|
July 18th, 2008 | #721 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Here is my response to the lying, cowardly greasy jewbitch:
Quote:
What are you waiting for Roberta? |
|
July 18th, 2008 | #722 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Here is Roberta's man again on the greasy jews:
Quote:
Only a jew... |
|
July 18th, 2008 | #723 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Again, Roberta knows all about this because it's already been discussed on topix (post #668):
Quote:
Here's your man again: If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day. The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. The simplicity of the nafcash challenge and how it is all set up is driving the greasy jews carpet biting mad. Oh how they want to know who is on the list of supporters so they can attack and boycott them. Roberta's cowardly two-faced machinations and her incessant whining are proof positive of what a lying coward she is. Nothing could be simpler than the nafcash challenge and/or how to lay claim to it and no amount of childish temper-tantrums by Roberta is going to change how it's set up and administered. So sorry little girl, but if you want to continue parading your childish / jewish tactics to the world, well, just go right ahead. Like I said before, this is better than a comedy show. (It IS a comedy show.) I only wish I could actually see Roberta hitting her head agianst the wall during one of her temper tantrums. (Now that's a photo I would really like to see!) Thank you Roberta. Only a jew... BTW Roberta, when are you going to tell all your buttbudies that you've accepted THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE? One would think that if you can come out and admitt to the world that your a roostersucker, that you would have the courage to admitt that you've accepted nafcash's challenge. What are you, some kind of a coward, or what? |
|
July 18th, 2008 | #724 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
|
Quote:
There's your substantiation of evasive, non sequitur, you ideological Jew.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
|
|
July 18th, 2008 | #725 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Thread title / contents posted on THE REVISIONIST FORUM:
Quote:
Yeah Roberta, what are you waiting for? What are you, some kind of a coward, or what? BTW Roberta, when are you going to tell all your buttbudies that you've accepted THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE? One would think that if you can come out and admitt to the world that your a roostersucker, that you would have the courage to admitt that you've accepted nafcash's challenge. |
|
July 18th, 2008 | #726 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
BTW Ced, this:
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it. Is very good. Thanks. |
July 18th, 2008 | #727 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
|
Yes, mate, it is a good thought. I can't remember if it's exactly right but I heard it from an Arab/Palestinian.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
|
July 19th, 2008 | #728 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, if you look at the article below which I suggested that Gerdes post a comment addressing my fellow bloggers, the one under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...s-nafcash.html , you will see that there’s nothing there from Gerdes as of 19.07.2008 12:47 hours GMT, a full day after my post # 713 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=713 . So when Gerdes yells: Quote:
Quote:
Of course this does not mean that I’m trying to "find a way out", as stinking liar Gerdes well knows. Remember what I wrote in my post # 697 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=697 : Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again my friend, Gerdes, you’re really a godsend. As I said in my post # 713: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Contrary to your imbecile beliefs, I don’t care for anybody’s "hailing" me, of course. All I care for is the enlargement of historical knowledge about the inconvenient facts that morons like you cannot live with. Quote:
Quote:
And as you’re howling so loudly about my fellow bloggers, what are you waiting for to contact them? As I said in the above, I don’t represent any of them and am also not anybody’s messenger. What are you waiting for to post a comment below the article "Update on Gerdes & NAFCASH" under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...s-nafcash.html ? Are you too chicken-shit for that? |
|||||||||||||||||||||
July 19th, 2008 | #729 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
The statement quoted again below makes clear that for the purpose of the NAFCASH challenge you are free to shift the burden of proof and require the applicant to prove something that, according to reasonable standards of historical research, it would be your job to disprove: Quote:
Quote:
I want the exact quote with a link to the post where I’m supposed to have expressed such insistence. Or a humble admission that you have been lying again. Which of them shall it be, asshole? Second, of course it is unreasonable, according to the standards of evidence that apply in historical research, to require proof of what becomes apparent from a photo source’s caption and from all known evidence about what happened at the place where the photo was taken, in this case that the "mound of the remains of victims of the Sobibor extermination camp" is actually a mound of human remains or the "glass display case containing ashes and bones of victims of the Sobibor extermination camp" actually contains human ashes and bones. The reasonable thing to do by who calls in question what becomes apparent from all known evidence would, as I said, be to stop his lame attempts to shift the burden of proof, move his ass to Poland, hire a forensic expert there, obtain permission from the Sobibor memorial folks to withdraw samples from inside the mound of human remains and have the forensic experts examine those samples. However, for the purpose of the NAFCASH challenge, as he has [u]offered a money reward[u] and is of course entitled to define the conditions under which he is willing to pay out the money, Gerdes is free to make demands that, by the reasonable standards of historical research, are unreasonable. He is free to say that he will pay out the money only if the applicant proves something that, by the reasonable standards of historical research, it would be Gerdes’ job to disprove. One thing are the rules and standards of evidence that apply in historical research, as I have often explained. By those rules and standards, everything that Gerdes demands proof for has long been proven. Another thing are the rules and standards of the NAFCASH challenge. Those rules and standards are unreasonable (unless Gerdes’ "what part of proof do you not understand" – yelling is to be understood as a submission to reasonable standards of proof – is it, Gerdes?), but whoever wants to earn the reward money must comply with those unreasonable rules and standards. Quote:
