Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Discussions
Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:03 pm

Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:Your effort has no value, you can´t ignore your quote about detroying evidence, you can only admit mistake, that´s all.
It is not my quote, it is your made up quote. I never said it. The mistake is yours.
You believe it, no problem.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:32 pm

Next time you make up a quote, you should make sure it is grammatically correct :lol:

At least by pursuing this issue I have let you dig a very big hole for yourself and all others see what you are capable of.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:51 pm

Nessie wrote:Next time you make up a quote, you should make sure it is grammatically correct :lol:

At least by pursuing this issue I have let you dig a very big hole for yourself and all others see what you are capable of.
Your every ad hominem only prove that I treated your claims very well, thanks.

Yes, the others can see what is written here and who is wrong, but I doubt that somebody care about you or me.

rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by rickoshay85 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:52 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:Just wondering.
I didn't see it so it didn't happen.
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:07 pm

Rather than divert the thread on gas introduction at Krema II, this is more appropriate here where there has been discussion about revisionism/deniers. Bob said in #112 of the gas introduction thread
Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:Your idea is black and white, mine is a far more realsitic shades of gray.
Your idea is primarily completely flawed, here is definition provided by your pal, by Rich himself from wikipedia.
lmao. this is hilarious, do you even know what the holocaust is?

The Holocaust(from the Greek ὁλόκαυστοςholókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2]also known as the Shoah(Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churbenor Hurban,[3]from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 00#p268182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Do you believe in approx. 6 millions exterminated Jews?
Do you believe in a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder?

Yes? Then you believe in holocaust and you are a believer.
Your idea is black and white
Tell me what is my idea, I am curious.
Do you understand that there can be many different positions and beliefs about the Holocaust?

There is a believer side, but not all believers will agree on certain matters. I was an out an out believer when I started on this forum. My posiiton now has changed in that there are number of orthodox claims which I do not believe in, such as baby bonfires, human soap factories, a homicidal gas chamber in most camps, that 6 million Jews were killed, there there was a Hitler order for the Final Solution, that there was an out and out state sponsored murder of the Jews. That will be pretty abhorant to some believers and could also make what I believe in potentially illegal in some countries, so If you say all are believers you do not make for a very accurate picture. That is the point Rick and I have been making.

Then, what about revisionists? Are they believers or deniers? Where do they fit in the spectrum of opinions on what happened in WWII to the Jews and others?

The deniers are easier to define, as they say there was no Holocaust. So there can be very little in terms of a range of opinons with deniers. In the same way 'extreme' believers, those who believe everything that has ever been said about the Holocaust at its most extreme in trems of Nazi treatment of the Jews and others have very little room for maneuver and a general agreement.

So yours is an over simplistic, unsubtle approach to just say believer or denier. You are also getting yourself bogged down in semantics and definitions.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:16 pm

Nessie wrote:Do you understand that there can be many different positions and beliefs about the Holocaust?
Do you understand that your pal Rich England blamed me and insulted me for my express of different position? Here it is again, even he clearly refused that there are other positions, and holocaust definition is the one from wiki.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 00#p268182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So stop with your excuses and wrong claims, and answer my simple question, thanks.
The deniers are easier to define, as they say there was no Holocaust.
Same logic for believers, or you are simply dishonest and you are using double standard.
You are also getting yourself bogged down in semantics and definitions.
Another lie from, you, I already said many times that I don´t care about definition used to label peoples, I only enjoy refutation of your claims with your own nonsensical arguments and definitions you use to label and insult the others.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:25 pm

What Rich has shown is a basic very orthodox definition of the Holocaust in WWII. That does not mean that there cannot then be many different believer positions.

Here is what you said in that link

"I don´t believe in gassings, mass shootings or plan to exterminate, but even without it holocaust could happen, yes why not when someone want to call it holocaust anyway, why not, but isn´t propably cool enough without the things above."

That is a very confused statement. I think in trying to untangle it we will just end up in a mash of semantics and varying definitions.

What simple question is it you want answered?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:29 pm

Nessie wrote:What Rich has shown is a basic very orthodox definition of the Holocaust in WWII. That does not mean that there cannot then be many different believer positions.
You still ingore, that according to Rich who called my denier thanks to definition from wiki, there are no other positions allowed as he blamed me for this.

Can you provide me with full and only not basic orthodox definition of Holocaust as you claimed?
Nessie wrote:Here is what you said in that link

"I don´t believe in gassings, mass shootings or plan to exterminate, but even without it holocaust could happen, yes why not when someone want to call it holocaust anyway, why not, but isn´t propably cool enough without the things above."

That is a very confused statement. I think in trying to untangle it we will just end up in a mash of semantics and varying definitions.
This is not confused, you only ingore my comments and thus you agian write nonsenses.
Nessie wrote:What simple question is it you want answered?
Sorry, not question, but questions, here, you see them, don´t act like that you don´t:

Do you believe in approx. 6 millions exterminated Jews?
Do you believe in a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder?

Tell me what is my idea, I am curious.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:41 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:What Rich has shown is a basic very orthodox definition of the Holocaust in WWII. That does not mean that there cannot then be many different believer positions.
You still ingore, that according to Rich who called my denier thanks to definition from wiki, there are no other positions allowed as he blamed me for this.

Sorry, I don't follow what you are trying to say there

Can you provide me with full and only not basic orthodox definition of Holocaust as you claimed?

Take your pick http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=hol ... 8&fr=moz35" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nessie wrote:Here is what you said in that link

"I don´t believe in gassings, mass shootings or plan to exterminate, but even without it holocaust could happen, yes why not when someone want to call it holocaust anyway, why not, but isn´t propably cool enough without the things above."

That is a very confused statement. I think in trying to untangle it we will just end up in a mash of semantics and varying definitions.
This is not confused, you only ingore my comments and thus you agian write nonsenses.

Sorry, I do not follow what you are trying to say there.
Nessie wrote:What simple question is it you want answered?
Sorry, not question, but questions, here, you see them, don´t act like that you don´t:

Do you believe in approx. 6 millions exterminated Jews?
Do you believe in a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder?

Already answered in post #125, but here again "there are number of orthodox claims which I do not believe in, such as baby bonfires, human soap factories, a homicidal gas chamber in most camps, that 6 million Jews were killed, there there was a Hitler order for the Final Solution, that there was an out and out state sponsored murder of the Jews."


Tell me what is my idea, I am curious.


Your idea about what?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:09 pm

Nessie wrote:Sorry, I don't follow what you are trying to say there
I expressed "belief" in different position and definition of Holocaust, Rich blamed me and insulted me for this with saying, that definition is the one from wikipedia. Now you are here defending Rich and you say, that there are different postions and beliefs in holocaust, so contradiction as hell.

Did you get it now?
Nessie wrote:Take your pick http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=hol ... 8&fr=moz35" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Are you kidding me? I wanted to see definition from you and not that I am going to choose it, you must choose it of course, you made claim that definition from wikipedia is only basic.
Nessie wrote:Sorry, I do not follow what you are trying to say there.
I see, then read my comments and relevant threads to get an idea.
Nessie wrote:Already answered in post #125, but here again "there are number of orthodox claims which I do not believe in, such as baby bonfires, human soap factories, a homicidal gas chamber in most camps, that 6 million Jews were killed, there there was a Hitler order for the Final Solution, that there was an out and out state sponsored murder of the Jews."
baby bonfires, human soap factories - irrelevant, no part of holocaust definition.

a homicidal gas chamber in most camps - this is what? Do you believe them or not? What means "most"?

that 6 million Jews were killed - then you are a denier, simple, basic revisionist point.

there there was a Hitler order for the Final Solution - then you are a denier, simple, basic revisionist point.

that there was an out and out state sponsored murder of the Jews. - then you are a denier, simple, basic revisionist point.

Accoridng to wiki and your own definition, you are denier. According to Rich, you are a denier. In my country, you are ready to be sentenced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is worse, you labeled me as a denier, so you are also hypocrite. What is even worse, you are really liar when you stated that you are not believer or denier, because according to your own words: "I was an out an out believer " and then you turned to be denier also according to your own words and you confirmed it above. Your statements are also really confused.

Thanks for clarification.
Your idea about what?
How can I know it? You said this: Your idea is black and white - so tell me.

P.S. - let see if your fellows here will treat you in the same way as me, or David and the other "deniers".

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:26 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:Sorry, I don't follow what you are trying to say there
I expressed "belief" in different position and definition of Holocaust, Rich blamed me and insulted me for this with saying, that definition is the one from wikipedia. Now you are here defending Rich and you say, that there are different postions and beliefs in holocaust, so contradiction as hell.

Did you get it now?

Not sure. Do you mean that your idea of a Holocaust is different from the wikipedia defintion and so Rich was wrong to claim you do not understand what the Holocaust means?
Nessie wrote:Take your pick http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=hol ... 8&fr=moz35" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Are you kidding me? I wanted to see definition from you and not that I am going to choose it, you must choose it of course, you made claim that definition from wikipedia is only basic.

What I have shown you is that there are variations in the defintion of the Holcaust. Arguably each one on its own is basic.
Nessie wrote:Sorry, I do not follow what you are trying to say there.
I see, then read my comments and relevant threads to get an idea.

Tried that, I have to do that a lot and sometimes I just give up.
Nessie wrote:Already answered in post #125, but here again "there are number of orthodox claims which I do not believe in, such as baby bonfires, human soap factories, a homicidal gas chamber in most camps, that 6 million Jews were killed, there there was a Hitler order for the Final Solution, that there was an out and out state sponsored murder of the Jews."
baby bonfires, human soap factories - irrelevant, no part of holocaust definition.

a homicidal gas chamber in most camps - this is what? Do you believe them or not? What means "most"?

that 6 million Jews were killed - then you are a denier, simple, basic revisionist point.

there there was a Hitler order for the Final Solution - then you are a denier, simple, basic revisionist point.

that there was an out and out state sponsored murder of the Jews. - then you are a denier, simple, basic revisionist point.

Accoridng to wiki and your own definition, you are denier. According to Rich, you are a denier. In my country, you are ready to be sentenced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Way, way too simplistc Bob. You have taken my few bullet points to build a strawman argument that I am now a denier. You still do not get that because your world is too black and white to be able to cope with more sophisticated arguments.

What is worse, you labeled me as a denier, so you are also hypocrite. What is even worse, you are really liar when you stated that you are not believer or denier, because according to your own words: "I was an out an out believer " and then you turned to be denier also according to your own words and you confirmed it above. Your statements are also really confused.

Thanks for clarification.

I am not a hypocrite labeling you as a denier. My beliefs, the ones I did not list above mean I am not a denier such as there were homicidal gas chambers at a number of camps, I have not yet made my own comprehensive decision on how many Jews were killed, that Hitler did make an order for Action T4 and whilst there was no Final Solution order, he approved of the extermination of the Jews and others, that only part of the state was involved in the Holocaust and it was primarily a group of the Nazis.

Your idea about what?
How can I know it? You said this: Your idea is black and white - so tell me.

You say believer or denier and fail to accept variations inbetween.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:56 pm

Nessie wrote:Not sure. Do you mean that your idea of a Holocaust is different from the wikipedia defintion and so Rich was wrong to claim you do not understand what the Holocaust means?[/color]
Rich was correct in definition from wiki, I only said that holocaust could happen no matter if I believe in his definition, because if somebody wants to call it holocaust anyway without my points, I don´t care. I also said, that some sources date holocaust to 1933 or 1935 so logically, holocaust could happen without points in Rich´s/wiki definition which are allegedly dated to some 1941+.

Rich was wrong in one point, since he lacks knowledge, he don´t know that sources date holocaust to 1933, so plainly speaking, I was correct when I expressed different position and belief.
What I have shown you is that there are variations in the defintion of the Holcaust. Arguably each one on its own is basic.
But I asked for complete and full definition of holocaust to see if you can back up your claim, that definition from wiki is only basic. I still wait.
Tried that, I have to do that a lot and sometimes I just give up.
So I can´t help you, sorry, not my problem.
Nessie wrote:Way, way too simplistc Bob. You have taken my few bullet points to build a strawman argument that I am now a denier. You still do not get that because your world is too black and white to be able to cope with more sophisticated arguments.
I quoted your points which are defined as holocaust denial, these are basic points, now you blame for some imaginary strawman.
I am not a hypocrite labeling you as a denier. My beliefs, the ones I did not list above mean I am not a denier such as there were homicidal gas chambers at a number of camps, I have not yet made my own comprehensive decision on how many Jews were killed, that Hitler did make an order for Action T4 and whilst there was no Final Solution order, he approved of the extermination of the Jews and others, that only part of the state was involved in the Holocaust and it was primarily a group of the Nazis.

