Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 15th, 2008 #661
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Bert, this pettifogging over reward money is a laugh. If you prove what no other can, international Jewry will reward you with tons of paper money; you will be lauded and hailed as the Messiah so get on with it.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #662
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

BTW Roberta, there's going to be one more major change in the next update.

I'm not happy about having to make it, but it will simplify things to the point that even a retard like you should be able to understand it all.

But it will enable me to "lock in" pretty much everything that you will see on the site and address the ONLY REAL issue that you have complained about.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #663
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Ced:

Quote:
Bert, this pettifogging over reward money is a laugh. If you prove what no other can, international Jewry will reward you with tons of paper money; you will be lauded and hailed as the Messiah so get on with it.
EXACTLY!!!

And if the jews really wanted to put an end to holocaust denial, the issue of money or any reward amount would be a moot point.

So what are you waiting for Roberta?

After all, you do want to be lauded and hailed as the Messiah by the jews - don't you? And just think, you would undoubtedly be given the title of Righteous Gentile!

And what jewish toe sucking freak like you wouldn’t want all that?
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #664
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,850
Hugh
Default

This thread really proves the Jewish stereotype exists for a reason.

As Hitler wrote:

"The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics.
At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion.

They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one’s hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards.

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. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday’s defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct.

Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me the more; the abundance of their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods.
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #665
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
This thread really proves the Jewish stereotype exists for a reason.

As Hitler wrote:

"The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics.
At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion.

They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one’s hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards.

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. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday’s defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct.

Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me the more; the abundance of their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods.
Indeed.

Unctuous, reforming slime; permanently here to observe.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #666
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Hi EG,

Of all the instructively self-portraying trash you last produced, I found this part particularly amusing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post
Revisionists have created more than reasonable doubt; they have proven the Lie. It's up to you Holocaustians to shore up your faith by evidence and proof. For whether you like it or not, Holocaustianity is not a faith. It is not to be accepted at face value as some holy truth - concocted by the juden as emissaries from from their desert god.

Facts, evidence, dna, Proof based upon logic - not belief - are required and, due to the enormity of the Lie, and the heavy price America and Europe paid and continue to pay at the altar of Holocaustianity, the proof had best be above reproach or question - there will be hell for you pay in the near future if you jews do not do this. You will FINALLY get your holocaust. A real one, one that will not have to be made up. And, there will be no eyewitnesses left to lie.
Wow, that's quite a bloodthirsty little thing we have here.

I have some questions for the bloodthirsty little thing:

1. Just how are "Revisionists" supposed to have "proven the Lie" ?

How are "Revisionists" supposed to have proved that a sinister Jewish conspiracy manipulated or suppressed thousands of documents, trained thousands of false incriminating eyewitnesses (apparently chosen for the telepathic capabilities, which would keep them from straying too far from what their colleagues had said even if they had no way of hearing or reading it), coerced or otherwise induced a couple of thousand indicted perpetrators, especially before West German courts, into falsely incriminating themselves, silenced all potential exonerating witnesses throughout Europe and the rest of the world, fooled governments and other administrative authorities, criminal justice authorities and historians and demographers all over the world (unless, of course, you want to tell us that all these people were in the pay of said conspiracy) and brainwashed or otherwise induced millions of non-victims living in Israel, the US and other countries into concealing their origins and identity so it could be claimed that they had been murdered (also considering that these millions therefore had to renounce to compensation claims against the German government - the conspiracy must have paid them better)?

Let's see the proof, baby. And it better be beyond reproach or question.

2. If the answer to question 1 should be that "Revisionists" have not actually "proven the Lie", what doubt are they supposed to have created, and how and why is this doubt supposed to be reasonable?

