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

Old July 31st, 2008 #921
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
I might tell you where I got this distinction from, but Iíd like to see our darling squirm a little more.
And what a show we are getting at that. Priceless EG shit.

EG, I suggest you go fetch the Oldman or Karl, you are just stuck in mud.
__________________
RabbitNoMore

But all jews do speak in absolutes though. Just like you.

-----------

Define idiot
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #922
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post

Good, but you obviously did not read the several cases wherein convictions, based solely upon eyewitness testimony, later; upon appeal, had to be overturned due to the many incidences of convicting innocent people to long term prison time as well as to death. This happened so often that generally, if you read all the articles and links - which you obviously did not bother to do before making your pronouncement - that eyewitness testimony is so easily challenged that Law Enforcement, Prosecutors and Defence no longer deem it viable enough for conviction alone.
This is irrelevant to your claim, in fact it shows you to be a liar. Recall you claim is an absolute prohibition of criminal convictions based soley on eyewitness testimony. There is no such prohibition, your statement is a lie.

Quote:
Ask your local [or State] District Attorney if he is willing to go forward with prosecuting a case that is lacking in sufficient evidence and relies totally upon one or more eyewitnesses - in your query, include that the cases would have to be sufficient to earn either capital punishment or long-term to life imprisonment. For instance [and the article was writ by a kike, no less]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...utput=viewport
Again, this is irrelevant, your statment remains a lie.

Quote:

I did back it up - Common law usually deals with "white collar fraud"; consumer fraud, ect - as does "Intentional" evidence - same thing really, consumer fraud, financial fraud - usually, jews are the largest group of criminals falling within this range. Same thing with "unintentional" evidence.
This is also a lie, Common Law is the basis of the English language jurisprudence and deals equaly with white collar fraud as with any other classification of wrong doing, civil or criminal.

Quote:
I gave several links - you and Mule do not bother to read nor follow up - at least if you are going to dispute my posts; provide back up

Google and research, do your own work and then come back with more than one link, and be willing to discuss them - likely another thread, since this is a subject that does not actually pertain to this thread. Though, I'm sure your pal, Mule would love further derailment so as to avoid answering fully Herr Gerdes questions. But, I am not going to be the one to give him that out - so, if you wish to discuss matters of law - start a thread on it. OV would be the right place.

Quote:

Research what, your lies? Nah

Well, they are not based on jewish notions of jurisprudence - which pretty much is the whole of American justice system - but come from questioning the American Justice system; making comparison between non-jewish law - a rare thing these days - and jewish based, judeo-Christian notions of what is legal or illegal. How do you come by your theories.
No, this is also a lie, Jewish influence in early English Common Law would be minimal at best.


Quote:
True, it's still under legal debate - it seems to be an area that jews cannot get ahold of - again, Intentional evidence deals mainly with petit fraud and crimes, as well as larger financial schemes in which there are several victims; again, crimes that are usually committed by large corporate entities; and mostly jew criminals. Perhaps the prevalence of jewish criminals in this area is one reason why the juden do not bother with trying to take control of English Common Law - idk, either that, or it's simply too foreign a notion for the jewish mind to fully comprehend.
Its so much under debate its not even defined, idiot!

Quote:
Prove that you are not "trying to apply it" - elaborate.
I've never used the term before this discussion.


Quote:
I realise that, as a jew, you are not familiar with basing laws on ethics, but rather try to control ethics using law. Here's a google page dealing with ethics - start there, then go to the law, or the court decision and distinction you seek.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...ce&btnG=Search
I'm not a Jew, neither is Roberto.
__________________
RabbitNoMore

But all jews do speak in absolutes though. Just like you.

-----------

Define idiot

Last edited by Slamin2; July 31st, 2008 at 05:01 PM.
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #923
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Meaning includes consequence, doesn’t it?
You claimed to be a proud German and I doubt your claim; and ever since I asked you a simple question: what is pride, you've excused mistaking hate for pride with irrelevant consequence talk which is intended to waste time. In the post before this you admitted that you are playing a game; now you are talking about consequence again. This behaviour says much about your character; I should point out that you are an ambassador of sorts.

Quote:
I’m not conscious of an error. The most you can claim is that we misunderstood each other.
There's no misunderstanding. Deliberately complex language followed time wasting deception from you and it failed to achieve the desired confusion.

Quote:
My assertion was that pride may lead to hate, just like fear, and it expresses a conviction that I see no need to change.
It's not a conviction due to the "may"; in fact it's an ambiguity and you tacitly admit that by italicising "may". It's plain old sleight of wording and clear proof of intention to deceive.

If you were to, as I do, say: fear, directly leads to hate, but swap "fear" for "pride" that would be a conviction.

Quote:
Did I show such inability? I have no problem with accepting that calling someone an obnoxious asshole is an insult even if that someone is your friend Gerdes.
Asking whether you did is deliberate time wasting; I suppose that's all you have.

Quote:
No, outrage is related to pride, as a possible consequence of pride when the object of pride is harmed.
Again the "possible" makes this an ambiguous statement indicating a deceitful personality. When you finally make the conviction I will ask for some real world examples of how pride gives rise to outrage and hate.