Of course you are, you proved that you are denier according to your own definitions and sources.

Nessie now - I have not yet made my own comprehensive decision
Nessie just a several minutes ago - claims which I do not believe in

Nessie now - he approved of the extermination of the Jews and others
Nessie just a several minutes ago - (I don´t believe in) there was a Hitler order for the Final Solution

Nessie now - that only part of the state was involved in the Holocaust and it was primarily a group of the Nazis.
Nessie just a several minutes ago - (I don´t believe in) that there was an out and out state sponsored murder of the Jews.

:roll:

When you believe in some gas chambers does not mean that you are not a denier according to your own sources, simple, this damage control does not change it.
You say believer or denier and fail to accept variations inbetween.
Because according to your own sources or Rich, no other variation exist, simple.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:08 am

I am not going to research Holocaust etymology for you to answer one minor point. I have already said that I will not be bogged down in semantics and definitions. I have also already defined the Holocaust for you using an even more basic definition from an on line dictionary. That will do for me even if it does not do for you.

I thought I was a believer, now I am a denier? What about a position somewhere in the middle? As I say, this is not black and white for me, it is shades of gray.

If you say there are variations of denial please show me examples.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:57 am

lets face it, we all know what bob is, he just wants to play his silly games because he doesn't want to admit what he is.

david did exactly the same when matthew tried to pin him down with positional questions, dodge and play games, they try to cover up the denier position with "revisionist" nonsense just as the god squad do with "intelligent design".

i would love to see bob go back and answer the questions nessie posed after the photo about his position on jews, hitler etc....

thanks

rich

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by David » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:56 am

RICH-ENGLAND wrote:lets face it, we all know what bob is, he just wants to play his silly games because he doesn't want to admit what he is.

david did exactly the same when matthew tried to pin him down with positional questions, dodge and play games, they try to cover up the denier position with "revisionist" nonsense just as the god squad do with "intelligent design".

i would love to see bob go back and answer the questions nessie posed after the photo about his position on jews, hitler etc....

thanks

rich
Hey Rich- I couldn't give a rat's ass if you think I an a "denier."
I call myself a Revisionist because that is an accurate definition of the process of
reviewing history. If you want to use an inaccurate word, I wouldn't be surprised.

As for answering any and all questions about what events may or may
NOT have happened, that is another display of your stupidity.
I don't pretend to have all the answers to complicated and confused events.
"I don't know" is sometimes the honest answer.

Since you are pretending I am hiding my position, I'll tell you straight up.
No gas chambers at Auschwitz, no human soap production, no shrunken head
collections, no Hitler Order, but multiple anti-semitic orders that ranged from
mild to very harsh and varied from time to time and country to country.
To put a few specifics on it- I guesstimate that 220,000 people died at Auschwitz.
I guesstimate that 60,000 died at Majdanek.

To continue, I believe there is a lot of propaganda and bullsh*t which still
contaminates history mainly cranked out by Soviet, British, and Polish
governments during and after the War. Most politicians and academics still
promote the bullsh*t.

About $500,000,000 is spent each year to promote Holocaust Belief.
Less than $50,000 is spent each year on Revisionist research.

Intense efforts by multiple governments and billions of dollars have been
spent to craft the "prosecution's brief." Revisionism has been the effort of
perhaps 100 people spending no more than $750,000.


Blathering Holocaust promotional tales and events is encouraged and promoted.
Public statements of Revisionism is a felony in many countries.





Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:07 am

Nessie wrote:I am not going to research Holocaust etymology for you to answer one minor point. I have already said that I will not be bogged down in semantics and definitions. I have also already defined the Holocaust for you using an even more basic definition from an on line dictionary. That will do for me even if it does not do for you.

I thought I was a believer, now I am a denier? What about a position somewhere in the middle? As I say, this is not black and white for me, it is shades of gray.
No problem, ask your fellow Rich for explanation of "middle" position.

I have nothing to add.
Nessie wrote:If you say there are variations of denial please show me examples.
Where did I say it?
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:lets face it, we all know what bob is, he just wants to play his silly games because he doesn't want to admit what he is.

david did exactly the same when matthew tried to pin him down with positional questions, dodge and play games, they try to cover up the denier position with "revisionist" nonsense just as the god squad do with "intelligent design".

i would love to see bob go back and answer the questions nessie posed after the photo about his position on jews, hitler etc....

thanks

rich
More ad hominems again. I do not need to cover position, I don´t care if you call me denier, I only enjoy exposing of logical fallacies, nonsenses and lies using your own "arguments".

Rich is confused, I answered them.
Last edited by Bob on Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:15 am

Here is my comment adressing Rich England claims, from This his thread, here is better place for this comment.
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:point proven, my mentioning of your english has nothing to do with grammar or errors, its the fact that at times youre incoherent, dont make snese and do not understand what people are saying.
I think that you really believe that you proved something, only the evidence for your belief is missing.
dont make snese and do not understand what people are saying.
The main thing is, that your comment make "snese" (is that correct in English? - be hoist by one's own petard)
you just proved what a disingenuos retard you are....
More ad hominems.
its been hilarious watching these threads seeing you being taken apart, you moan constantly about dodging yet youre by far the biggest dodger in here, you failed to answer mr meulenkamps questions over and over and were so bothered by them you had to try and twist his thread into a thread about holes...
Interesting claim, but not true, everybody can read it. Let see one simple demonstration of how this user Rich England is wrong - can you quote here (or in relevant thread) just one single dodged question?
you had to try and twist his thread into a thread about holes...
This another lie from this dishonest user, I proved with my quotes, that I requested to join my thread to post evidence for different topic, but Mr. Muehlenkamp decied on his own to not post it to my thread, he ignored my recommendations, and he posted it to his own thread and he himself twisted subject of his own thread, Here are the proofs. Rich England also ignore that Mr. Muehlenkamp diverted subject of his own thread after a few comments. In fact, already Nessie tried this accusation, but failed thanks to my proofs.
...or ridiculous arguments...

you are only calling my questions/arguments ridiculous because you cant answer them, you cant prove transit camp and cant show that any jews were transited out alive and well, and thats a fact.
Let see what is in quoted thread:

Rich England - prove to me that 10 jews moved on from trblinka and re settled somewhere, i want photos or video, records from the camp and where they went after, and dna evidence?

Bob - no DNA profiling existed at that time, first DNA profiling test is reported in 1984 (here is user Rich England especially ridiculous and had not enough honesty to admit this utter nonsense.)
-videos gain, did not exist at this time (same as above)
-records were provided in the thread, but you ignore it, I already informed you
-photos, sorry, but there was no need to take photos of every prisoner in each camp after each transit, your demand is again absurd. (Rich England wants to see something what can´t even exist)

So did I call his arguments ridiculous without a reason? No, I had very good reasons, because such a nonsenses are really ridiculous as pointed out especially in connection with "DNA" request.
you didnt expose any such lies
Really? Rich is obviously uncomfortable with this:
Jan 19, 2012 6:00 am
iive already told you many many many times that im neither a believer nor a denier....

Jan 19, 2012 6:33 am
i have no stance on the holocaust

Jan 19, 2012 2:45 pm
BUT the holocaust did happen...
So Rich finally became a believer in Jan 19, 2:45 pm, or he simply lied twice on the same day in Jan 19, 6:00 am and 6:33 am.

I had no problem, to clarify my position when I first time said that holocaust could happen even without these three points, because some source/s dates holocaust to year 1933 or 1935 (Nuremberg laws) and I said this from my point o view and these sources and not from the point of view of definiton from wikipedia, but when Rich was pissed off that "definition from wiki" is clear, I had no problem to clarify my position to say that I don´t believe in definition he provided to me.

But Rich have big problems with everything what proves him wrong.

The big difference between me and Rich England is that I always back up my statements in which I accuse someone from lying. No surprise that he left the thread and did not explain it, now he came out after some time and started to insults me again in hope that his nonsenses are in memory hole.

Finally, Rich proved himself that he is the one who twisted thread when he started to adress my English and now the discussion is total off topic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:20 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:I am not going to research Holocaust etymology for you to answer one minor point. I have already said that I will not be bogged down in semantics and definitions. I have also already defined the Holocaust for you using an even more basic definition from an on line dictionary. That will do for me even if it does not do for you.

I thought I was a believer, now I am a denier? What about a position somewhere in the middle? As I say, this is not black and white for me, it is shades of gray.
No problem, ask your fellow Rich for explanation of "middle" position.

I have nothing to add.

I do not need to ask Rich, I know the answer. I was just wondering if you did.
Nessie wrote:If you say there are variations of denial please show me examples.
Where did I say it?

I did not say that you said it, I used the word 'if' to denote that you may or may not say that there are variations of denial. Do you think that there are variations in the beliefs of deniers?


.........
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:39 pm

Nessie wrote:I do not need to ask Rich, I know the answer. I was just wondering if you did.
I am not the one who determine what is denying, believing or "something in the middle" you are the one or Rich or wiki, I only use your "arguments", sources and logic to prove you wrong. Otherwise I simply don´t care.
Nessie wrote:I did not say that you said it, I used the word 'if' to denote that you may or may not say that there are variations of denial. Do you think that there are variations in the beliefs of deniers?
I am not aware of that "deniers" have some "belief", they have arguments, facts, not belief., so little strawman from you.

RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:01 pm

David wrote:
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:lets face it, we all know what bob is, he just wants to play his silly games because he doesn't want to admit what he is.

david did exactly the same when matthew tried to pin him down with positional questions, dodge and play games, they try to cover up the denier position with "revisionist" nonsense just as the god squad do with "intelligent design".

i would love to see bob go back and answer the questions nessie posed after the photo about his position on jews, hitler etc....

thanks

rich
Hey Rich- I couldn't give a rat's ass if you think I an a "denier."
I call myself a Revisionist because that is an accurate definition of the process of
reviewing history. If you want to use an inaccurate word, I wouldn't be surprised.

As for answering any and all questions about what events may or may
NOT have happened, that is another display of your stupidity.
I don't pretend to have all the answers to complicated and confused events.
"I don't know" is sometimes the honest answer.

Since you are pretending I am hiding my position, I'll tell you straight up.
No gas chambers at Auschwitz, no human soap production, no shrunken head
collections, no Hitler Order, but multiple anti-semitic orders that ranged from
mild to very harsh and varied from time to time and country to country.
To put a few specifics on it- I guesstimate that 220,000 people died at Auschwitz.
I guesstimate that 60,000 died at Majdanek.

To continue, I believe there is a lot of propaganda and bullsh*t which still
contaminates history mainly cranked out by Soviet, British, and Polish
governments during and after the War. Most politicians and academics still
promote the bullsh*t.

About $500,000,000 is spent each year to promote Holocaust Belief.
Less than $50,000 is spent each year on Revisionist research.

Intense efforts by multiple governments and billions of dollars have been
spent to craft the "prosecution's brief." Revisionism has been the effort of
perhaps 100 people spending no more than $750,000.


Blathering Holocaust promotional tales and events is encouraged and promoted.
Public statements of Revisionism is a felony in many countries.




no david, its a display of your stupidity as i was talking about the questions that matthew asked you over and over and over again that you totally avoided here:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17412" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

blah blah blah to the rest of your nonsense.

thanks

rich

RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:06 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:I am not going to research Holocaust etymology for you to answer one minor point. I have already said that I will not be bogged down in semantics and definitions. I have also already defined the Holocaust for you using an even more basic definition from an on line dictionary. That will do for me even if it does not do for you.

I thought I was a believer, now I am a denier? What about a position somewhere in the middle? As I say, this is not black and white for me, it is shades of gray.
No problem, ask your fellow Rich for explanation of "middle" position.