3.

a) What would you accept as "proof based on logic" that Nazi genocidal policies caused the death of at least 5 million Jews during World War II?

b) What rules or standards of evidence you can show us are your requirements based on?

c) In what respect is the converging documentary, eyewitness, physical and demographic evidence that has led criminal investigators and historians to conclude on the factuality of this genocide supposed to be anything other than "proof based on logic"?

d) What events in history that you accept as factual do you consider to have been demonstrated by "proof based on logic", and how is the proof that convinced you of the factuality of these events supposed to differ from the proof that has convinced criminal investigators and historians of the factuality of the Nazi genocide of the Jews?

I'm waiting for your answers to these questions, sweetheart. Not exactly with baited breath, but I expect the answers to be fun.
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #667
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes View Post
I thought I would share the latest email exchange I had with Roberta:

Roberta wrote:

This is about whether or not the requirements that must be met by whatever you mean by "proof" - and if you keep yelling that the term is self-evident I'm entitled to conclude that you submit to reasonable standards of proof, i.e. those that are applied in criminal investigation and historical research - will be frozen for the purpose of my future submission of evidence to the challenge.

By requirements I mean the following:

Requirements for the main reward:
Quote:
You must prove the grave’s exact location and its exact dimensions - however, to qualify for the reward; You need only to prove that the grave contains the remains of just one percent of the alleged mass murder.
Requirements for the "bonus":
Mass grave must be from Sobibor + applicant (from limited number of named individuals) must furthermore «prove that Sobibors alleged “giant pile of human ash” is actually composed of human ash».

This is not about the amount of the reward. It is also not about what evidence is considered by you to meet the challenge requirements. It's only about the challenge requirements themselves, about what one must prove to be "eligible" for your reward.

Greg Gerdes replied:

This will not change:

You must prove the grave’s exact location and its exact dimensions - however, to qualify for the reward; You need only to prove that the grave contains the remains of just one percent of the alleged mass murder.

The Sobibor bonus reward will read:

* $5,000.00 SOBIBOR BONUS REWARD! - If the winner of THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM does so via Sobibor, NAFCASH TM will donate $5,000.00 in the winners name to the – SOBIBOR ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT if said winner can also prove that Sobibors alleged “giant pile / mountain of human ash” is actually comprised of human ash.

And will not change.

Your brain damage / mental illness / low IQ severely impairs your ability to communicate effectively Roberta. Maybe in the future you can have your mommy assist you with your communications?
This I received from Gerdes on July 15, 2008 5:25 PM GMT:

Quote:
This will not change:

You must prove the grave’s exact location and its exact dimensions - however, to qualify for the reward; You need only to prove that the grave contains the remains of just one percent of the alleged mass murder.

The Sobibor bonus reward will read:

* $5,000.00 SOBIBOR BONUS REWARD! - If the winner of THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM does so via Sobibor, NAFCASH TM will donate $5,000.00 in the winners name to the – SOBIBOR ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT if said winner can also prove that Sobibors alleged “giant pile / mountain of human ash” is actually comprised of human ash.

And will not change.

Your brain damage / mental illness / low IQ severely impairs your ability to communicate effectively. Maybe in the future you can have your mommy assist you with your communications?
This was my reply on July 15, 2008 6:56 PM GMT:

Quote:
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.

If you had left out the imbecile invective following the above statement, one might even hope that you're in the process of getting yourself a brain. :-)
And this was a message I sent to Gerdes on July 15, 2008 7:22 PM:

Quote:
The question still pending now is the following:

Does publishing proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements, in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, grant the applicant a legally valid and enforceable claim to the reward, or does it not?

Which of the following statements is true, Mr. Gerdes?

A - An applicant who publishes in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements will be paid the reward.

B - An applicant who publishes in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements may (or may not) be paid the reward.

Simple answer, no bullshit: Is it A, or is it B ?
No e-mail reply to these questions has so far been received. But maybe they have been answered in Gerdes' recent outbursts on this forum, let's see.
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #668
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes View Post
Roberta:

Then you have passed the first test and are entitled to submit said "proof" that you had published to nafcash for consideration - i.e. - apply / lay claim to the reward.

