Well. Yes. I have understood that now, and this is indeed quite embarrassing. I should have read your posts more carefully, not sure how I misread your very unambiguous posts twice. Sorry.
No worries, glad we're on the same page now
That pretty much, but it's not a matter of "wrong" and "correct". I was trying to convince you that they are doing themselves a disfavor in using a definition that I think is not commonly used.
To accuse him of holocaust denial is to downplay what holocaust denial actually is.
And you're diminishing the meaning of the word.
I wanted to try to get us on the same page before addressing this point. It's long, so I'll put the
TL;DR in bold. So here goes...The thought process behind your
bolded position, as I understand it, is that the Anne Frank Center (and similar/like minded groups/persons) should be focusing their fire on shaming, criticizing, marginalizing, etc, the folks who claim the holocaust never happened, that its all Jewish, Zionist etc., propaganda... the holocaust tin-foil hatters, as it were. Is that right? Also, by broadening the definition of "holocaust denial" in this way, they risk undermining their goal, by annoying, alienating people like you (the royal you), who want "holocaust denial" to be limited to the tin-foil-hatters. Is that also correct? And by "overusing" the term "holocaust denial" they risk desensitizing people like you (the royal you), to it, sort of like a "cry-wolf" effect. Is that also right?
Here is one of the problems with that argument.
First, the holocaust tin-foil-hatters are already marginalized, so the agenda is moving the ball forward... to raise holocaust awareness/sensitivity by establishing a new baseline cultural norm, specifically, that forgetting the holocaust is a cultural faux pas in-and-of-itself. They are trying to make the idea that "ignoring/forgetting the holocaust isn't that big of a deal" into a fringe position. That is the agenda. So please consider that your position is essentially that... "stick to the tin-foil hatters, and leave the rest of us alone... accidentally forgetting the holocaust, or mis-remembering/misspeaking about it, is just not that big a deal". Can you see that this attitude
is exactly what they are trying to make into a faux pas? You imply that if they just focus on the tin-foil-hat guys you would support them... But can you see that they don't want your support?... because your position is diametrically opposed to their goal. Imagine someone saying "if you black guys eat at your black restaurants and stay out of the white ones, I will support integration, meaning we can all live in the same town." Your position is exactly what they are trying to place under the baseline cultural norm.
So when you (the royal you) say that they are "diminishing" or "downplaying" or undermining their cause or "doing themselves a disfavor"... to who? To you (the royal you)? Yeah they don't care about that. You aren't the persuasion target, you're the marginalization target, because your attitude is what they are trying to make into a faux pas. Your position is that forgetting (accidentally or otherwise) about the holocaust isn't that big a deal. In other words, raising holocaust awareness to a high level just isn't a big priority for you. That's part of the reason their position irritates/alienates you, because in a way you probably sense indirectly, that your position is the target of their fire. In other words, they won't let people get away with thinking that accidentally forgetting the holocaust is excusable.
Also, another side of this, as we've discussed before, is when a particular cause isn't a personal priority there is a tendency to become more easily alienated, irritated, put-off by the methodology used to advance that cause... regardless of what the methodology actually is. The shorthand we've been using is "Don't like the what/who, not gonna like the how, regardless."
Another example of this issue... I've found that the position you are taking is very common in another context, specifically with the term "racism". What I have (relatively recently) learned, debating here with my CFC pals, is that there is a pretty common attitude that the terms "racism" and "racist" should be reserved only for open-and-notorious, self-described, unrepentant white -supremacists, for example. Essentially, unless someone is a card-carrying, pointy-hat regalia wearing, member of the KuKluxKlan, it is inappropriate to accuse them of racism or saying/doing something racist.
But the problem is that I (and others for whom confronting racism is a top priority) do not embrace that limitation/definition. The Klan is already marginalized (although... given recent events... more on that later, maybe) so limiting our fire to them is a waste... we want to focus on establishing a new baseline cultural norm, where, for example, dogwhistling is a faux pas. Its about moving the ball forward, that's the agenda. You (the royal you) might want the agenda to stay limited to shaming the Klan, but we (the royal we) don't embrace that limitation. And your complaint that this alienates you isn't the least bit persuasive,
precisely because we recognize, that your annoyance/alienation is as much a result of you not assigning the same level of priority to the cause as we do... as it results from any displeasure with our particular methodology. Again, don't like the what/who = disapprove of the how, regardless.
Another analogy I'd like to draw here, is... the
bolded arguments (are not exactly the same as, but) have some key elements in common with, the idea that "Democrats shouldn't filibuster Gorsuch, they need to save the filibuster for a
more appropriate time", with "appropriate" being essentially,
when filibuster opponents (and Republicans) think it would be appropriate, according to what filibuster opponents/Republicans
think the Democrat's agenda
should be. Of course, in that case, like here, with the "holocaust denial" term... what the opponents think the agenda
should be does not line up with what the agenda
actually is. 