I have nothing to add.
Nessie wrote:If you say there are variations of denial please show me examples.
Where did I say it?
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:lets face it, we all know what bob is, he just wants to play his silly games because he doesn't want to admit what he is.

david did exactly the same when matthew tried to pin him down with positional questions, dodge and play games, they try to cover up the denier position with "revisionist" nonsense just as the god squad do with "intelligent design".

i would love to see bob go back and answer the questions nessie posed after the photo about his position on jews, hitler etc....

thanks

rich
More ad hominems again. I do not need to cover position, I don´t care if you call me denier, I only enjoy exposing of logical fallacies, nonsenses and lies using your own "arguments".

Rich is confused, I answered them.
you havent exposed anything except in your fantasy world, and no, im not confused, you did not answer mr meulenkamps questions about the russian crimes that he asked you over and over andover again here:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 4&start=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

you also avoided answering nessies questions about the racist photograph. dodge dodge dodge.....

thanks

rich

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:19 pm

RICH-ENGLAND wrote:you havent exposed anything except in your fantasy world
All is shown here, simple, no surprise you cant adress it and you dodged it as usual Mr. DNA.
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:, and no, im not confused, you did not answer mr meulenkamps questions about the russian crimes that he asked you over and over andover again here:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 4&start=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Quote questions, I see only Nessie´s comment number 41, just quote them or learn to properly select comments.
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:you also avoided answering nessies questions about the racist photograph. dodge dodge dodge.....

thanks

rich
As I said, confused, I of course answered his question/s.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p271787" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p271852" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p271863" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p272040" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:44 pm

Bob's view of this photo (from post # 73)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... t_hoax.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

".... Let see - What this evidence of what they allegedy are has to do with their message which they expressed on their signs? They are KKK or anti smeites or neonazis, whatever according to you, but what this has to do with their message on the signs? Their mesage is false, true, or you can dismiss it or what?"

"I actually need more than one photo to judge peoples Nessie"

Bob is stuggling how to deal with the clear link between anti-semitism and deniers, let alone with revisionists. I then linked and linked to anti-semitic remarks by revisionists, but according to Bob, they were all deniers. Yet when I go googling for revisionists, they are described as revisionists. :?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:01 pm

Nessie wrote:Bob's view of this photo (from post # 73)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... t_hoax.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

".... Let see - What this evidence of what they allegedy are has to do with their message which they expressed on their signs? They are KKK or anti smeites or neonazis, whatever according to you, but what this has to do with their message on the signs? Their mesage is false, true, or you can dismiss it or what?"

"I actually need more than one photo to judge peoples Nessie"

Bob is stuggling how to deal with the clear link between anti-semitism and deniers, let alone with revisionists. I then linked and linked to anti-semitic remarks by revisionists, but according to Bob, they were all deniers. Yet when I go googling for revisionists, they are described as revisionists. :?
Here is my detailed answer when Nessie was not able to understand to my simple reasonable point #108

Don´t know what is strange about to say that I need more information about these peoples on the picture to be able to judge them, i need to know who are they, why they say what they say, why they have these signs, what are they arguments, what is their message, what they really wanted to show with their gestures if everything is as it looks and etc. I am not so primitive to judge peoples only thanks to one photograph.
how to deal with the clear link between anti-semitism and deniers
Nessie proved himself that he is denier, so he is himself automatically antisemite according to his logic.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 20#p274658" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I then linked and linked to anti-semitic remarks by revisionists, but according to Bob, they were all deniers.
Nessie is of course lying as usual, not me, but his definition labeled them as deniers.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p271620" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He of course ignored, that I asked for examples of revisionists and not deniers.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271510" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yet when I go googling for revisionists, they are described as revisionists.
Nessie is lying as usual again, according to his definition, they are deniers, he tried to dodge it with saying tham some sources labeled them as revisionists even when his own words labeled them as deniers.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:43 pm

So the one and only, irrefutable, no arguing, end of definition of denier is mine! Wow! Please tell me a whole host of other words that I can give a definitive answer for, which you must abide by of course.

It would appear that there is no such thing as a revisionist anymore, according to me and according to Bob's ideas about what I have said. But according to my defintion, Bob is most defintely a denier. But I appear to a denier as well, yet I say there was a Holocaust where people were gassed in an organised (well sometime disorganised) anti-semitic action by some but not all Nazis, approved by Hitler. :?

But Bob does not just get confused and is unable to judge a slightly more complex position on the Holocaust, he gets confused by really simple ones as well. With regards to the image;

"Don´t know what is strange about to say that I need more information about these peoples on the picture to be able to judge them, i need to know who are they, why they say what they say, why they have these signs, what are they arguments, what is their message, what they really wanted to show with their gestures if everything is as it looks and etc. I am not so primitive to judge peoples only thanks to one photograph."

Well, they are KKK since they have the uniform, their message is that the Holocaust is a hoax according to their banners, they have the signs as a form of protest against the Jews and their gestures are Nazi salutes. Why do they say what they say, well that is because they are white and part of a white supremisist group. As for their arguments on the Holohoax, well probably they will be like yours Bob.

Bob, please define revisionism. No dodging, answer please.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:04 pm

Bob wrote:Here is my comment adressing Rich England claims, from This his thread, here is better place for this comment.
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:point proven, my mentioning of your english has nothing to do with grammar or errors, its the fact that at times youre incoherent, dont make snese and do not understand what people are saying.
I think that you really believe that you proved something, only the evidence for your belief is missing.

i did, so did nessie, youre just too stupid to get it.....
dont make snese and do not understand what people are saying.
The main thing is, that your comment make "snese" (is that correct in English? - be hoist by one's own petard)

wow, i made a typo, doesnt quite match your stupidity though.....
you just proved what a disingenuos retard you are....
More ad hominems.

as everyone holds you in contempt for being such a disengenuous lying dodger as well as a lunatic denier.
its been hilarious watching these threads seeing you being taken apart, you moan constantly about dodging yet youre by far the biggest dodger in here, you failed to answer mr meulenkamps questions over and over and were so bothered by them you had to try and twist his thread into a thread about holes...
Interesting claim, but not true, everybody can read it. Let see one simple demonstration of how this user Rich England is wrong - can you quote here (or in relevant thread) just one single dodged question?


yes, you dodged mr meulenkamps questions about the russian crimes here:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 4&start=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
as well as nessies questions about your position on hitler, jews etc but i dont know what thread it was in, you also failed to answer my questions for proof of transited jews.... but one quote here is enough to prove point...
you had to try and twist his thread into a thread about holes...
This another lie from this dishonest user, I proved with my quotes, that I requested to join my thread to post evidence for different topic, but Mr. Muehlenkamp decied on his own to not post it to my thread, he ignored my recommendations, and he posted it to his own thread and he himself twisted subject of his own thread, Here are the proofs. Rich England also ignore that Mr. Muehlenkamp diverted subject of his own thread after a few comments. In fact, already Nessie tried this accusation, but failed thanks to my proofs.

blah blah nonsense, you diverted it to avoid answering his questions about russian crimes.
...or ridiculous arguments...

you are only calling my questions/arguments ridiculous because you cant answer them, you cant prove transit camp and cant show that any jews were transited out alive and well, and thats a fact.
Let see what is in quoted thread:

Rich England - prove to me that 10 jews moved on from trblinka and re settled somewhere, i want photos or video, records from the camp and where they went after, and dna evidence?

Bob - no DNA profiling existed at that time, first DNA profiling test is reported in 1984 (here is user Rich England especially ridiculous and had not enough honesty to admit this utter nonsense.)
-videos gain, did not exist at this time (same as above)
-records were provided in the thread, but you ignore it, I already informed you
-photos, sorry, but there was no need to take photos of every prisoner in each camp after each transit, your demand is again absurd. (Rich England wants to see something what can´t even exist)

So did I call his arguments ridiculous without a reason? No, I had very good reasons, because such a nonsenses are really ridiculous as pointed out especially in connection with "DNA" request.
again,
dna exists now though eh bob?. im sure these people have descendants that can prove theyre related?, and also if they transited out then their graves should be easily traceable for exhumation and dna testing as you seem to think its fine to go around digging up graves!.,

funny how your demands for evidence are never ending, question on question yet when someone else asks the same of you its "ridiculous", ok forget dna, you still cant offer proof whatsoever for that claim.....
you didnt expose any such lies
Really? Rich is obviously uncomfortable with this:
youre a random fringe net lunatic just like the rest of the paranormal/conspiracy brigade, and also a total coward that darent put his real name and state his position, why would i be uncomfortable with anything such a person thinks or says?
anyone can cherry pick comments out of context and miss out the other parts.....
Jan 19, 2012 6:00 am
iive already told you many many many times that im neither a believer nor a denier....

again, im in between, the holocaust happened, thats a proven fact of life, i dont believe the numbers nor the baby bonfire stories therefore im in between the wiki definiton, not that hard to understand is it bob? i expect to much of such a small minded person i think.....
Jan 19, 2012 6:33 am
i have no stance on the holocaust

Jan 19, 2012 2:45 pm
BUT the holocaust did happen...
So Rich finally became a believer in Jan 19, 2:45 pm, or he simply lied twice on the same day in Jan 19, 6:00 am and 6:33 am.
no lie at all, thats the first time in my life ive been asked those questions so therefore had to think about my answers and position, as unlike you, i prefer not to dodge and play silly games to dance around it.

i gave you straight up honest answers to which you chose to cherry pick and interpret your own way,
the wiki definition of holocaust states 6 million jews which i do not believe those numbers therefore that puts me in between. again, thats not so hard to understand is it?

i told you im not affiliated with any believer nor denier group, ive never in my life spoken about the holocaust on any site whatsoever up until now, my user name is the same on all conspiracy websites, feel free to check....

I had no problem, to clarify my position when I first time said that holocaust could happen even without
nonsense, it took me questioning you over and over to get you to admit being a denier, then you changed your mind again, you still havent answered clearly.
you said this to matthew
I already said to you that I do not deny Holocaust, I only don´t believe in specific aspects see:
then you said this to me
I don´t believe in gassings, mass shootings or plan to exterminate, but even without it holocaust could happen, yes why not when someone want to call it holocaust anyway, why not, but isn´t propably cool enough without the things above.
hmm, confused are you bob?.
then you said
Heh, ok, here is correct answer so will not gone mad.

If holocaust after WW2 can´t exist without these points:

1)that Jews were gassed in nazi gas chambers
2)that nazis had policy to physically exterminate all Jews
3)that nazis physically exterminated six million Jews and additional five or six million non-Jews

So I must say i don´t believe in it, simple

No dodging, what pity that you dodged everything, no wonder.
Bob
Valued Poster
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:41 am
what was it you were saying about lying, dodging etc?....
these three points, because some source/s dates holocaust to year 1933 or 1935 (Nuremberg laws) and I said this from my point o view and these sources and not from the point of view of definiton from wikipedia, but when Rich was pissed off that "definition from wiki" is clear, I had no problem to clarify my position to say that I don´t believe in definition he provided to me.

utter garbage, as shown in quotes above, you never clarified, just danced about.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But Rich have big problems with everything what proves him wrong.

The big difference between me and Rich England is that I always back up my statements in which I accuse someone from lying. No surprise that he left the thread and did not explain it, now he came out after some time and started to insults me again in hope that his nonsenses are in memory hole.
no you dont, youve accused many people of lying over and over again and not proved them, nessie was correct, you do suffer from that syndrome. and no bob, i left the thread cos i had other things to do, plus i answered your questions 4 times in a row yet you still insisted on asking again as you appear to be a bit stupid...
Finally, Rich proved himself that he is the one who twisted thread when he started to adress my English and now the discussion is total off topic.
blah blah blah blah strawman garbage., did you ever contact caroline colls like you said you was going to bob?

thanks

rich

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:17 pm

Nessie wrote:So the one and only, irrefutable, no arguing, end of definition of denier is mine! Wow! Please tell me a whole host of other words that I can give a definitive answer for, which you must abide by of course.
:?:
Nessie wrote:It would appear that there is no such thing as a revisionist anymore, according to me and according to Bob's ideas about what I have said. But according to my defintion, Bob is most defintely a denier. But I appear to a denier as well, yet I say there was a Holocaust where people were gassed in an organised (well sometime disorganised) anti-semitic action by some but not all Nazis, approved by Hitler. :?
Even Nessie finally understood that according to orthodox sources, holocaust revisionists are deniers and they label them as deniers and holocaust revisionists practically don´t exist according to orthodox sources.

