at least in my opinion, that Miller be defeated by his moral and intellectual superiors before being officially banished from the White Nationalist community in disgrace. I also think this would be a great way to make an example out of him, think about it, months from now we could point out how a degenerate race traitor, shackled by the shame of past deeds, was crushed during his last pathetic attempt to restore is dignity and honor. (in other words we could use records of the debate as a propaganda tool later on)

I didn't say the debates purpose was to determine the guilt or innocents of the accused. I didn't even say that the debates purpose was for Miller to have a chance at restoring his credibility. I thought the debate was a good idea for the purposes of show. It's all the better, at least in my opinion, that Miller be defeated by his moral and intellectual superiors before being officially banished from the White Nationalist community in disgrace. I also think this would be a great way to make an example out of him, think about it, months from now we could point out how a degenerate race traitor, shackled by the shame of past deeds, was crushed during his last pathetic attempt to restore is dignity and honor. (in other words we could use records of the debate as a propaganda tool later on)

What would be brought up now that hasn't been discussed before by Miller? You could have just used his present posts, granted that they aren't unrecoverable, to do what you state.

Glen Miller was given every availiable opportunity to explain himself. He lied and when his lying did'nt work he decided to just call the Order names. Glen Miller will not get the opportunity to debate anymore of his detractors on this forum while it is still on WR's server. Oh by the way since you say we owe Glen Miller the right to debate his detractors then don't you think the Order should have the same right??? It is kind of hard for a man behind bars to explain himself though, much less debate, don't you think??? Perhaps maybe someone should post Glen Millers email address and that way if anyone feels the need to talk it out with him they may.

Chris Quimby
WRMC

One of the first principles of our Anglo-Saxon legal system that I still believe in is the right to face one's accusers. Glenn Miller has offered to debate any of his detractors one-on-one, and has challenged anyone on this board to do so. Let's see all the cards face up on the table.

rich
http://www.whitealert.com

He lied and when his lying did'nt work he decided to just call the Order names.

How did he lie?

----

Glen Miller was given every availiable opportunity to explain himself. He lied and when his lying did'nt work he decided to just call the Order names. Glen Miller will not get the opportunity to debate anymore of his detractors on this forum while it is still on WR's server. Oh by the way since you say we owe Glen Miller the right to debate his detractors then don't you think the Order should have the same right??? It is kind of hard for a man behind bars to explain himself though, much less debate, don't you think??? Perhaps maybe someone should post Glen Millers email address and that way if anyone feels the need to talk it out with him they may.

Chris Quimby
WRMC

Just a thought. Since Miller is the "liar" everyone at WR seems to think he is why not let his posts/lies stand and let the Volks decide for themselves if he's a rat and a liar. That would be the White man thing to do, would it not? Censorship smacks of....you know who!

Just a thought. Since Miller is the "liar" everyone at WR seems to think he is why not let his posts/lies stand and let the Volks decide for themselves if he's a rat and a liar. That would be the White man thing to do, would it not? Censorship smacks of....you know who!

As always, Steve, you make sense. Sounds like something Thomas Jefferson, that old dead White guy, would have said.

88/rich
http://www.whitealert.com

Perhaps we should have left the posts but was done is done. It still does'nt matter because Miller will tell you straight out he testified and he uses the Bruce Pierce statement as his justification. That still does'nt explain why he testified against everyone else including non Order members.

Just a thought. Since Miller is the "liar" everyone at WR seems to think he is why not let his posts/lies stand and let the Volks decide for themselves if he's a rat and a liar. That would be the White man thing to do, would it not? Censorship smacks of....you know who!