View Single Post
Old July 29th, 2008 #895
EireannGoddess's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5

Originally Posted by Bobby Mule:

If you mean archaeological evidence that meets the requirements of the NAFCASH challenge and entitles the applicant to claim the NAFCASH reward, I suggest you read what I told Gerdes in my post # 889 under
I skim your posts, such as they are - I mean evidence, ample enough to not only win the NAFCASH reward; but to address Revisionist questions.

So far, you have done nothing about either.

And you are dissembling here:

Re your statement to continue your abuse of a female Member of this forum, myself - you stated

just tell Gerdes to shut up and I’ll be gone
I do not tell Herr Gerdes to "shut up" - there is no reason to; especially since he is winning this debate and you seem to be losing it.

Then, today you state to me, personally in your ongoing abusive replies to me:

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
...and my condition for leaving you alone was that Gerdes shut his trap, as you know.
So, you see, you continue to have no intention of stopping your verbal abuse - at least not until I see to it that Herr Gerdes stops questioning you.

Frankly, given the fact that you refuse to address any of his several questions, particularly the approximate date he can reasonably expect your 'proof and evidence' in his mail; it seems pretty obvious why you would wish for Herr Gerdes to "shut up".

As to "eyewitness" proof- we know that you would love to belabour the issue, but it really is a moot point. Holocaustian eyewitness accountings, are not enough; legally shakey and generally unacceptable.

Were these same eyewitnesses to take the stand today in a new trial; a fair to good defence attorney would rip their stories to shreds. And, the jews would lose.

Holocaustianity does not stand up to any challenge; the eyewitnesses are the reason for the flawed faith, for the doubt; because these eyewitness lied, exaggerated. The dogma of the holocaust fails when looked at from a scientific and logical view, as well as legal, I would suppose - One has to first believe the unbelievable stories of eyewitnesses before devolving into full blown "true believer" such as yourself.

The kangaroo court Trials of Nurnberg are not to be compared with any actual, lawful court proceeding; neither past and especially not present day.

Last edited by EireannGoddess; July 29th, 2008 at 04:29 PM.