The very simple requirement of having any such alleged proof vetted by "Skeptic" and Archaeology magazines is intended to limit those who lay claim to the reward to serious applicants only. What I didn't want to happen is to have every mentally ill / retarded holocaustian in the world bothering me with "proof" that in no way, shape or form could be considered proof by any sane / rational human being.

But, as anyone can see, that isn't exactly the case, because as Roberta has shown, certain mentally ill / brain damaged / low IQ people can still try to get around my "only serious applicants only please" attempt by simply wishing that certain requirements are what she wants them to be. Apparently, Roberta doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the difference between becoming eligible to lay claim to a reward and meeting the requirements necessary to receive a reward.

Only a jew / mental ill...

Roberta:
No Roberta, unlike you and the moral midgets in the homosexual underworld that you surround yourself with, the supporters of THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE are people of character and will pay up.

If in fact you do meet the requirements to receive the reward, you will receive the reward.

Roberta:
I want to thank you again for showing the world just how mentally ill / retarded you are Roberta. Thank you.

Roberta:
No shit dumb ass. (Thanks again Roberta.)
I'll ignore Gerdes' self-portraying and self-projecting invective (the poor fellow must be seriously ill – I sort of feel sorry for him) and get right to the point:

Let's assume I have published proof objectively meeting the challenge requirements in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine and am therefore entitled to lay claim to the reward.

I then submit my evidence to the consideration of NAFCASH. I send them all reports by archeologists or forensic experts, drawings, photos, video clips, GPR surveys etc. that I have collected, together with a letter formally requesting payment of the reward to a given account. The elements I submit meet the challenge requirements, i.e. (to simplify things, I'll talk only about the main challenge now) they prove beyond a reasonable doubt the exact location and exact dimensions of a given mass grave at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka and that this grave contains human remains corresponding to at least 1 % of the estimated number of victims of these camps according to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.

With that submittal, I shall have a legally valid and enforceable claim to the reward. The association NAFCASH, validly represented by Mr. Greg Gerdes, and the supporters XYZ of the NAFCASH challenge, undertake the legally binding commitment that, in case the conditions described in the previous two paragraphs are met, they will pay me the net amount of 100,000 US dollars. The association NAFCASH and each of the challenge supporters shall be jointly and severally liable to this effect.

The implications of this legally binding commitment are that, if NAFCASH and the challenge supporters should fail to pay the reward, despite all conditions for payment having been complied with (and I frankly don't give much for the "character" of either Mr. Gerdes or any of the challenge supporters), I can sue them or any of them (as they are jointly and severally liable) before a competent court of law and obtain from that court of law an award whereby the respondent or respondents must pay, lest a court executor pawns their assets and sells them in an auction to the extent required for satisfying my claim.

Is the above correct, Mr. Gerdes?

YES or NO ?

If the answer is YES, then the NAFCASH challenge is a fairly honest challenge.

If the answer is NO, this means that whether or not I get paid upon submitting to NAFCASH proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements, following publication of such proof in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, depends on whether or not the supporters of the challenge are actually the "people of character" Gerdes claims they are (which I strongly doubt). If these people are a bunch of charlatans like Gerdes (which is what you usually find in the "Revisionist" scene), that means tough luck for me. I shall have invested much time and money into collecting proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements (apart from travel and lodging expenses for trips to and inside Poland, I don't think archaeologists, forensic experts and GPR professionals work for free, and one must probably also pay fees for official permissions to conduct archaeological investigations) and not recover a cent of my expenses. Suing NAFCASH and/or the challenge supporters won't help me, as neither of them ever undertook a legally binding commitment to pay the reward if the stated requirements for claiming it are met.

And this, of course, is final confirmation (if that were still necessary) that the NAFCASH challenge is a rip-off, a hoax, a mendacious publicity stunt meant to impress suckers, and nothing more than that.

So what is your answer to my above questions, Mr. Gerdes?

Is it YES?