It took months to Nessie to realize this.
But I appear to a denier as well
Not only appear, Nessie confirmed it with onw words, simple.
yet I say there was a Holocaust where people were gassed in an organised (well sometime disorganised) anti-semitic action by some but not all Nazis, approved by Hitler
peoples were gassed - Nessie simply ignore, that I don´t see this in Rich England definition he provided, here again:
lmao. this is hilarious, do you even know what the holocaust is?

The Holocaust(from the Greek ὁλόκαυστοςholókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2]also known as the Shoah(Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churbenor Hurban,[3]from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory


http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 00#p268182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So apparently, gassing is not part of definition of holocaust according to Rich England and his source.
in an organised (well sometime disorganised) anti-semitic action by some but not all Nazis
Here Nessie:

claims which I do not believe in,....that there was an out and out state sponsored murder of the Jews

So he lied again, or he is contradicting and confused, and he wants to tell that some Nazis just comitted holocaust without knowledge of state and they financed it and ordered it in private way as their hobby or what.
approved by Hitler.
Here Nessie again:

claims which I do not believe in...there there was a Hitler order for the Final Solution

Again, he lied, is contradicting, or confused and Hitler managed holocaust with simple approvation when somebody asked him and all peoples somehow magically knew what is needed to manage whole holocaust without order.
But Bob does not just get confused and is unable to judge a slightly more complex position on the Holocaust, he gets confused by really simple ones as well. With regards to the image;
Oh yes, tell me more about confusion. :roll:
Why do they say what they say, well that is because they are white and part of a white supremisist group.
Nessie somehow magically knew it.
As for their arguments on the Holohoax, well probably they will be like yours Bob.
Really? If you magically know it again, and their arguments are the same as mine than their message is not anti-semitic, simple, end of story.
Bob, please define revisionism. No dodging, answer please.
Read your wiki.

historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event.

And I agree.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:33 pm

RICH-ENGLAND wrote:i did, so did nessie
Exactly as I said.
yes, you dodged mr meulenkamps questions about the russian crimes here:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17734&start=40
Hm, here again my response to this:

Quote questions, I see only Nessie´s comment number 41, just quote them or learn to properly select comments.
as well as nessies questions about your position on hitler, jews etc but i dont know what thread it was in, you also failed to answer my questions for proof of transited jews.... but one quote here is enough to prove point...
You don´t know, hm.

And proof? Sorry, I cannot give you proofs you want, because these proofs don´t exist and never could. DNA profiling tests and VIDEO simply didn´t exist during WW2 era and photos of every transited human as well. The rest is ignored by you.

Just the same lie repeated again.
blah blah nonsense, you diverted it to avoid answering his questions about russian crimes.
Rich England just ignore that i proved with my own quotes that his accusation is lie.
dna exists now though eh bob?. im sure these people have descendants that can prove theyre related?, and also if they transited out then their graves should be easily traceable for exhumation and dna testing as you seem to think its fine to go around digging up graves!.,
How genetic relationship between peoples prove identity of these relatives? Can you explain again this another nonsense? DNA can prove that they are related, that´s all, but not that the human is the same as the one transited throuh the camp, this prove only relationship, not identity of transited human.
and also if they transited out then their graves should be easily traceable for exhumation and dna testing as you seem to think its fine to go around digging up graves!
Again another utter nonsense, can you explain how DNA of exhumed body can prove that this human was transited through transit camp during WW2 when you don´t have any comparison DNA sample of this allegedly transited human from camp?

The only possible use of DNA in your case of your "request" is to take DNA sample in transit camp, document it and etc. and store it and then this sample compare with new DNA sample taken from alleged transited human, if they match, is it the same person, and then I can give you this unrefutable proof. But this is utter nonsense from Rich, because since DNA profiling is first reported in 1984, is of course nonsense that Nazis had some reason to take DNA samples during WW2 era for something what didn´t exist for some 40 years.

I really doubt your intelligence, this is not ad hominem from me, I mean it seriously, becuase this is just unbelieveable and your propably really don´t see how silly your words are.
funny how your demands for evidence are never ending, question on question yet when someone else asks the same of you its "ridiculous", ok forget dna, you still cant offer proof whatsoever for that claim.....
I am asking for something what can exist, for reasonable things, not for nonsense like you.
again, im in between, the holocaust happened, thats a proven fact of life, i dont believe the numbers nor the baby bonfire stories therefore im in between the wiki definiton, not that hard to understand is it bob? i expect to much of such a small minded person i think.....
Don´t believe in numbers, hm, I see no specification, so zero value.

Baby bonfire - I do not see that baby bonfire stories are a part of holocaust definition and you should know it since you provided me definition, so you are again wrong as usual.

So, you are still believer according to your own words, you believe in holocaust and that happened, your words.
no lie at all, thats the first time in my life ive been asked those questions so therefore had to think about my answers and position, as unlike you, i prefer not to dodge and play silly games to dance around it.

i gave you straight up honest answers to which you chose to cherry pick and interpret your own way,
the wiki definition of holocaust states 6 million jews which i do not believe those numbers therefore that puts me in between. again, thats not so hard to understand is it?
As proven, you lied, no "picking" I quoted you. Here again, your absurd logic, only not believing in numbers is allowed, because Rich said so and it suits him, but not believing in other basic points of holocaust definition is not allowed, because Rich said so and he needs it to label peoples as deniers.

Ok, so you believe in what number?

If not believing to number doesn´t mean that i am neither believer or denier, this means that I can say "i don´t believe in numbers, I believe in one murdered jew and not six million" - i am not denier, correct?

I expect another nonsense like some invented "magical universal number limit" which determine position between believers and deniers.
i told you im not affiliated with any believer nor denier group, ive never in my life spoken about the holocaust on any site whatsoever up until now, my user name is the same on all conspiracy websites, feel free to check....
No interest in searching for your identity at all, I am interested only in your false claims, nonsenses, lies and fallacies exposed above and here in this forum when you are speaking with me.
nonsense, it took me questioning you over and over to get you to admit being a denier, then you changed your mind again, you still havent answered clearly.
you said this to matthew
You used own definition allowing you not to believe in numbers, I used also own position, where is problem? Dishonest double standard again, you can, but Bob can´t, as usual.

Rich of course ingore, that I backed my statement with source, something completely unknown to Rich who can only say something without evidence.
then you said this to me

hmm, confused are you bob?.
then you said

what was it you were saying about lying, dodging etc?....
I logically made these statements when you started with your screaming and insults, that holocaust is defined by Wikipedia and my own position is irrelevant or wrong, is logical that I then answered how I answered.
utter garbage, as shown in quotes above, you never clarified, just danced about.
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17559&start=200
You simply never learn to use properly links to comments :roll: I see no comment from me.

Nevermind, I know you lied again, because I did not dance around.
no you dont, youve accused many people of lying over and over again and not proved them, nessie was correct, you do suffer from that syndrome. and no bob, i left the thread cos i had other things to do, plus i answered your questions 4 times in a row yet you still insisted on asking again as you appear to be a bit stupid...
Again untrue, comments are here, they prove it, your another false accusations without evidence don´t change it.
blah blah blah blah strawman garbage., did you ever contact caroline colls like you said you was going to bob?
http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/9612/picture25l.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:09 am

Bob wrote:
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:i did, so did nessie
Exactly as I said
yup.
yes, you dodged mr meulenkamps questions about the russian crimes here:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17734&start=40
Hm, here again my response to this:

Quote questions, I see only Nessie´s comment number 41, just quote them or learn to properly select comments.
i just linked to the top of the page actually as im using a ps3 web browser, it doesnt quite work like a pc. but thats ok, you knew exactly what questions i meant, youre just dodging again, thats fine, everyone is able to see your silly games.
here is post: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 72#p272372" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
as well as nessies questions about your position on hitler, jews etc but i dnt know what thread it was in, you also failed to answer my questions for proof of transited jews.... but one quote here is enough to prove point...
You don´t know, hm.

yes, correct, i couldnt remember where it was, but you knew exactly what i was talking about, you just suddenly got selective memory disorder in order to carry on your dodging and play silly games, funny how your memory is so good at other times eh bob?.......
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 26#p271626" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And proof? Sorry, I cannot give you proofs you want, because these proofs don´t exist and never could. DNA profiling tests and VIDEO simply didn´t exist during WW2 era and photos of every transited human as well. The rest is ignored by you.
video didn't exist in ww2? really?. what are all these then?http://loveforlife.com.au/content/08/02 ... word-was-u
and before you argue over the word "VIDEO", it is a generic phrase used by most people to describe any kind of recorded moving image as is also shown in that link....

i dont want photos of every transited jew, just 10 will do fine, surely with all the hundreds of thousands of people that passed through all these "transit" camps there should be photos of at least 10?, i mean, you love showing us photos of clothes inside these camps yes?.......

and yes, i know you cant give me "proofs", you cant give any evidence of your claim whatsoever, as your transit camp claim is a nonsense...
Just the same lie repeated again.

more imaginary lies, again nessie was correct about your syndrome.
blah blah nonsense, you diverted it to avoid answering his questions about russian crimes.
Rich England just ignore that i proved with my own quotes that his accusation is lie

you did no such thing, more fantasy from bobs syndrome...
dna exists now though eh bob?. im sure these people have descendants that can prove theyre related?, and also if they transited out then their graves should be easily traceable for exhumation and dna testing as you seem to think its fine to go around digging up graves!.,
How genetic relationship between peoples prove identity of these relatives? Can you explain again this another nonsense? DNA can prove that they are related, that´s all, but not that the human is the same as the one transited throuh the camp, this prove only relationship, not identity of transited human.
it can prove that the people in said graves are who theyre meant to be by linking dna to a relative, thats not hard to understand is it bob?
and also if they transited out then their graves should be easily traceable for exhumation and dna testing as you seem to think its fine to go around digging up graves!
Again another utter nonsense, can you explain how DNA of exhumed body can prove that this human was transited through transit camp during WW2 when you don´t have any comparison DNA sample of this allegedly transited human from camp?
by proving the body is of who its meant to be by linking dna to proven relative, then photos from before, during and after camp will prove that they were there and left safely, not that hard to understand is it bob?

The only possible use of DNA in your case of your "request" is to take DNA sample in transit camp, document it and etc. and store it and then this sample compare with new DNA sample taken from alleged transited human, if they match, is it the same person, and then I can give you this unrefutable proof. But this is utter nonsense from Rich, because since DNA profiling is first reported in 1984, is of course nonsense that Nazis had some reason to take DNA samples during WW2 era for something what didn´t exist for some 40 years.
same as above answers.
I really doubt your intelligence, this is not ad hominem from me, I mean it seriously, becuase this is just unbelieveable and your propably really don´t see how silly your words are.

i really dont doubt your intelligence at all bob, i know youre an idiot.
funny how your demands for evidence are never ending, question on question yet when someone else asks the same of you its "ridiculous", ok forget dna, you still cant offer proof whatsoever for that claim.....
I am asking for something what can exist, for reasonable things, not for nonsense like you.

really? i think everyone "apart from david and other fringe lunatics" that reads this forum would disagree. youve been offered plenty of evidence, yet you just dismiss anything that doesnt fit your little nazi religious crusade, cherry pick things out of context, dodge, avoid and ask question upon question.
again, im in between, the holocaust happened, thats a proven fact of life, i dont believe the numbers nor the baby bonfire stories therefore im in between the wiki definiton, not that hard to understand is it bob? i expect to much of such a small minded person i think.....
Don´t believe in numbers, hm, I see no specification, so zero value.