Quote:
I would check Gerdes' Aryan background if I were you, folks. Quote:
|
||||||
July 19th, 2008 | #730 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
a) reasonable standards of evidence, as are applied in historical research, and b) the unreasonable standards of evidence of the NAFCASH challenge. By the former, everything that you demand be proven has long been proven by the known documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence, and it is your job to disprove it by showing that the evidence was manipulated and/or that there there’s evidence to the places in question actually having been transit camps. By the latter, you are of course entitled to say that you will only pay out a 100,000 dollar reward if shown specific proof of the "exact" location of a specific mass grave and its "exact" dimensions and that the mass grave contains remains corresponding to at least 1 % of the number of victims of the respective camp according to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, and that you will pay out the "bonus" reward of 5,000 dollars only if the mass grave is from Sobibor and you are further shown forensic proof that the contents of the mound of human remains at that place are actually human remains. None of this is necessary in order to reach reasonable conclusions about what happened at e.g. Sobibor, none of this is relevant for the purpose of proving the mass murder at that camp, but all of this is relevant for the purpose of applying to the monetary reward offered by the NAFCASH association, and for that purpose alone. So what I’m showing the world is that I’m willing to play by the standards of the NAFCASH challenge even though they are unreasonable. What you are showing the world, on the other hand, is that you are a stinking coward desperately trying to save face by misrepresenting his opponent’s words in order to make believe that his opponent is "looking for a way out", which actually is the last thing this opponent has in mind. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
July 19th, 2008 | #731 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
I would check the fellow’s Aryan background if I were you, folks. |
||
July 19th, 2008 | #732 | |
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
|
How does a kike define reasonable, Rabbi?:
Quote:
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together. |
|
July 19th, 2008 | #733 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
So you claim that the status of NAFCASH as a "501 (c)(3)(exempt) nonprofit organization" does not allow you to hold "that kind of cash" in an escrow account, are you? Well, then prove it. Give us a sourced quote of the legal provisions that would keep NAFCASH from holding "that kind of cash" in an escrow account. As putting the money on an escrow account at some time during the process – say, when the applicant has published proof meeting the challenge requirements in SKEPTIC and ARCHAEOLOGY magazine – is the only way I see to make this challenge a fair and honest challenge, you shall by such proof also have demonstrated that issuing the challenge via a "501 (c)(3)(exempt) nonprofit organization" (why not as private citizen Greg Gerdes, for instance?) was a scam meant to make access to the reward money as difficult as possible even for a winning applicant. Thank you, Gerdes, for making it so obvious what the purpose of this "501 (c)(3)(exempt) nonprofit organization" – bullshit is. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Isn’t that so, Mr. Gerdes? Quote:
Quote:
I would check the fellow’s Aryan background if I were you, folks. Quote:
I was expecting to find on the HC side was a message from Gerdes addressing my fellow bloggers about the challenge, as I suggested in post # 713 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=713 : Quote:
Quote:
Now, if you look at the article below which I suggested that Gerdes post a comment addressing my fellow bloggers, the one under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...s-nafcash.html , you will see that there’s nothing there from Gerdes as of 19.07.2008 13:25 hours GMT, one day after my post # 713 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=713 . So when Gerdes yells: Quote:
What are you waiting for to post a comment below the article "Update on Gerdes & NAFCASH" under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...s-nafcash.html, Mr. Gerdes ? Are you too chicken-shit for that? |
||||||||||||
July 19th, 2008 | #734 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Remember what I wrote in my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...eg-gerdes.html , in which I challenged you to debate on RODOH (emphases added): Quote:
Now, what could be more cowardly and miserable than mouthing off about an opponent (moreover lying, as you’re again falsely claiming that I’m trying to "look for an angle out") on a forum to which that opponent has no access, and where he can therefore not defend himself against the lies you’re telling about him? Thank you, Gerdes, that was the icing on the cake. You really MADE MY DAY. Whoever was still in doubt that you’re a lying should be in doubt no longer. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, the gentleman you self-projectingly call my "buttbudies" are well aware of this discussion and my acceptance of the challenge. If you want to know what their position on this challenge is, what are you waiting for to post a comment below the article "Update on Gerdes & NAFCASH" under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...s-nafcash.html (which has a link to this thread so all readers of HC can follow what’s going on here, by the way)? Come on, you stinking coward. My fellow bloggers must be waiting for your message. |
|||||
July 19th, 2008 | #735 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
|
July 19th, 2008 | #736 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
I don't think there's a particularly Jewish definition of the term. For me the definition you find under http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reasonable is OK.