Or is it NO?
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #669
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
I'll ignore Gerdes' self-portraying and self-projecting invective (the poor fellow must be seriously ill – I sort of feel sorry for him) and get right to the point:

Let's assume I have published proof objectively meeting the challenge requirements in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine and am therefore entitled to lay claim to the reward.

I then submit my evidence to the consideration of NAFCASH. I send them all reports by archeologists or forensic experts, drawings, photos, video clips, GPR surveys etc. that I have collected, together with a letter formally requesting payment of the reward to a given account. The elements I submit meet the challenge requirements, i.e. (to simplify things, I'll talk only about the main challenge now) they prove beyond a reasonable doubt the exact location and exact dimensions of a given mass grave at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka and that this grave contains human remains corresponding to at least 1 % of the estimated number of victims of these camps according to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.

With that submittal, I shall have a legally valid and enforceable claim to the reward. The association NAFCASH, validly represented by Mr. Greg Gerdes, and the supporters XYZ of the NAFCASH challenge, undertake the legally binding commitment that, in case the conditions described in the previous two paragraphs are met, they will pay me the net amount of 100,000 US dollars. The association NAFCASH and each of the challenge supporters shall be jointly and severally liable to this effect.

The implications of this legally binding commitment are that, if NAFCASH and the challenge supporters should fail to pay the reward, despite all conditions for payment having been complied with (and I frankly don't give much for the "character" of either Mr. Gerdes or any of the challenge supporters), I can sue them or any of them (as they are jointly and severally liable) before a competent court of law and obtain from that court of law an award whereby the respondent or respondents must pay, lest a court executor pawns their assets and sells them in an auction to the extent required for satisfying my claim.

Is the above correct, Mr. Gerdes?

YES or NO ?

If the answer is [b]YES[/ b], then the NAFCASH challenge is a fairly honest challenge.

If the answer is NO, this means that whether or not I get paid upon submitting to NAFCASH proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements, following publication of such proof in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, depends on whether or not the supporters of the challenge are actually the "people of character" Gerdes claims they are (which I strongly doubt). If these people are a bunch of charlatans like Gerdes (which is what you usually find in the "Revisionist" scene), that means tough luck for me. I shall have invested much time and money into collecting proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements (apart from travel and lodging expenses for trips to and inside Poland, I don't think archaeologists, forensic experts and GPR professionals work for free, and one must probably also pay fees for official permissions to conduct archaeological investigations) and not recover a cent of my expenses. Suing NAFCASH and/or the challenge supporters won't help me, as neither of them ever undertook a legally binding commitment to pay the reward if the stated requirements for claiming it are met.

And this, of course, is final confirmation (if that were still necessary) that the NAFCASH challenge is a rip-off, a hoax, a mendacious publicity stunt meant to impress suckers, and nothing more than that.

So what is your answer to my above questions, Mr. Gerdes?

Is it YES?

Or is it NO?
Man! I would love to hear you chatting up a woman.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #670
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Man! I would love to hear you chatting up a woman.
I've always been lucky with the ladies. I usually wait for them to chat me up.
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #671
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ced smythe View Post
Man! I would love to hear you chatting up a woman.
The Mule wouldn't bother to chat up a prostitute - she would tire of the verbose, long-winded financial negotiations and likely just beat him or stab him and take his wallet and any jewelry he might be wearing.

Any normal and decent woman would not be as violent as a prostitute, if she even bothered to allow the Mule near her, the moment he started talking, she would excuse herself to the pub or restaurant ladies' loo and instead go to the kitchen, leaving out the back door. The Mule would not even notice she had ran off, either, for he would be sitting at table, chatting himself up, debating himself, convincing himself to go on a date with himself...
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #672
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
I've always been lucky with the ladies. I usually wait for them to chat me up.
You have to be carefull of women who approach you; they might be pushy and oblivious or desperate actresses.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #673
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes View Post
Let's remind Retardo again of this simple fact:


Quote:
No guarantee has ever been expressed or implied by nafcash that by meeting the requirements to become a claimant automatically entitles said claimant to the reward, and no amount of bazaar mental gymnastics by certain mentally ill people will alter this fact.

