[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Ced:

"Are you still up for the NAFCASH challenge or what?"

All the cowardly greasy jewbitch has done is try and run since she accepted the challenge. And if that aint enough, she's also trying to use her acceptance of the challenge as a way out of answering questions here.

Two lies in one sentence, Gerdes.

I have tried to make the NAFCASH challenge more fair and transparent, but at the same time made clear that your keeping it as the hoax it was when I accepted it and even introducing further restrictions reducing an applicant’s chances (excluding Chelmno and Belzec from the challenge and ARCHAEOLOGY magazine as a publication choice) wouldn’t dissuade me from trying to obtain and provide evidence that meets the challenge requirements.

And while I think there’s not much of a point in asking and answering questions about matters are either irrelevant to the challenge or that proof meeting the challenge requirements will address, I have provided reasonable answers, to the best of my present knowledge, to all your hysterically worded questions.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Nothing she can post here will effect in any way her proving the existence of just one "huge mass grave" that contains the remains of just one percent of the alleged mass murder at Sobibor and/or Treblinka. But she's cowardly trying to use that as an out.

No, Gerdes, I’m just stating the reasonable position that irrelevant questions need not be answered and questions relevant for the purposes of the NAFCASH challenge will be answered in the form provided for on the NAFCASH site, i.e. in SKEPTIC magazine. And notwithstanding this position, I have answered all your questions to the best of my present knowledge. Your mendacious attempt to make believe that I’m evading anything is as transparent as all other dumb lies you have told before.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

What a coward.

… is what I am entitled to call you, Mr. Gerdes. You are arguably the most cowardly creature in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, except perhaps for your bird-of-a-feather Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis.

Again, when I come back from vacation I want to see the following:

1. A positive response to the question at the end of my post # 916:

Now, Mr. Gerdes, can we move to the questions I have asked you and you have never answered, and to further questions I would like to ask you? The list is quite a long one, and unlike most of your questions, they are all pertinent and relevant. Can I post a list of my questions, and will you try to answer them to the best of your knowledge and ability as I have just answered your questions?

2. Changes on the NAFCASH site that make good for the following examples of Gerdian cowardice mentioned in my post # 903 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=903 :

Readers who have followed this discussion will also remember how many questions (regarding evidence I have shown, regarding the relevance of his infantile "show me" – demands and regarding the rules and standards of evidence – if any – that these demands are based on, among other things) I have asked the fellow, and how few of these – if any at all – he has not run away from.

Readers will further remember Gerdes’ persistent refusal to define more precisely the requirements of the NAFCASH challenge and to state what exactly he would accept as proof meeting those requirements, even though I made it real easy for him by providing a draft of such specification and asking him to modify it as he considered necessary (see my posts # 506 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=506 , # 528 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=528 , # 536 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=536 , # 540 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=540, # 545 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=545 , # 566 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=566 , among others) . The staple reply to my suggestion was the idiotic "what part of proof do you not understand?" – rhetoric. Asked if this meant submission to reasonable standards of proof such as applied in criminal investigation and historical research, Gerdes ignored the question.

Readers will further remember my suggestion that Gerdes make the NAFCASH challenge more transparent by clearly describing the procedure for selecting eligible applicants, submittal of evidence by such applicants, assessment of evidence submitted by NAFCASH and their decision about entitlement to the reward. The NAFCASH site is rather vague in this respect. Yet all requests that a potential applicant be informed more precisely about the procedures were met with the hysterical derision and Simian howling that is the hallmark of Gerdes’ "argumentation".

Another thing that I’m sure our readers recall is Gerdes’ refusal to introduce an escrow account provision (as is usually done in challenges of this nature, I’ve been told) or at least make it clear to a potential applicant that he may well have to run after x different challenge supporters (the number is 21 including Gerdes, according to the same) at y different places for z part of the reward amount to which each supporter has committed – a fact that would probably make a potential applicant whose first and foremost interest is the money think twice. Gerdes’ response to this reasonable suggestion was a most imbecile "why don’t you get the money from those filthy stinking-rich Jews" – rant.

As if these examples of Gerdian cowardice were not enough, Gerdes also excluded Belzec and Chelmno extermination camps from the challenge, obviously in order to limit a potential applicant’s opportunities to meet the challenge requirements. Asked why he had done so, the best he could come up with was some notoriously lame babbling about "simplification" and "focus", IIRC. Bullshit.

But that’s not yet all, folks. Apparently for no reason other than my apparent preference for ARCHAEOLOGY magazine over SKEPTIC magazine as the publisher of my future article containing evidence that meets the NAFCASH challenge requirements, miserable coward Gerdes excluded ARCHAEOLOGY magazine from the already limited list of accepted publishers (if he had balls, as I said before, he would at least have accepted any pertinent scientific magazine for publication of evidence meeting the challenge requirements) and limited a potential applicant’s choice of publishers to SKEPTIC magazine alone (to be sure, it was stated on the NAFCASH site that an applicant rejected by SKEPTIC "MAY" be given the chance to publish in ARCHAEOLOGY magazine instead, but Gerdes wouldn’t be Gerdes if that "MAY" did not mean "WILL NOT").

And what is more, Gerdes started making a fuss about an unfavorable opinion I had uttered on Topix about Shermer’s qualities as a researcher, obviously in order to make sure that Shermer’s resentment over such statement would hinder his publishing an article of mine in SKEPTIC magazine.

3. A post addressing my fellow HC bloggers below the HC article Update on Gerdes & NAFCASH under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...s-nafcash.html, in order to make up for another example of Gerdian cowardice mentioned in post # 903.

4. On the CODOH thread http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059, a link to the present VNN thread and links to my HC articles under the following links:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...challenge.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_28.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...enge_4802.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_29.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_30.html

5. On the CODOH thread http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059 , an invitation to Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis to report for debate on this VNN thread starting 25 August 2008.

And just to make this very clear, in case you feel like claiming that I’m looking for a way out: your compliance with the above is no condition for anything, especially not for my sticking with the NAFCASH challenge. I’m just giving you a chance to make good for the cowardly and obnoxious behavior you have displayed throughout this discussion. Whether you want to take this chance or not is your problem alone. If you want to ignore all my requests and continue showing that you’re a piece of chicken-shit, that’s just fine with me.