How do Jew-hating Hitler-kissers define "reasonable", by the way? Must be something like "whatever fits my Jew-hating and Hitler-kissing articles of faith is reasonable, whatever doesn't is not". Am I right? |
July 19th, 2008 | #737 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
2 a: having the faculty of reason b: possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man> It's using reason in its own definition, how can you say this is a good definition? Okay let's go to reason: 1 a: a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b: a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d: the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene>2 a (1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2): proper exercise of the mind (3): sanity b: the sum of the intellectual powers Alright let's try to fit it in to your original statement Quote:
|
||
July 19th, 2008 | #738 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
|
And so say all of.. er ... well it's just little you, Bobbajob. Moreover, piles of words from you say little; verbiage impresses for a while but when one realizes the lack of calibration in our terminology, your screed seems more and more off the wall.
Quote:
Correction tool failing again? How dare it mess with your prim self portrait. You associate pride with hatred of Hitler. Google pride for an incling.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
|
|
July 19th, 2008 | #739 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Meanwhile, on the thread http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059 of the "CODOH Revisonist Forum" (where stinking coward Gerdes posted some of his lies about me despite knowing that I’m banned from that forum, see my post # 734 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=734), another sorry piece of chicken-shit (Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis, the creep who banned me from CODOH because neither he nor any of his acolytes could handle my arguments), is indulging in yet another of his customary, somewhat less than honest victory dances:
Quote:
Quote:
As to Gerdes’ "tell me about it", I’ll tell you about "it". 1. Quote:
2. Quote:
The Walls of the Gas Chambers http://rodohforum.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/585 Poison Gas Concentrations and Times Alleged by Eye-Witnesses http://rodohforum.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/593 "Wahrheitseeker", by the way, is one of the few "Revisionists" smart enough to realize and integer enough to repudiate the cowardly censorship practices of Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis on the "CODOH Revisionist Forum". See, for instance, WS’ post of 2-Dec-2007 16:23 on page 9 of the thread "A message to Jonnie Hannover Hargis ..." under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/166...is.html?page=9 : Quote:
Quote:
4. Quote:
That’s how opponents are "shredded" on CODOH, folks: when their arguments cannot be handled, their posts are deleted or retained, and eventually – as happened to me and a number of other inconvenient posters – they are banned. 5. Quote:
Posts of 4-Oct-2006 17:43, 4-Oct-2006 21:23, 5-Oct-2006 10:27, 5-Oct-2006 11:04 on page 1 under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/166...is.html?page=1 Post of 5-Oct-2006 14:42 on page 2 under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/166...is.html?page=2 Posts of 17-Oct-2006 21:04 and 16-Dec-2006 20:17 on page 3 under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/166...is.html?page=3 6. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now here’s a task for you, Mr. Gerdes: Go to the RODOH thread under http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059and do the following: a) Post a link to this VNN thread there, so that CODOH posters can go here and see for themselves who is being "hammered" by whom on this thread; b) Tell Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis that I’m waiting for him here, on this VNN thread, to see just how "easy" he finds it to discuss with me when he cannot control the discussion with his "delete" pedal. Will you please do that, Mr. Gerdes? I would do it myself if I had access to that lovely CODOH forum, but as you know, I am banned from there. Thanks in advance! |
||||||||||||
July 19th, 2008 | #740 | ||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Now to the rest of your post Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:57 pm on the CODOH thread Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:57 pm under http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059 :
Quote:
Quote:
No, my dear Gerdes, unlike you I’m in no need of saving face, let alone of accepting your dishonest and disgusting challenge for that purpose. What made me decide to accept your challenge was a big mistake you made in one of your posts, one that considerably improved my chances of having access to the very evidence that is required to meet the challenge requirements. I’ll let you guess what mistake that was, and in which of your posts you made it. [quote=Gerdes]But now, he's realized that he will never be able to prove that there is even one "huge mass grave" that contains even one percent of the alleged mass murder at any of the alleged "pure extermination centers," and he's trying to weasel his way out of his public acceptance.[quote] I suggest you show the CODOH folks what I wrote in my post # 697 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=697, stinking liar: Quote:
Quote:
And as to my fellow bloggers, have you already contacted them? From my post # 733 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=733 : Quote:
Quote:
What are you afraid of, Gerdes? Quote:
As you well know, I’m not trying to change anything to my "liking". I’m telling you how the conditions would have to be changed in order to make this a fair and honest challenge instead of a thinly disguised rip-off, where the applicant who submits proof matching the challenge requirements will (probably after having obtained a court decision whereby he is entitled to the reward, as I don’t expect you and your fellow characterless cowards to acknowledge that your challenge requirements have been met) be required to run after x number of people for the part of the reward amount to which each of these people committed. If you don’t want to accept my suggestions and keep the challenge as the obvious scam it currently is, that’s just fine with me. It won’t dissuade me from trying to obtain, publish and present to NAFCASH the required proof, for as you well know the money issue is secondary to me. But it will clearly show anyone with half a brain what a fraud you are, and what a fraud your challenge is. The choice is yours. Quote:
You will invite Hannover to come over here, won’t you, Gerdes? Publicly, i.e. on the CODOH thread on which you wrote the shit commented above. |
||||||||||||||
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|