Thanks again Roberta.
Is that a YES or a NO to the question asked in my post # 668?
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #674
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ced smythe View Post
You have to be carefull of women who approach you; they might be pushy and oblivious or desperate actresses.
No, those are not my type.
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #675
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post
The Mule wouldn't bother to chat up a prostitute - she would tire of the verbose, long-winded financial negotiations and likely just beat him or stab him and take his wallet and any jewelry he might be wearing.

Any normal and decent woman would not be as violent as a prostitute, if she even bothered to allow the Mule near her, the moment he started talking, she would excuse herself to the pub or restaurant ladies' loo and instead go to the kitchen, leaving out the back door. The Mule would not even notice she had ran off, either, for he would be sitting at table, chatting himself up, debating himself, convincing himself to go on a date with himself...
Hey sweetheart, how about answering the questions in my post # 666 instead of bitching around?
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #676
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Hi EG,

Of all the instructively self-portraying trash you last produced, I found this part particularly amusing:



Wow, that's quite a bloodthirsty little thing we have here.

I have some questions for the bloodthirsty little thing:

1. Just how are "Revisionists" supposed to have "proven the Lie" ?

How are "Revisionists" supposed to have proved that a sinister Jewish conspiracy manipulated or suppressed thousands of documents, trained thousands of false incriminating eyewitnesses (apparently chosen for the telepathic capabilities, which would keep them from straying too far from what their colleagues had said even if they had no way of hearing or reading it), coerced or otherwise induced a couple of thousand indicted perpetrators, especially before West German courts, into falsely incriminating themselves, silenced all potential exonerating witnesses throughout Europe and the rest of the world, fooled governments and other administrative authorities, criminal justice authorities and historians and demographers all over the world (unless, of course, you want to tell us that all these people were in the pay of said conspiracy) and brainwashed or otherwise induced millions of non-victims living in Israel, the US and other countries into concealing their origins and identity so it could be claimed that they had been murdered (also considering that these millions therefore had to renounce to compensation claims against the German government - the conspiracy must have paid them better)?

Let's see the proof, baby. And it better be beyond reproach or question.

2. If the answer to question 1 should be that "Revisionists" have not actually "proven the Lie", what doubt are they supposed to have created, and how and why is this doubt supposed to be reasonable?

3.

a) What would you accept as "proof based on logic" that Nazi genocidal policies caused the death of at least 5 million Jews during World War II?

b) What rules or standards of evidence you can show us are your requirements based on?

c) In what respect is the converging documentary, eyewitness, physical and demographic evidence that has led criminal investigators and historians to conclude on the factuality of this genocide supposed to be anything other than "proof based on logic"?

d) What events in history that you accept as factual do you consider to have been demonstrated by "proof based on logic", and how is the proof that convinced you of the factuality of these events supposed to differ from the proof that has convinced criminal investigators and historians of the factuality of the Nazi genocide of the Jews?

I'm waiting for your answers to these questions, sweetheart. Not exactly with baited breath, but I expect the answers to be fun.
Just how many millions of different sermons stating the same thing over and over have you writ, holocaustian "priest" - I made myself very clear in my post - I reject your faith, your hypotheses, your lies and convolutions.

There's an old rule of thumb, one person's view represents 100 others, and those 100 others represent 1,000, and those 1,000 represent - well, you get the idea - at least you should, it's what jewish advertisers and corporations rely upon when deciding which product will sell and make the most money - consumer opinion or belief in advertising is essential before production of any product - too bad you holocaustians and the juden did not consider this when the Lie was being concocted and produced for mass consumption - after all, it was only a matter of time, and quite predictable that you all would be exposed for lacking truth in advertising.

When I told you there are millions of Folks my age, White and non-white Gentiles that are not only skeptical of Holocaustianity, they are also indifferent to it or outright deny the claim altogether, I was telling you the truth. Whether or not they are aware of it, it is the work of Revisionists that have created the very reasonable doubt, that your "high court" of jews have failed to convince due to lack of Evidence.