?. no idea what thats supposed to mean. but again i will state. the definition of holocaust is that 6 million jews were murdered, also usual denier/revisionist rhetoric is that us "stupid believers think 6 million jews were murdered by nazis". i do not believe those numbers. not hard to understand eh bob?
Baby bonfire - I do not see that baby bonfire stories are a part of holocaust definition and you should know it since you provided me definition, so you are again wrong as usual.

not wrong at all, usual denier/revisionist rhetoric is that we "stupid believers believe in baby bonfires". i do not believe in baby bonfires, not hard to understand eh bob?.
So, you are still believer according to your own words, you believe in holocaust and that happened, your words.
no lie at all, thats the first time in my life ive been asked those questions so therefore had to think about my answers and position, as unlike you, i prefer not to dodge and play silly games to dance around it.

i gave you straight up honest answers to which you chose to cherry pick and interpret your own way,
the wiki definition of holocaust states 6 million jews which i do not believe those numbers therefore that puts me in between. again, thats not so hard to understand is it?
As proven, you lied, no "picking" I quoted you. Here again, your absurd logic, only not believing in numbers is allowed, because Rich said so and it suits him, but not believing in other basic points of holocaust definition is not allowed, because Rich said so and he needs it to label peoples as deniers.
there is no lie, its all there in black and white, youre just too stupid to understand it.
Ok, so you believe in what number?

no number can be quantified as all the sources disagree, but i believe its far lower than 6 million. but its irrelevant to the conversation
If not believing to number doesn´t mean that i am neither believer or denier, this means that I can say "i don´t believe in numbers, I believe in one murdered jew and not six million" - i am not denier, correct?
just being silly, but i will humour you, no, one murdered jew would not be a holocaust, and you dont believe any of it happened as you have already stated. holocaust is the ordering and following out plans to exterminate jews
I expect another nonsense like some invented "magical universal number limit" which determine position between believers and deniers.

herp a derp derp derp, this is what i mean about your grasp of english language, just rubbish typed without thinking.
i told you im not affiliated with any believer nor denier group, ive never in my life spoken about the holocaust on any site whatsoever up until now, my user name is the same on all conspiracy websites, feel free to check....
No interest in searching for your identity at all, I am interested only in your false claims, nonsenses, lies and fallacies exposed above and here in this forum when you are speaking with me.

again, more fantasy in bobs mind, only thing being exposed is your lack of grip on reality
nonsense, it took me questioning you over and over to get you to admit being a denier, then you changed your mind again, you still havent answered clearly.
you said this to matthew
You used own definition allowing you not to believe in numbers, I used also own position, where is problem? Dishonest double standard again, you can, but Bob can´t, as usual.
rubbish again, as already explained, you asked me my position, i gave you it once and it did not change, yours changes everytime youre asked, no double standard apart from in your mind.
Rich of course ingore, that I backed my statement with source, something completely unknown to Rich who can only say something without evidence.

no idea what this parts even about? but meh, ive backed up mine with links, im quite sure youre now just having a conversation with yourself, to be expected from a lunatic...
then you said this to me

hmm, confused are you bob?.
then you said

what was it you were saying about lying, dodging etc?....
I logically made these statements when you started with your screaming and insults, that holocaust is defined by Wikipedia and my own position is irrelevant or wrong, is logical that I then answered how I answered.
utter garbage, as shown in quotes above, you never clarified, just danced about.
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17559&start=200
You simply never learn to use properly links to comments :roll: I see no comment from me.

again, bob just being silly and disengenuous, the quotes are above, i just linked to the page they came from... of course, you knew that already, either that or you really are thicker than i thought...

Nevermind, I know you lied again, because I did not dance around.

more fantasy accusations of lies from bobs crazy mind... you did dance around, as shown in the 3 comments i quoted in my last post...
no you dont, youve accused many people of lying over and over again and not proved them, nessie was correct, you do suffer from that syndrome. and no bob, i left the thread cos i had other things to do, plus i answered your questions 4 times in a row yet you still insisted on asking again as you appear to be a bit stupid...
Again untrue, comments are here, they prove it, your another false accusations without evidence don´t change it.

herp a derp derp, you really are thick arent you?.
blah blah blah blah strawman garbage., did you ever contact caroline colls like you said you was going to bob?
http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/9612/picture25l.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
yay, well done, wonder how you will dismiss her reports when they go to press?.....
you kept that a bit quiet bob, is that maybe because you no longer think she just made it up?...

thanks

rich

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:18 am

RICH-ENGLAND wrote:yup.
Thanks for confirmation.
i just linked to the top of the page actually as im using a ps3 web browser, it doesnt quite work like a pc. but thats ok, you knew exactly what questions i meant, youre just dodging again, thats fine, everyone is able to see your silly games.
here is post: viewtopic.php?p=272372#p272372
Quote it to show what you mean, because i don´t know exactly what you mean, quote it, where is your problem.
yes, correct, i couldnt remember where it was, but you knew exactly what i was talking about, you just suddenly got selective memory disorder in order to carry on your dodging and play silly games, funny how your memory is so good at other times eh bob?.......
viewtopic.php?p=271626#p271626
Again, Rich somehow magically know that i "knew".

Already adressed here :roll:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 26#p271670" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p272030" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His questions are utter fallacies, jus like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

All what was needed is stated in second link, Nessie did not bother. You just do not know what dodging means.
video didn't exist in ww2? really?. what are all these then?http://loveforlife.com.au/content/08/02 ... word-was-u
and before you argue over the word "VIDEO", it is a generic phrase used by most people to describe any kind of recorded moving image as is also shown in that link....
Hm, Rich is again wrong as usual, here is quote from his link.

VIDEOS - WWII RARE COLOR FILMS - NOTE: The Word NAZI Did Not Exist Before or During WW11. This Word Was Used Sometime After WW11 [sic!]

WW II : RARE COLOR FILM : TARAWA : 76 HOURS OF HELL
Link to video:


Is obvious that they call them correctly, "films", but they use term "video" in connection with links to videos provided on their website. Very desperate attempt. (edited when I analyzed Rich´s link because I suspected him and thus I removed previous sentence)

Here is your fellow, Mr. Muehlenkamp:

Bob - There (Katyn investigation) were photos and videos of investigation, correct?
Muehlenkamp - (though I don’t think they had videos back in 1943).
Bob - First, you are right, not videos in this case, but films, my fault

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17734" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh yes, I did the same mistake because i forget that we moved from his Chelmno grave to Katyn, so no video, did I act like some kid? No, I apologized and admitted my fault, simple.

But Rich? His behavior can be seen here.
i dont want photos of every transited jew, just 10 will do fine, surely with all the hundreds of thousands of people that passed through all these "transit" camps there should be photos of at least 10?, i mean, you love showing us photos of clothes inside these camps yes?.......
Sorry, but no registration in transit camps so no need for photos, is just nonsense to demand something what could not exist, i already said it, there was simply no reason to take photos of transited Jews and no matter how many examples you want.

Showing cloths in these camps? Rich is again confused, because I don´t have a clue what he is talking about.
and yes, i know you cant give me "proofs", you cant give any evidence of your claim whatsoever, as your transit camp claim is a nonsense...
As usual, Rich still ignore my post and he just made another claim with zero value without any argument to back it up.
more imaginary lies, again nessie was correct about your syndrome.

you did no such thing, more fantasy from bobs syndrome...
Suit yourself, but you can´t change that I am correct, evidence is here, simple.
it can prove that the people in said graves are who theyre meant to be by linking dna to a relative, thats not hard to understand is it bob?
And here again nonsenses, can you explain how this prove identity of body in grave since with this you only proved relationship and not identity?

And can you finally explain how this DNA test prove that dead human in grave was transited through Treblinka as you requested?
by proving the body is of who its meant to be by linking dna to proven relative, then photos from before, during and after camp will prove that they were there and left safely, not that hard to understand is it bob?
See above.

Photos from before, during and after camp, can you explain how these photos prove transit through Treblinka as you requested? You of course need photos from camp and I already said that this even can´t exist, simply no reason to take photo of these peoples, they were not registered.
really? i think everyone "apart from david and other fringe lunatics" that reads this forum would disagree.
Again your logicall fallacy and argumentum ad populum to imaginary peoples and you somehow magically know what they are thinking.
youve been offered plenty of evidence, yet you just dismiss anything that doesnt fit your little nazi religious crusade, cherry pick things out of context, dodge, avoid and ask question upon question.
Can you quote just one single piece of evidence you have mentioned to back up your claim? (Let see what will happen if not dodging as usual)

Rest - not true, all what is needed is to read the threads to see that you are wrong, simple, threads are here, all quotes are here.
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:
Bob wrote:Don´t believe in numbers, hm, I see no specification, so zero value.
?. no idea what thats supposed to mean.
Idea is clear, you did not specify the number, so i do not know if you believe in 5 999 999 or in 1, simple.

The rest is thus irrelevant.
not wrong at all, usual denier/revisionist rhetoric is that we "stupid believers believe in baby bonfires"
Definition of Holocaust don´t include baby bonfires, your alleged "usual denier/revisionist rhetoric" claim is thus irrelevant and especially in connection with discussion with me since i did not say it.

Your logic is really one big fallacy, and one can only wonder what some alleged peoples you have mentioned have to do with our discussion between you and me.
there is no lie, its all there in black and white, youre just too stupid to understand it.
Again, his usual way how to deal with arguments exposing his fallacies.
no number can be quantified as all the sources disagree, but i believe its far lower than 6 million. but its irrelevant to the conversation
Rich as usual, dodging.
just being silly, but i will humour you, no, one murdered jew would not be a holocaust, and you dont believe any of it happened as you have already stated. holocaust is the ordering and following out plans to exterminate jews
Rich just a few moments ago - but its irrelevant to the conversation (specific number)

Now Rich stated with own words - "one murdered jew would not be a holocaust"

Apparently, specific number is very relevant to converstation and Rich is again wrong.
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:
Bob wrote:Rich of course ingore, that I backed my statement with source, something completely unknown to Rich who can only say something without evidence.
no idea what this parts even about?
I see, because you are still somehow confused and dont follow my sources, here again what I already provided yesterday.

"The Holocaust (also called Shoah in Hebrew) refers to the period from January 30, 1933, when Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, to May 8, 1945 (V­E Day), when the war in Europe ended."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What this means? That I was correct when I stated that holocaust could happen even without mentioned three points, because if holocaust is dated from 1933 when nobody was gassed, nobody exterminated, no plan existed, is logical that I was correct. Then Rich started to complains and insults that I must use definition from Wikipedia, so I of course answered as I answered because Rich requested to adress his source from Wikipedia, but Rich is not able to understand it at all and still make his false claim about some alleged Bob´s confusion.
again, bob just being silly and disengenuous, the quotes are above, i just linked to the page they came from... of course, you knew that already, either that or you really are thicker than i thought...
So you only repeated your nonsense adressed above, ah, ok.
more fantasy accusations of lies from bobs crazy mind... you did dance around, as shown in the 3 comments i quoted in my last post...
You only confirmed how wrong you are, see above.
yay, well done, wonder how you will dismiss her reports when they go to press?.....
you kept that a bit quiet bob, is that maybe because you no longer think she just made it up?...
I guess your expression was just priceless when you saw this picture, I guess you hoped that Bob did not contact her. Her reports is apparently not here after almost two months from this response, so still nothing, but you already made you mind as i see and you even ask me in way suggesting that her future report will be some big problem for revisionists or deniers. :roll:

I had no reason to publish private email when is without value, she did not provide anything, but I will try to not be silent about this:
"The biggest problem with geophysics is you can't distinguish human remains. You just find solid material.

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Un ... story.html#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
She just flawed her report with own words about alleged burial pits even before release of her report, because detection of some pits is useless without detection of what is inside.

The rest from you are irrelevant ad hominems, I skipped them.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by David » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:17 am

RICH-ENGLAND wrote:
David wrote:
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:lets face it, we all know what bob is, he just wants to play his silly games because he doesn't want to admit what he is.

david did exactly the same when matthew tried to pin him down with positional questions, dodge and play games, they try to cover up the denier position with "revisionist" nonsense just as the god squad do with "intelligent design".

i would love to see bob go back and answer the questions nessie posed after the photo about his position on jews, hitler etc....

thanks

rich
Hey Rich- I couldn't give a rat's ass if you think I an a "denier."
I call myself a Revisionist because that is an accurate definition of the process of
reviewing history. If you want to use an inaccurate word, I wouldn't be surprised.

As for answering any and all questions about what events may or may
NOT have happened, that is another display of your stupidity.
I don't pretend to have all the answers to complicated and confused events.
"I don't know" is sometimes the honest answer.

