View Single Post
Old June 5th, 2008 #9
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp


>I was told that, if you wanted a real unfettered debate about the holocaust, that >VNN was the >place to have it.

Yeah, this is an uncensored forum “for White”. If that doesn’t smack of censorship, I don’t know what does.

>I have been "debating," i.e. - totally destroying a >certain Roberto Muehlenkamp >, aka - >Roberta, on the topix history forum >
Wishful thinking is obviously the only thinking that Greg Gerdes is capable of. Actually, as readers following the Topix discussion have realized – and two have expressed – Gerdes has been shown up over and over again as a pathological liar and laughable fraud, who can do little other than misrepresent his opponent’s arguments into the straw-men he would like to be arguing against and endlessly regurgitating “show me this and that” – demands, the relevance of which he cannot explain.

The eyewitness evidence I provided he feebly tried to discredit, then chose to simply ignore it. The documentary evidence I provided he didn’t even dare to address. Therefore, and although he cannot show any rules or standards of criminal investigation and/or historical research whereby physical evidence is the only evidence that matters, he eventually went back to yelling for physical evidence and physical evidence alone. And what is more: he only accepts photographs as documentation of physical evidence, even though he has not been able to explain why written site investigation reports issued by criminal investigators, such as I quoted from several times throughout this discussion, should not be seen as sufficient documentation of physical evidence for forensic or historical purposes, whether or not they are illustrated by photographs.

In short, Gerdes has shown to be a charlatan who has no arguments against the evidence provided by his opponent (not to mention the utter absence of any evidence supporting his “transit camp” theory) and is therefore reduced to toting straw-men and demanding evidence the relevance, and even the suitability to provide proof of the events in question by itself, he is not able to demonstrate.

>but due to Roberta's censoring of my posts (she flagged 2 of them as "abusive" >and they were deleted by the administrator),
Actually this accusation has no basis whatsoever, as Gerdes well knows. Not only can Gerdes show no evidence of my having “flagged” any of his messages, he also cannot explain why on earth I should have done that, assuming I was thus inclined (which I’m not), as I have shredded his every post on Topix and shown him up again and again as the bloody moron he is. Gerdes’ posts are so self-defeating that I would be damn stupid if I were to censor them – which, unlike Gerdes, I am not.

>I needed to find another place to further destroy the little purse toting Portuguese >puke.
Actually what Gerdes needed was a place where he could count on the support of his "White" buddies and a friendly "White" moderator, because his feet were getting cold on a neutral, equal-opportunity discussion forum like Topix. That’s why he opened this thread on VNN, thereby clearly showing that he is the coward he accuses me of being.

>I might further add that Roberta publicly challenged me to a debate to take place >at a >cesspool called RODOH, which I did in fact accept - > - >but I was promptly banned by >Roberta's boyfriend, the moderator nickterry.
Actually what happened was that the first thread Gerdes opened, see under , was closed due to Gerdes having started out with a hysterical display of multi-colored, multi-sized, invective-laden howling, and Gerdes was told to take a less irritating approach. This he did, see under, and the moderator didn’t bother him there until he messed with the moderator’s name, calling him “dickterry”, in violation of forum rules. For that Gerdes was given a one-day suspension, see under So much for the liar’s claim that he was “banned” from the RODOH forum.

RODOH stands for "Real Open Debate on the Holocaust", and the forum’s owner, a "Revisionist" by the name of Scott Smith, means every word of it. Therefore, while moderators may intervene on occasion to enforce forum rules against foul language and other nasty behavior, no one is censored on RODOH on account of his or her arguments.

Readers may have noted Gerdes apparent obsession with effeminateness (he accuses his opponent of being effeminate by calling him the female version of his name) and homosexuality (he calls someone his opponent’s “boyfriend”). I don’t know the reason for this obsession, but chances are that Gerdes is projecting a problem of his own here, effeminate and homosexual tendencies he sees in himself but doesn’t want to admit to. That would be a likely explanation for a grown man’s using a variety of insults that I last used when I was in grade school.

>I should add also that both Roberta and little nicky are members of some freak >show called - >holocaust controversies, where this Roberta freak originally >challenged me to debate the >holocaust myth.
Very proudly thrashing “Revisionist” freaks since 2006, under .

The challenge was part of an article that can be accessed under , where I first exposed Gerdes’ ignorance and lack of intelligence – thereby driving the poor fellow carpet-biting mad, of course.

>So, that's my introduction. To further clarify what it is exactly that I have been >tearing Roberta to shreds about, here is the last recap from the topix site:
Gerdes’ hollow claims to have torn me to shreds never cease to amuse me, for they are about as far away from reality as the “Black Knight”’s taunting of King Arthur in the film “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. From the Wikipedia site on that film under :

«In the film, King Arthur (Graham Chapman), accompanied by his trusty serf Patsy (Terry Gilliam), is traveling through a forest when he enters a clearing and observes a fight taking place between a Black Knight (John Cleese) and a Green Knight (also played by Gilliam) by a bridge over a small stream. As he watches, the Black Knight defeats the Green, stabbing his sword straight through the eye slot of the Green Knight's helm.

Arthur then congratulates the Black Knight and offers him a place at his court on the Round Table, but he only stands still, holding his sword, and makes no response until Arthur moves to cross the bridge; he then refuses to stand aside. Reluctantly, Arthur fights the Black Knight, and after a short battle the Knight's left arm is severed.

However, even at this the Knight refuses to stand aside, insisting "'tis but a scratch" and fighting on. Next his right arm, which had been holding his sword, is also removed, but he still does not concede. As the Knight is literally disarmed, Arthur assumes the fight is over and kneels to offer a prayer to God. The Black Knight interrupts Arthur's prayer of thanks for his victory by kicking him in the side of the head and accusing him of cowardice; when Arthur points out his injuries he insists it's "just a flesh wound". In response to the continued kicks and insults, Arthur chops off first one leg and finally the other, at which the Black Knight then concedes to "call it a draw". Arthur summons Patsy and rides away, leaving the Black Knight to scream threats at him ("I'll bite off your legs off!"), where the scene fades out.»
In the Topix discussion, Gerdes has more or less reached the state of the armless and legless "Black Knight" threatening to bite his opponent’s legs off. Not being quite as unrealistic as the "Black Knight", however, Gerdes started looking for a way out of the situation. That’s why he falsely accused me of censorship in order to have a reason to run from Topix to the warm and cozy company of his "White" buddies.