Now, go ahead, reproduce your varied huge blurry and doctored fotos of skulls and bones and such - and btw, I would like for you to explain to me whether or not that bicycle in one foto is also considered to be a jewish holocaust victim as well.

Last edited by EireannGoddess; July 16th, 2008 at 07:31 AM.
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #677
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Whatever it is, it's not what I'm doing. Requesting substantiation is not feigning ignorance. Refusing it, on the other hand, smacks of dishonesty.

One substantiation leads to another; you then ask for proof that my father was the man I thought he was. After that you might ask for proof that my father existed at all.
No, your father has nothing to do with this, and whether I require further substantiation depends on what substantiation you provide in the first place. I may well be satisfied with your first substantiation (unlike you, I’m a reasonable person), and you’ll never know until you provide it.

Ah, and of course fear of eventual further questions is as piss-poor an excuse for not providing substantiation as I can think of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Substantiation is apparent to the honest reader, biased or not. This self deception is habitual; a means of not having to admit error.
Sorry, but that’s just horseshit. The kind of meaningless "it’s obvious to any honest person" – horseshit that signals a charlatan’s lack of arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Thus you stand, untouchable, above all others including international Jewry's think tanks, which insist on censorship.
No, I’m not untouchable at all. Every one of my arguments is potentially refutable. All it takes is a better argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
The statement expresses the court's conviction that the fact of gassings at AB is not reasonably subject to dispute and capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. Any given court decision expresses a view that nothing (short of refutation by a higher court) will change, so you remark is tautological.

The statement expresses the power of money, media and legal control. We Jews say it is so, thus it is so. No other tribe on Earth can enforce such standards as "It is simply a fact".
Actually "it is simply a fact" is Judge Johnson’s simplified expression of a legal principle that, as far as I know, has a good old Anglo-Saxon tradition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
No, this is a consistent explanation of why the court's decision is appropriate and your rambling against it is baseless.

My statement was short and very clear; your response was evasive, lengthy, legalistic jargon.
Your "short and very clear" statement was a baseless claim at best, and my response was a direct and detailed demonstration of your claim’s baselessness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
In that there is no reason that might justify disputing it.

Ex parte Jewish law.
Nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Again, it implies that nothing will change the view of the court.
That’s what a court decision tends to express, and it has always been that way everywhere, if you ask me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
However you interpret reasonable, indisputable is indisputable;
I'd say either term is subject to interpretation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
this Jew myth is disputable because we throw down the Jew book of rules.
No, what you call the "Jew myth" is only "disputable" because you throw down logic and reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Yeah, there's nothing that is reasonably indisputable. One day we may find that hens have teeth, that the Lord made man out of clay and that the Flat Earth movement is right. Just wait and see.

Straw yid disingenuity (look it up genius).
My correction tool accepts "disingenuousness" but not disingenuity, and there’s nothing disingenuous about my parallels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Reasonably indisputable is like reasonably dead.
Wrong. You’re either dead or not, but whether something can be considered indisputable depends on what standards are applied for doubt or question to be significant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Bert, this pettifogging over reward money is a laugh. If you prove what no other can, international Jewry will reward you with tons of paper money; you will be lauded and hailed as the Messiah so get on with it.
I don’t think so and couldn’t care less, and I’m also not "pettifogging over money". Money has never been my motivation for opposing you beautiful people (I have never received a cent for it, as a matter of fact) and will not become a motivation now. It’s just something that would be nice to have if I get it, but if I don’t it doesn’t really matter. From my post # 596 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=596 :

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Looks like Roberta has accepted THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE!
Nothing to make a fuss about, actually. I’ve become so interested in the subsoil of these camps, especially Sobibor, that I intend to find out as much as I can about it for this reason already. If I can get my findings published in Archeology or Skeptic magazine, or at least co-author an article in one of those publications, that would be great. And if doing so furthermore forces an intellectual midget and lowly piece of scum to pay me 100,000 dollars, that would be the icing on the cake.
Of course this doesn’t keep me from trying to find out if the NAFCASH challenge is a fairly honest challenge or a hoax. Gerdes is on his way to confirming (assuming such confirmation is still needed) that it is the latter.
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #678
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post
Just how many millions of different sermons stating the same thing over and over have you writ, holocaustian "priest" - I made myself very clear in my post - I reject your faith, your hypotheses, your lies and convolutions.