Since you are pretending I am hiding my position, I'll tell you straight up.
No gas chambers at Auschwitz, no human soap production, no shrunken head
collections, no Hitler Order, but multiple anti-semitic orders that ranged from
mild to very harsh and varied from time to time and country to country.
To put a few specifics on it- I guesstimate that 220,000 people died at Auschwitz.
I guesstimate that 60,000 died at Majdanek.

To continue, I believe there is a lot of propaganda and bullsh*t which still
contaminates history mainly cranked out by Soviet, British, and Polish
governments during and after the War. Most politicians and academics still
promote the bullsh*t.

About $500,000,000 is spent each year to promote Holocaust Belief.
Less than $50,000 is spent each year on Revisionist research.

Intense efforts by multiple governments and billions of dollars have been
spent to craft the "prosecution's brief." Revisionism has been the effort of
perhaps 100 people spending no more than $750,000.


Blathering Holocaust promotional tales and events is encouraged and promoted.
Public statements of Revisionism is a felony in many countries.




no david, its a display of your stupidity as i was talking about the questions that matthew asked you over and over and over again that you totally avoided here:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17412" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

blah blah blah to the rest of your nonsense.

thanks

rich
Hello Rich- Sorry but since I doubt you know much about the Operation Reinhard camps I can't take your nattering seriously.

I have noticed that Believers like you like to make invidious personal comments like "he doesn't want to admit what he is" when they get trashed in discussions.

Bob obviously knows many times more than you do on the subject. You would
be better advised to sit down and listen.







RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:51 am

youll have to excuse this post as ive messed up some quoting but im far too tired to fix it right now. but im sure you can see whats what.
Bob wrote:
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:yup.
Thanks for confirmation.

no problem to confirm that i proved something.
i just linked to the top of the page actually as im using a ps3 web browser, it doesnt quite work like a pc. but thats ok, you knew exactly what questions i meant, youre just dodging again, thats fine, everyone is able to see your silly games.
here is post: viewtopic.php?p=272372#p272372
Quote it to show what you mean, because i don´t know exactly what you mean, quote it, where is your problem.
ive given you the exact post with all the questions you dodged, there is no need to waste my time quoting it, first you play silly game and complain i dont link to post, then when i do you just carry on with more dodging games. fine, point proved...
yes, correct, i couldnt remember where it was, but you knew exactly what i was talking about, you just suddenly got selective memory disorder in order to carry on your dodging and play silly games, funny how your memory is so good at other times eh bob?.......
viewtopic.php?p=271626#p271626
Again, Rich somehow magically know that i "knew".

no need for magic, dodging is there for all to see...

Already adressed here :roll:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 26#p271670" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p272030" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

not addressed, just dodged and avoided, no straight answers from you.

His questions are utter fallacies, jus like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

utter nonsense to avoid straight answers, dodged again.

All what was needed is stated in second link, Nessie did not bother. You just do not know what dodging means.
i know exactly what dodging means, i see it constantly from all lunatic paranormal/conspiracy/religios nuts such as yourself.
video didn't exist in ww2? really?. what are all these then?http://loveforlife.com.au/content/08/02 ... word-was-u
and before you argue over the word "VIDEO", it is a generic phrase used by most people to describe any kind of recorded moving image as is also shown in that link....
Oh yes, really, your quote from someone who did the same mistake is really "strong" argument and only convergence of falsehood. Here is your fellow, Mr. Muehlenkamp:
eh? what quote?. and what the hell does this have to do with video existing in ww2?. more dodging...

Bob - There (Katyn investigation) were photos and videos of investigation, correct?
Muehlenkamp - (though I don’t think they had videos back in 1943).
Bob - First, you are right, not videos in this case, but films, my fault

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17734" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh yes, I did the same mistake because i forget that we moved from his Chelmno grave to Katyn, so no video, did I act like some kid? No, I apologized and admitted my fault, simple.

again, what the hell does this have to do with answering mr meulenkamps questions about crimes on the post i linked to?... bob going off on a strange tangent to avoid answering questions, more dodging.

But Rich? His behavior can be seen here.

all your behaviour can be seen, evryone holds you in complete contempt.stop appealing to the readers like a baby, speak to me....
i dont want photos of every transited jew, just 10 will do fine, surely with all the hundreds of thousands of people that passed through all these "transit" camps there should be photos of at least 10?, i mean, you love showing us photos of clothes inside these camps yes?.......
Sorry, but no registration in transit camps so no need for photos, is just nonsense to demand something what could not exist, i already said it, there was simply no reason to take photos of transited Jews and no matter how many examples you want.

again, you have a short memory bob, you showed nessie a picture of clothes hanging on lines at a camp, that was your evidence for delousing in one of the chambers, so youre telling me that theres photos of clothing yet no pictures of any prisoner whatsoever that was then transfered out safely before the end of the war that then has later photos?,... ridiculous...
surely out of these hundreds of thousands of people at least a few would end up with some family member that was never in a camp that retains some photos of said prisoner before they went in the camp?... .

Showing cloths in these camps? Rich is again confused, because I don´t have a clue what he is talking about.

as above...
and yes, i know you cant give me "proofs", you cant give any evidence of your claim whatsoever, as your transit camp claim is a nonsense...
As usual, Rich still ignore my post and he just made another claim with zero value without any argument to back it up.
didnt ignore anything, you have not proved that jews transited out safely from the camps before the end of the war when they were liberated. its only zero value to you because you cant answer it....therefore theres nothing to argue against is there? show me the evidence then i will assess it?
more imaginary lies, again nessie was correct about your syndrome.

you did no such thing, more fantasy from bobs syndrome...
Suit yourself, but you can´t change that I am correct, evidence is here, simple.

more fantasy bob convincing himself thats hes right about something, who knows what as he keeps going off on incoherent tangents that arent applicable to whats said.
it can prove that the people in said graves are who theyre meant to be by linking dna to a relative, thats not hard to understand is it bob?
And here again nonsenses, can you explain how this prove identity of body in grave since with this you only proved relationship and not identity?

any descendants will have a registered history as would hopefully the people that "transited" through the camps, dna would prove theyre related which in turn helps to prove that the body in said grave is who its claimed to be.... again, surely out of the hundreds and thousands of people that "transited" through said camps, at least a few would have photos from before camp, during and after.....
again, its only nonsense to you because you cant answer...
And can you finally explain how this DNA test prove that dead human in grave was transited through Treblinka as you requested?
explained it two answers above.
by proving the body is of who its meant to be by linking dna to proven relative, then photos from before, during and after camp will prove that they were there and left safely, not that hard to understand is it bob?
See above.

see above...
Photos from before, during and after camp, can you explain how these photos prove transit through Treblinka as you requested? You of course need photos from camp and I already said that this even can´t exist, simply no reason to take photo of these peoples, they were not registered.

ridiculous excuse, but see above..
really? i think everyone "a
part from david and other fringe lunatics" that reads this forum would disagree.
Again your logicall fallacy and argumentum ad populum to imaginary peoples and you somehow magically know what they are thinking.

no magic needed, its quite obvious that almost everyone on this board except a couple of fringe nutters hold you in complete contempt for your behaviour, its also quite obvious that your fellow nutcase is pretty much the only one that doesnt, but that doesnt say much, one of you was even caught making sock puppet accounts to make it look like you had more backing (dont know which one but i think its pretty obvious by the writing etc), sad state of affairs when people have to resort to such tactics, but its expected from conspiracy/paranormal/religious nuts.
youve been offered plenty of evidence, yet you just dismiss anything that doesnt fit your little nazi religious crusade, cherry pick things out of context, dodge, avoid and ask question upon question.
Can you quote just one single piece of evidence you have mentioned to back up your claim? (Let see what will happen if not dodging as usual)
already shown above dodging mr meulenkamps questions and dodging nessies, you also tried to imply that caroline colls was making up her findings which is dismissing something before youve even seen the results as it doesnt fit your little religion, you also kept dodging my questions and avoiding giving a straight answer when i asked if you believed in holocaust...starting from this post onward: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 67#p268167" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Rest - not true, all what is needed is to read the threads to see that you are wrong, simple, threads are here, all quotes are here.

touche! straight back at you bob..
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:[quote
="Bob"]Don´t believe in numbers, hm, I see no specification, so zero value.
?. no idea what thats supposed to mean.
Idea is clear, you did not specify the number, so i do not know if you believe in 5 999 999 or in 1, simple.
specifying a number is totally irrelevant to our discussion.

The rest is thus irrelevant.


i agree, it was irrelevant.
not wrong at all, usual denier/revisionist rhetoric is that we "stupid believers believe in baby bonfires"
Definition of Holocaust don´t include baby bonfires, your alleged "usual denier/revisionist rhetoric" claim is thus irrelevant and especially in connection with discussion with me since i did not say it.

Your logic is really one big fallacy, and one can only wonder what some alleged peoples you have mentioned have to do with our discussion between you and me.


already explained, deniers/revisionists say "believers" believe in baby bonfires as stated by your fellow nazi lover david over and over again in these very forums, i do not believe in baby bonfires. how hard is that to understand? and as already stated, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE NUMBERS THEREFORE I DO NOT BELIEVE THE STANDARD DEFINITION OF HOLOCAUST, THEREFORE I AM IN BETWEEN..... SIMPLE, so yes the rest is irrelevant.
there is no lie, its all there in black and white, youre just too stupid to understand it.
Again, his usual way how to deal with arguments exposing his fallacies.

and again, touche bob, straight back at you. inventing expositions etc that never happened, its ok bob, keep telling yourself these things if it makes you feel better.
no number can be quantified as all the sources disagree, but i believe its far lower than 6 million. but its irrelevant to the conversation
Rich as usual, dodging.

how is it dodging? its addressed, now could you explain to me why its even relevant to this current conversation?.. more made up fantasy stuff from you.
just being silly, but i will humour you, no, one murdered jew would not be a holocaust, and you dont believe any of it happened as you have already stated. holocaust is the ordering and following out plans to exterminate jews
Rich just a few moments ago - but its irrelevant to the conversation (specific number)
it was irrelevant, whatever i think is irrelevant as im just here to show what a disengenuous person you are, ive already told you im not her to argue evidence of holocaust as i couldnt care less about it.
Now Rich stated with own words - "one murdered jew would not be a holocaust"
Apparently, specific number is very relevant to converstation and Rich is again wrong.

again, this is just silly and irrelevant, please explain how whatever number i believe were murdered has any baring on one murder not counting as a holocaust?....... very silly.
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:
Bob wrote:Rich of course ingore, that I backed my statement with source, something completely unknown to Rich who can only say something without evidence.
no idea what this parts even about?
I see, because you are still somehow confused and dont follow my sources, here again what I already provided yesterday.

"The Holocaust (also called Shoah in Hebrew) refers to the period from January 30, 1933, when Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, to May 8, 1945 (V­E Day), when the war in Europe ended."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What this means? That I was correct when I stated that holocaust could happen even without mentioned three points, because if holocaust is dated from 1933 when nobody was gassed, nobody exterminated, no plan existed, is logical that I was correct. Then Rich started to complains and insults that I must use definition from Wikipedia, so I of course answered as I answered because Rich requested to adress his source from Wikipedia, but Rich is not able to understand it at all and still make his false claim about some alleged Bob´s confusion.
because you know exactly what holocaust i was asking you about and exactly what it entailed, this is just an example of dodging and twisting things to get out of painting yourself into a corner. sillyness, but to be expected from your type.
again, bob just being silly and disengenuous, the quotes are above, i just linked to the page they came from... of course, you knew that already, either that or you really are thicker than i thought...
So you only repeated your nonsense adressed above, ah, ok.
herp a derp derp.
more fantasy accusations of lies from bobs crazy mind... you did dance around, as shown in the 3 comments i quoted in my last post...
You only confirmed how wrong you are, see above.

duuuur, thats just more evidence of your silly dodging and gamesmanship, i dont really need to quote when you can hang yourself with your own stupidity.
yay, well done, wonder how you will dismiss her reports when they go to press?.....
you kept that a bit quiet bob, is that maybe because you no longer think she just made it up?...
I guess your expression was just priceless when you saw this picture, I guess you hoped that Bob did not contact her. Her reports is apparently not here after almost two months from this response, so still nothing, but you already made you mind as i see and you even ask me in way suggesting that her future report will be some big problem for revisionists or deniers. :roll:
why would i not want you to contact her?, couldnt care less, its you that seeks evidence etc, me personally do not need anything, the holocaust is already a proven fact thats accepted the world over and is also an irrelevant event to me, its not a subject of interest and i wasnt born when it happened, as i stated before, im just showing your disengenuous behaviour for what it is.

also it already seems to be a problem because youve gone on the defensive before youve even seen it .
I had no reason to publish private email when is without value, she did not provide anything, but I will try to not be silent about this:
"The biggest problem with geophysics is you can't distinguish human remains. You just find solid material.