Quote:
That’s right, it especially doesn’t make the "Jew" look any better.
Whinging about being called a Jew at this point is grasping.

Quote:
Simple and consistent is what I consider my argument to be, somewhat incoherent is how your argument comes across to me.
I say with conviction: fear, directly leads to hate.

You say:

Quote:
What applies to the fear of what may harm what you love also applies to the outrage about harm done to what you love. Both may lead to hate. I’d say the latter is even likelier to do that than the former.

Your statement is wrong in two respects. One is that fear may but must not lead to hate. The other is that the same applies to pride.
Occam's razor say's you are a deceiver and I agree.

Quote:
You are baselessly postulating that the issue of the article was proving the crimes committed at Chelmno, and even in that case the shortage of photographs (there’s one in the article, actually) wouldn’t mean a thing. Actually the issue was desecration of human remains, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the author had refrained from copiously photographing such remains lest he be guilty of some of the behavior he was complaining about.
Non sequitur: you assert that the rabbi unintentionally gave testimony making the speech particularly credible evidence. This new statement seems to be an about turn and contains more of that emotionalism which protects the disputed centerpiece; also the photo I saw was of no relevance to mass murder claims - just a few guys at a distance standing around a hole.

Quote:
Photographic illustration of physical evidence might be a reasonable expectation in the context of a present-day forensic investigation, but in the context of a religiously motivated complaint about desecration of human remains it is rather unreasonable to expect such illustration.
More emotionalism = deception.

Quote:
That’s just more of the same "guarantee" from the same lousy source, actually. Unlike yours and that of your brothers-in-spirit, my reasoning does not follow the criterion of convenience to certain interests. If it happens to favor certain interests, that’s but an incidental consequence of following the evidence where it leads.
Your ideological posture is profoundly Jewish: only Jews and their dupes enforce the 'caust and then not to the extreme you display; you claim to know nothing of Jew media/money/legal/political control; you say things such as this:

Quote:
One thing they seem to have learned: that however hard they try to be good citizens of the countries they live in (like the German Jews before and during the First World War) there will always be fanatics trying to "expel" them.
The odds that a White man would say this in honesty - assuming he would study the phenomenon and reach that erroneous conclusion - are nil.

Quote:
No, the rule of evidence in question never protects dubious claims. It only protects claims that have already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The claim is hotly disputed although it is protected by this despotism.

Quote:
Answers to what relevant and reasonable questions?

How exactly are current investigations supposed to be beating about the bush?

The centerpiece of this "ostensibly inscrutable issue" has long been laid bare without regard for any "emotionalistic defensive barriers". Nobody cared about the emotions of survivor eyewitnesses when they were "grilled" in cross-examination before West German courts, and the essential facts of this "issue" have been laid bare by participants in the killing, in court or in documents issued at the time of the killing. What we need to do now is brush aside any barriers – emotionalistic, administrative or whatever – that hinder expanding our knowledge about this "issue" through archaeological research.
You responded to my sentences out of context again. As I've already said, the current so called investigations are digging up bits and bobs: whistles, spectacles etc., nothing of any substance and that's unsatisfactory for the unfaithful majority whilst being totally in keeping with predictions. The myth will not be denied by science because Jew power will put a stop to genuine investigation.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #924
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
This is irrelevant to your claim, in fact it shows you to be a liar. Recall you claim is an absolute prohibition of criminal convictions based soley on eyewitness testimony. There is no such prohibition, your statement is a lie.
No, that was your claim. My claim is that it is very hard to near impossible to convict and sentence to life imprisonment or death, based solely on eyewitness accountings in regular courts; even current day courts wherein allegations of genocide are tried.

The jewish claim to holocaust/genocide and the Nurnberg trials set aside regular rules of evidence and, the accused were convicted before trial, ex-parte so to speak. Were the Nurnberg Trials held today, the cases would fall apart, based both on the "evidence" provided as well as the eyewitness "accounts"

Quote:
Common Law is the basis of the English language jurisprudence and deals equaly with white collar fraud as with any other classification of wrong doing, civil or criminal.
No, you are wrong, again. You were discussing intentional vs unintentional crimes - which falls under English Common Law as well - however, beyond that it remains an area that deals primarily with the cases specified. Which are and can be tried on both/either the civil or criminal level; depending on the degree of the crime. It deals in the main with consumer type fraud ect.

Quote:
, this is also a lie, Jewish influence in early English Common Law would be minimal at best.
Of course, and I stated as much, silly. It's the one area of law that the juden tend to shy away from. Though, frankly jewish coyness about this arena of law is beyond me. That's the reason I stated that jews obviously have little to no ability to understand Gentile law. And, if they cannot make it [the law] theirs, then, thankfully they leave it alone.

You have done the reading of a few of the links I provided; yet still fail to understand or comprehend.

Quote:
I'm not a Jew, neither is Roberto
I seriously doubt that in your case, Slammin - but, if you say so - you are still a jew - look up the meaning of crypto-jew. Or, "spriritual jew". Which is what Roberto is; you I am pretty sure are a half jew -

In any case; you both need to grow up and if neither of you are jews, then start behaving as Gentiles.