There's an old rule of thumb, one person's view represents 100 others, and those 100 others represent 1,000, and those 1,000 represent - well, you get the idea - at least you should, it's what jewish advertisers and corporations rely upon when deciding which product will sell and make the most money - consumer opinion or belief in advertising is essential before production of any product - too bad you holocaustians and the juden did not consider this when the Lie was being concocted and produced for mass consumption - after all, it was only a matter of time, and quite predictable that you all would be exposed for lacking truth in advertising.

When I told you there are millions of Folks my age, White and non-white Gentiles that are not only skeptical of Holocaustianity, they are also indifferent to it or outright deny the claim altogether, I was telling you the truth. Whether or not they are aware of it, it is the work of Revisionists that have created the very reasonable doubt, that your "high court" of jews have failed to convince due to lack of Evidence.

Now, go ahead, reproduce your varied huge blurry and doctored fotos of skulls and bones and such - and btw, I would like for you to explain to me whether or not that bicycle in one foto is also considered to be a jewish holocaust victim as well.
Some of the photos I have shown may be "blurry", I don't think you can demonstrate that any of them has been "doctored", and they are just part (and not even a very important part) of the evidence I have referred to.

Now, are your above babblings supposed to answer my questions in post # 666 (if so, they're as piss-poor, hysterically unreasonable and meaningless a response as I can think of), or are they just meant as a sermon to reassure yourself and the rest of the flock of your common faith?

As a sermon your babblings are quite entertaining.
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #679
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes View Post
Ced:

EXACTLY!!!

And if the jews really wanted to put an end to holocaust denial, the issue of money or any reward amount would be a moot point.

So what are you waiting for Roberta?

After all, you do want to be lauded and hailed as the Messiah by the jews - don't you? And just think, you would undoubtedly be given the title of Righteous Gentile!

And what jewish toe sucking freak like you wouldn’t want all that?
Is that a YES or a NO answer to the question I asked in post # 668, Mr. Gerdes?

Looks like a NO to me, but please correct me if I should have misunderstood you.

I'm not waiting for anything, by the way. It's just fun to explore your mendacity and cowardice while other things are going on.
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #680
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Some of the photos I have shown may be "blurry", I don't think you can demonstrate that any of them has been "doctored", and they are just part (and not even a very important part) of the evidence I have referred to.
Meh, you could have fooled me, considering the many times you kept reposting them. As to the rest of your writings; the verbiage is such that I barely skim them, since I quickly realise the preachings that I have already gone over with you and others like you, as well as jews. However, jews generally run away from me in an hysterical snit, drooling. I am glad that you decided the doctored fotos are "not even a very important part " of your so-called "evidence".

Quote:
Now, are your above babblings supposed to answer my questions in post # 666 (if so, they're as piss-poor, hysterically unreasonable and meaningless a response as I can think of),
Perhaps you mean what you state - however, it doesn't matter to me, I have answered these questions in so many other debates with holocaustians that it's become rote.

When it comes to you, I simply do not have the time nor desire to wade through your replies were I do address you seriously; full of convolutions, repetitive statements, each worded differently but saying the same thing as is your wont; nor am I interested in your veering off into some holocaustian religious trance and being subjected to revelations that, which would surely be of a completely different topic - if only to avoid Herr Gerdes posts. No, I will not give you that.

Quote:
As a sermon your babblings are quite entertaining.
And you make quite a good imitation of a jewish parrot. So we are equally entertained, I suppose.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM.
Page generated in 0.29364 seconds.