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Un ... story.html#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
She just flawed her report with own words about alleged burial pits even before release of her report, because detection of some pits is useless without detection of what is inside.
lol, funny stuff, so you stayed quiet after insinuating that she may have made it all up but realised she probably didnt, but then you wont saty silent about what you think may be a flaw without seeing the rest of the work? lol, ggod stuff bob, thought it was all useless until you have report? lol, keep it up bob, its thoroughly entertaining.
The rest from you are irrelevant ad hominems, I skipped them.
no bob, again your grasp lets you down, theyre not ad hominems, theyre outright insults as i hold you in such contempt...

thanks

rich

RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:58 am

David wrote:
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:
David wrote:
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:lets face it, we all know what bob is, he just wants to play his silly games because he doesn't want to admit what he is.

david did exactly the same when matthew tried to pin him down with positional questions, dodge and play games, they try to cover up the denier position with "revisionist" nonsense just as the god squad do with "intelligent design".

i would love to see bob go back and answer the questions nessie posed after the photo about his position on jews, hitler etc....

thanks

rich
Hey Rich- I couldn't give a rat's ass if you think I an a "denier."
I call myself a Revisionist because that is an accurate definition of the process of
reviewing history. If you want to use an inaccurate word, I wouldn't be surprised.

As for answering any and all questions about what events may or may
NOT have happened, that is another display of your stupidity.
I don't pretend to have all the answers to complicated and confused events.
"I don't know" is sometimes the honest answer.

Since you are pretending I am hiding my position, I'll tell you straight up.
No gas chambers at Auschwitz, no human soap production, no shrunken head
collections, no Hitler Order, but multiple anti-semitic orders that ranged from
mild to very harsh and varied from time to time and country to country.
To put a few specifics on it- I guesstimate that 220,000 people died at Auschwitz.
I guesstimate that 60,000 died at Majdanek.

To continue, I believe there is a lot of propaganda and bullsh*t which still
contaminates history mainly cranked out by Soviet, British, and Polish
governments during and after the War. Most politicians and academics still
promote the bullsh*t.

About $500,000,000 is spent each year to promote Holocaust Belief.
Less than $50,000 is spent each year on Revisionist research.

Intense efforts by multiple governments and billions of dollars have been
spent to craft the "prosecution's brief." Revisionism has been the effort of
perhaps 100 people spending no more than $750,000.


Blathering Holocaust promotional tales and events is encouraged and promoted.
Public statements of Revisionism is a felony in many countries.




no david, its a display of your stupidity as i was talking about the questions that matthew asked you over and over and over again that you totally avoided here:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17412" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

blah blah blah to the rest of your nonsense.

thanks

rich
Hello Rich- Sorry but since I doubt you know much about the Operation Reinhard camps I can't take your nattering seriously.

I have noticed that Believers like you like to make invidious personal comments like "he doesn't want to admit what he is" when they get trashed in discussions.

Bob obviously knows many times more than you do on the subject. You would
be better advised to sit down and listen.






more garbage from another idiot, ive never claimed to know anything about the holocaust, nor am i here to argue for or against, since when have i claimed any such thing? as stated many times, im just taking bobs disengenuous behaviour to task and it doesnt take knowledge on the subject to do that....

and id be far better advised to ignore advice from from dodging racist morons with an agenda about a subject i dont care about

nobody has trashed my posts at all, and it is a fact that you are just as bad as bob for dodging etc, and im not the one that has to stoop to making sock puppet accounts now am i david?...........

and btw, nice strawman to avoid those questions again david

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:03 pm

Bob, I do not understand why you find it so difficult to understand my position on the Holocaust.

There was a Holocaust during WWII and it involved the rounding up, putting into camps/ghettos and 'hospitals', mistreatement and murder of Jews, the disabled and mentally ill, gypsies and others. Homicidal gassings took place at various camps and also 'hospitals' for T4.

I am undecided if homicidal gassings took place in Krema II at Auschwitz.

Whist there is no 'Hitler Order' for the Final Solution, there is one for Action T4 and Hitler knew about what was happening regarding the murder of Jews and others at the various camps etc.

I have separated the Nazis from the Germans and without a doubt some Nazis were not involved in the Holocaust, so only part of the state was involved in the Holocaust. There were non Nazis also involved as well. I say that a large enough number of people went rogue during the War, they did so with the connivance of the Nazi leadership and they are the ones responsible for the Holocaust.

The numbers killed at the various camps is most likely in the thousands, maybe at the most 2 million if you include the ghettos etc, but this is one area I am undecided on.

There were no baby bonfires, homicidal vacuum chambers, human soap factories etc.

Bob, either you are mischievous and get pleasure from trying to wind people up by calling them liars, misrepresenting, twisting etc and/or you really do suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome. An intelligent person capable of reasoned debate just does not behave the way you do.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:19 pm

no problem to confirm that i proved something.
Again confused, you agreed with my quote, so you logically agreed with my position, but I didn´t say anything about you proved something.
ive given you the exact post with all the questions you dodged
Problem with this post from Mr. Muehlenkamp is, that is full of some question and quite messed up, so please again, quote question/s you mean.
not addressed, just dodged and avoided, no straight answers from you.

utter nonsense to avoid straight answers, dodged again.

i know exactly what dodging means, i see it constantly from all lunatic paranormal/conspiracy/religios nuts such as yourself.
Rich´s response on my arguments. :roll:
eh? what quote?. and what the hell does this have to do with video existing in ww2?. more dodging...
You missed update in my comment, see again, with your source you only proved that you are really wrong, they used terms films and videos corrrectly.
again, what the hell does this have to do with answering mr meulenkamps questions about crimes on the post i linked to?... bob going off on a strange tangent to avoid answering questions, more dodging.
Again confused, this have nothing to do with your accusation from alleged dodging of his question, but this is of course connected to your nonsense when you wanted "videos".
all your behaviour can be seen, evryone holds you in complete contempt.stop appealing to the readers like a baby, speak to me....
Again argumentum ad populum
again, you have a short memory bob, you showed nessie a picture of clothes hanging on lines at a camp, that was your evidence for delousing in one of the chambers, so youre telling me that theres photos of clothing yet no pictures of any prisoner whatsoever that was then transfered out safely before the end of the war that then has later photos?,... ridiculous...
I have very good memory, because I know very well that I posted This image from Dachau, this photo was taken by US troops after liberation when they thought that clothing is hanging in front of the homicidal gas chambers and they considered it as proof and still some source use this nonsense as proof even today. So as can be seen, this photo was taken by US troops, and not to take cloth itslef for proof of delousing, but for proof of homicidal gassing. So you wanted to say what with your allusion in connection with this picture?

And one can again only wonder what this has to do with Rich´s request of photos from Treblinka as proof of transit. He only proved how confused and wrong he is again and he demonstrated again his lack of basic knowledge.
didnt ignore anything, you have not proved that jews transited out safely from the camps before the end of the war when they were liberated. its only zero value to you because you cant answer it....therefore theres nothing to argue against is there? show me the evidence then i will assess it?
With your ignorance, no wonder.
any descendants will have a registered history as would hopefully the people that "transited" through the camps, dna would prove theyre related which in turn helps to prove that the body in said grave is who its claimed to be.... again, surely out of the hundreds and thousands of people that "transited" through said camps, at least a few would have photos from before camp, during and after.....
again, its only nonsense to you because you cant answer...
Rich, this is really very silly, can you please finally explain how DNA test proving relationship between family members can prove specific identity of dead body? How?

What you mean with registered history, you mean that family members in 40´s stored DNA samples of every members for future purpose of identification of specific identity or what?

You ignored my comment about photos, no surprise.
explained it two answers above.
see above.
ridiculous excuse, but see above..
Hm, I see. :roll:
no magic needed, its quite obvious that almost everyone
Your favorite logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
already shown above dodging mr meulenkamps questions and dodging nessies, you also tried to imply that caroline colls was making up her findings which is dismissing something before youve even seen the results as it doesnt fit your little religion, you also kept dodging my questions and avoiding giving a straight answer when i asked if you believed in holocaust...starting from this post onward:
Again, accusations and you added new to your repertoir, but when asked for quote, you are silent, because you can´t, I expected it.
specifying a number is totally irrelevant to our discussion.
Good dodging.
i agree, it was irrelevant.
Thanks for confirmation, so I really dont know why you write irrelevant text when you agree with me about it.
already explained, deniers/revisionists say "believers" believe in baby bonfires as stated by your fellow nazi lover david over and over again in these very forums, i do not believe in baby bonfires. how hard is that to understand? and as already stated, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE NUMBERS THEREFORE I DO NOT BELIEVE THE STANDARD DEFINITION OF HOLOCAUST, THEREFORE I AM IN BETWEEN..... SIMPLE, so yes the rest is irrelevant.
What David´s comments have to do with definition of holocaust or with discussion between you and me? Nothing.

The rest is only repeated and I already adressed it previously as shown below:

You used own definition allowing you not to believe in numbers, I used also own position, where is problem? Dishonest double standard again, you can, but Bob can´t, as usual.

Here again, your absurd logic, only not believing in numbers is allowed, because Rich said so and it suits him, but not believing in other basic points of holocaust definition is not allowed, because Rich said so and he needs it to label peoples as deniers.
how is it dodging? its addressed, now could you explain to me why its even relevant to this current conversation?.. more made up fantasy stuff from you.

it was irrelevant, whatever i think is irrelevant as im just here to show what a disengenuous person you are, ive already told you im not her to argue evidence of holocaust as i couldnt care less about it.

again, this is just silly and irrelevant, please explain how whatever number i believe were murdered has any baring on one murder not counting as a holocaust?....... very silly.
As you said again, this is very relevant, if you believe in one murdered Jew, this is not holocaust, since you didn´t state if you believe in 5 999 999 or in 1, is very important to know what number you mean, because at this time you can believe in 1, but this is not holocaust even according to you, dont know where is your problem to say number.

I expect usual dodging.
because you know exactly what holocaust i was asking you about and exactly what it entailed, this is just an example of dodging and twisting things to get out of painting yourself into a corner. sillyness, but to be expected from your type.
You did not specify definition, and I can´t read minds, your provided it later. I proved with source that I was correct.

Again, your usual way how you deal with arguments. :roll:
why would i not want you to contact her?
To insults me again how I am scared to contact here or something like that?
couldnt care less, its you that seeks evidence etc, me personally do not need anything, the holocaust is already a proven fact thats accepted the world over and is also an irrelevant event to me, its not a subject of interest and i wasnt born when it happened, as i stated before, im just showing your disengenuous behaviour for what it is.
I knew you are believer according to your own words, but thanks for confirmation.
irrelevant event to me
What a fantastic statement.
ive never claimed to know anything about the holocaust
Self-explanatory, what is ridiculous, you believe anyway without know it anything.
also it already seems to be a problem because youve gone on the defensive before youve even seen it .
:?:
lol, funny stuff, so you stayed quiet after insinuating that she may have made it all up
Good, you repeated it again, but complete lie, where is my quote proving this?
but then you wont saty silent about what you think may be a flaw without seeing the rest of the work? lol, ggod stuff bob, thought it was all useless until you have report? lol, keep it up bob, its thoroughly entertaining.
She flawed her report before publishing as I showed with her quote, I was not "silent", her quote is from February 28, 2012, you obviusly didn´t bother to read link I provided and I read it only cca week ago. Yes, i could immediately arrive here to write this fact for ignorant like you who will dimiss it immediately without any argument as usual, but I didn´t even when this is important, I should do it, now I did it, no problem, now I only wonder how you will deal with this problem of her future report.

Leaving aside other purpose, she came to detect mainly burial pits, but she is not able to detect human remains, in the other words, she can mark every pit as burial without single piece of evidence, this is of course major flaw.

The rest, again ad hominems, classic behavior of peoples like you. You should start to adress arguments otherwise discussion with you is waste of time, your hate and emotions affected you so much that you even can´t properly arrange comments and quotes.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:37 pm

Nessie wrote:I am undecided if homicidal gassings took place in Krema II at Auschwitz.
But previously you said, you don´t believe, now you are undecided, your confusions and contradictions are endless
Whist there is no 'Hitler Order' for the Final Solution, there is one for Action T4 and Hitler knew about what was happening regarding the murder of Jews and others at the various camps etc.
Show it here please, everything you said, show it.
I have separated the Nazis from the Germans and without a doubt some Nazis were not involved in the Holocaust, so only part of the state was involved in the Holocaust. There were non Nazis also involved as well. I say that a large enough number of people went rogue during the War, they did so with the connivance of the Nazi leadership and they are the ones responsible for the Holocaust.
Already adresssed, you of curse dodged.
The numbers killed at the various camps is most likely in the thousands, maybe at the most 2 million if you include the ghettos etc, but this is one area I am undecided on.
thousands - two millions, "good" range, again confused in your statements and you just ignore all orthodox sources, and you propably did some own research and invented own numbers to achieve some damage control :roll:
There were no baby bonfires, homicidal vacuum chambers, human soap factories etc.
Not part of holocaust definition as already repeatedly stated.

I only wonder, why you don´t believe it when this is all proven by the same "evidence" (testimonies) as the other nonsenses?
Bob, either you are mischievous and get pleasure from trying to wind people up by calling them liars, misrepresenting, twisting etc and/or you really do suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome. An intelligent person capable of reasoned debate just does not behave the way you do.
Again logical fallacies, ad hominems. I backed up every of your lies, you are uncomfortable with this, your only way how to ventilate some anger is to insults me and use ad hominems like Rich, your accusation from some syndrome is just way how to deal with the fact that you failed, so you accused your opponent from some syndrome and now you feel better because your opponent is in your eyes "mentally ill", you believe it and this give you feel that you do not need to adress arguments of mentally ill opponent and feel better, simple, this is usual way how to deal with these situations, just basic psychology.

You should start to adress arguments and points and to stop with your contradictions, confusions and ad hominems, otherwise, same as with Rich, waste of time.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:06 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:I am undecided if homicidal gassings took place in Krema II at Auschwitz.
But previously you said, you don´t believe, now you are undecided, your confusions and contradictions are endless

Since when was changing your mind confusing or contradicting? The answer is that it is not, except to you Bob.
Whist there is no 'Hitler Order' for the Final Solution, there is one for Action T4 and Hitler knew about what was happening regarding the murder of Jews and others at the various camps etc.
Show it here please, everything you said, show it.

I am just going to dodge that as it is not part of this thread.
I have separated the Nazis from the Germans and without a doubt some Nazis were not involved in the Holocaust, so only part of the state was involved in the Holocaust. There were non Nazis also involved as well. I say that a large enough number of people went rogue during the War, they did so with the connivance of the Nazi leadership and they are the ones responsible for the Holocaust.
Already adresssed, you of curse dodged.

Yes already addressed. So what has been dodged now?
The numbers killed at the various camps is most likely in the thousands, maybe at the most 2 million if you include the ghettos etc, but this is one area I am undecided on.
thousands - two millions, "good" range, again confused in your statements and you just ignore all orthodox sources, and you propably did some own research and invented own numbers to achieve some damage control :roll:

Undecided is not confused. As for the rest of what you said that is just your own made up nonsense which you then try and apply to me.
There were no baby bonfires, homicidal vacuum chambers, human soap factories etc.
Not part of holocaust definition as already repeatedly stated.

But I was not definiing the Holocaust, I was stating my position on subjects that are subscribed to the Holocaust and matters you and David have raised in the past.

I only wonder, why you don´t believe it when this is all proven by the same "evidence" (testimonies) as the other nonsenses?

It is about credibility, something that is important with witness evidence, which you really struggle with.
Bob, either you are mischievous and get pleasure from trying to wind people up by calling them liars, misrepresenting, twisting etc and/or you really do suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome. An intelligent person capable of reasoned debate just does not behave the way you do.
Again logical fallacies, ad hominems. I backed up every of your lies, you are uncomfortable with this, your only way how to ventilate some anger is to insults me and use ad hominems like Rich, your accusation from some syndrome is just way how to deal with the fact that you failed, so you accused your opponent from some syndrome and now you feel better because your opponent is in your eyes "mentally ill", you believe it and this give you feel that you do not need to adress arguments of mentally ill opponent and feel better, simple, this is usual way how to deal with these situations, just basic psychology.

Thing is, you do not realise that your arguments are full of logical fallicies. Since you resourt to ad hominems, you should expect some back. Dunning Kruger is not a mental health issue, it is about your ability to understand mistakes and rate your own abilities in comparison with others.

You should start to adress arguments and points and to stop with your contradictions, confusions and ad hominems, otherwise, same as with Rich, waste of time.

I did address your arguments and points about me supposedly being a denier and the alleged confusion about my beliefs. But instead of being able to aknowledge that, you have gone off one one of rants having clearly not followed what has been said to you, again.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:19 pm

An unresloved matter in this thread is about revisionists being anti-semitic. In post #147 Bob said

"Even Nessie finally understood that according to orthodox sources, holocaust revisionists are deniers and they label them as deniers and holocaust revisionists practically don´t exist according to orthodox sources."

Thing is that the initial denial movement has re-positioned itself as revisionist but it is very difficult to separate the two. I can clearly show self styled revisionists being anti-semitic. There is one self styled revisionist who I have not found any anti-semitic remarks being attributed to and that is Bradley Smith. But as Bob, with the othodox definition of denier says, he is more denier as he refutes all the main parts of the Holocaust.

So Bob, please show how revisionism is separate from denial and give examples of revisionists and why they are revisionists.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:59 pm

Nessie wrote:Since when was changing your mind confusing or contradicting? The answer is that it is not, except to you Bob.
Why you speak about me, naother attempt to twist it? I am dealing with you, and now you want to deny what you said or what? You clearly admitted, that you stopped believing in gassings in Krema II, now you are undecided, so confusion or contradiction, simple.
Nessie wrote:I am just going to dodge that as it is not part of this thread.
As usual, so next time keep silent about off topic claims and do not bring up something what is off topic, because when you are challenged about your off topic claims you dodged it with saying "not part of thread" but apparently, this was no problem for you when you made your claims here.

Just another exposed contradiction, Nessie can make off topic claims, he has no problem, but he don´t like adressing of these off topic claims from Bob with saying "off topic" :roll:
Yes already addressed. So what has been dodged now?
You dodged to adress this in connection with your claim that only "some" Nazis managed holocaust and not state itself:

...and he wants to tell that some Nazis just comitted holocaust without knowledge of state and they financed it and ordered it in private way as their hobby or what.

With saying "no state policy" as you did, you are denier according to Rich definition from wiki and from definition of denial from wiki, sweet, isn´t it? I already said it.
Undecided is not confused. As for the rest of what you said that is just your own made up nonsense which you then try and apply to me.
First - thousands.
Secondly - ten and hundreds of thousands.
Thirdly - two millions.

Confusions and not "undecided" you simply tweak your numbers for sake of current "argumentation" but without single piece of evidence to back it up.
As for the rest of what you said that is just your own made up nonsense which you then try and apply to me.
Wrong, I am of course correct, you simply invent numbers without evidence, without research and you ignore orthodox sources.
But I was not definiing the Holocaust, I was stating my position on subjects that are subscribed to the Holocaust and matters you and David have raised in the past.
You are confused, this is about definition of holocaust, not about individaul position and about invented definition of every individuals.
I only wonder, why you don´t believe it when this is all proven by the same "evidence" (testimonies) as the other nonsenses?

It is about credibility, something that is important with witness evidence, which you really struggle with.
I see no answer on my point.

I see only another nonsense - Witness seeing baby bonfire is not credible, witness seeing gassing of peoples is credible. and that is why Nessie believe in gassing and not to baby bonfires leaving aside the other claims, I see only one "little" problem, how he arrived to his conclusion about who is credible and who not.
Thing is, you do not realise that your arguments are full of logical fallicies.
Nessie can quote just one single logical fallacy from me? (Let see what will happen)
Since you resourt to ad hominems, you should expect some back.
Where exactly is my ad hominem and where I started to use it since this was reason why you started too use them as you claim? (Let see what will happen)

Thanks for your own confirmation, that you use ad hominems, another fantastic confession.
I did address your arguments and points about me supposedly being a denier and the alleged confusion about my beliefs. But instead of being able to aknowledge that, you have gone off one one of rants having clearly not followed what has been said to you, again.
I adressed your alleged "adressing of my arguments" and this resulted in your fails again. Most of my points dodged as usual.
"Even Nessie finally understood that according to orthodox sources, holocaust revisionists are deniers and they label them as deniers and holocaust revisionists practically don´t exist according to orthodox sources."

Thing is that the initial denial movement has re-positioned itself as revisionist but it is very difficult to separate the two. I can clearly show self styled revisionists being anti-semitic. There is one self styled revisionist who I have not found any anti-semitic remarks being attributed to and that is Bradley Smith. But as Bob, with the othodox definition of denier says, he is more denier as he refutes all the main parts of the Holocaust.

So Bob, please show how revisionism is separate from denial and give examples of revisionists and why they are revisionists.
Nessie again wrong, they were never deniers, but revisionists, there is simply no reason why Holocaust can´t be revised, simple, so they were revisionists all the time.. Or do you know some reason?

You obviously can´t.

Not Bob, but your own sources, stop to connect me to your silly sources and definitions, I only enjoy to use them to refute your own nonsenses, this of course prove how you use your sources selctively and you ignore what doed not suits you, exactly as your fellow Rich.
So Bob, please show how revisionism is separate from denial and give examples of revisionists and why they are revisionists.
I never claimed that these two terms are separated, this is claim from your wiki source you are using so often, not from me.

You are really irritating with your strawmans.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:10 pm

Your ad hominems include calling me a liar, not very bright, confused and contradictory. You just do understand and fail to follow what I say, even though I keep it really simple for you. That you interpreted me saying "Since you resourt to ad hominems, you should expect some back." as a confession that I use ad hominems is a fail, as it was a general comment in relation to all you reply to you. My ad hominems are nothing compared to others here, including you.

Your most blatant logical fallicies are the claims you hav erepeatedly made that the absence of evidence is proof a crime and missing people are proof of a crime. You have also now failed with your logic over the argument about anti-semitic remarks by revisionists. I kept quoting anti-semitic remarks, but you kept saying they were not revisionists, but deniers, even to the point of embolding the word. Now you come out with "Nessie again wrong, they were never deniers, but revisionists, there is simply no reason why Holocaust can´t be revised, simple, so they were revisionists all the time." Your supposed logic fails since it is not logical to say they are not revisonist when I point out they are being anti-semitic and then later claim they are revisionists. :? You state that "I never claimed that these two terms are separated", yet your argument was the anti-semitic remarks were not being made by revisionists but by deniers. That is another logical fail.

If I want to change my mind about something, tough, deal with it. If that confuses you, that is your problem.

My supposed going off topic mentioning baby fires was me defining my position on the Holocaust for you, which was needed as I went from believer, to denier to confused and contradictory in your mind. Going off topic would involve a prolonged ebate about babay fires, not just mentioning it. Just to show I am not dodging I have started a thread about Action T4 and Hitler's order for that.

As for the Holocaust being state policy, this by you "and he wants to tell that some Nazis just comitted holocaust without knowledge of state and they financed it and ordered it in private way as their hobby or what." is a strawman and only quoting "no state policy" is out of context.

Your inability to understand that I am undecided about the numbers murdered is your problem. This is a classic example of either you being wilfully mischievous or Dunning Kruger.

If you are unhappy about my sources and definitions, how about providing some of your own?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.