Last edited by EireannGoddess; July 31st, 2008 at 05:40 PM.
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #925
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Quote:
In 2000-2001 the proper archeological research was initiated by professor Andrzej Kola's team from the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, commissioned by the Council for Protection of Memory of the Battle and Martyrdom in Warsaw (Kola 2000, 2001).
Sounds like a pretentious version of The Ghetto Fighters.

Quote:
We uncovered seven mass graves with an average depth of five meters. In them there were charred human remains and under them remains in a state of decay. That means that in the final stage the victims were burned,'' archaeologist Andrzej Kola was quoted by the Polish PAP news agency telling a news conference. He said the largest grave measured 70 meters by 25 meters, the others 20 by 25 meters.''We also found a hospital barracks. The people there were probably shot, as we found over 1,800 machine gun cartridges,'' Kola said.''In the woods we found remnants of barbed wire, which enabled us to reconstruct the boundary of the camp.''
That's what the faithful like to hear: gory stories from a supposed archeologist with added supposition to boot. He's a professional titillator.

Quote:
Actually I’m able to prove the existence of all of these mass graves by simply referring to Prof. Kola’s description.
Kola's description is worth as much as the rabbi's speech. A Prof. not producing a satisfactory picture of the alleged mass graves is not just unprofessional, it's typically absurd.

Quote:
I have not seen any historian or criminal investigator calling in question the accuracy of Prof. Kola’s description of his archaeological findings.
This is what you mean by acceptable standards of evidence: a man claims he has discovered something and scientists accept his description without empirical proof = "it is simply a fact." Bogus science!

Quote:
...the members of the Sobibor Archaeology Project are not frauds. They are serious and competent archaeologists.
Do any historians or criminal investigators dare call their words into question? Are we supposed to accept your claim without question as the so called scientists do these days?

Quote:
And I wouldn’t give a flying fuck about some howling lunatic’s fraudulent "FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE" and a reward for which I would probably have to run after 21 characterless and probably also penniless frauds, made from the same used toilet paper as Mr. Gerdes, for the part of the reward amount to which each of them has supposedly committed.

However, I might make available evidence material to who feels like making those frauds put their money where their mouths are, or at least humiliate the most obnoxious of those frauds.
You are backing out of the challenge then; but you're going to get some Jew to accuse Greg of hurting his feelings as with the IHR.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #926
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
I'm not a Jew, neither is Roberto.
It is simply a fact.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #927
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

Well, let us see how EG changers her claims as she called to accounting for her lies.






EG Three days ago:
Quote:
1) With exception to kangaroo court trials such as the Nurnberg Trials, intentional evidence is very specific and eyewitness testimony is considered unreliable and conviction cannot be based solely upon eyewitness testimony.
Today

Quote:
2-A) No, that was your claim. My claim is that it is very hard to near impossible to convict and sentence to life imprisonment or death, based solely on eyewitness accountings in regular courts; even current day courts wherein allegations of genocide are tried.
The goal posts moved from an absolute to a waffle. It also changed from a conviction to a specific sentence (Life imprisonment or death).

Now the disctinction is important, as any student of the law will tell you. Few things in jurisprudence are an absolute, and talking in absolutes is dangerous, one had best make sure of their facts to be made to look foolish.
__________________
RabbitNoMore

But all jews do speak in absolutes though. Just like you.

-----------

Define idiot
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #928
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post

The jewish claim to holocaust/genocide and the Nurnberg trials set aside regular rules of evidence and, the accused were convicted before trial, ex-parte so to speak. Were the Nurnberg Trials held today, the cases would fall apart, based both on the "evidence" provided as well as the eyewitness "accounts"
Under what standard of evidence and what judicial proceeding do you assume this to be true? Are you basing this on US law as it stands today? I want specifics because I plan to drag you over the coals for this statement.

Quote:
No, you are wrong, again. You were discussing intentional vs unintentional crimes - which falls under English Common Law as well - however, beyond that it remains an area that deals primarily with the cases specified. Which are and can be tried on both/either the civil or criminal level; depending on the degree of the crime. It deals in the main with consumer type fraud ect.
Bullshit, consumer type fraud is a very small portion - most civil matters concern claims in tort or contract.

Quote:
Of course, and I stated as much, silly. It's the one area of law that the juden tend to shy away from. Though, frankly jewish coyness about this arena of law is beyond me. That's the reason I stated that jews obviously have little to no ability to understand Gentile law. And, if they cannot make it [the law] theirs, then, thankfully they leave it alone.
There are two Jews sitting on the US Supreme Court, they are not shying away from this arean of the law by any measure. But again, its origins are not Jewish.

Quote:
You have done the reading of a few of the links I provided; yet still fail to understand or comprehend.
Why? So you could move the goal posts again?
__________________
RabbitNoMore

But all jews do speak in absolutes though. Just like you.

-----------

Define idiot
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #929
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ced smythe View Post
It is simply a fact.
No, its just easier for you if you can paint your opposition as Jewish.
__________________
RabbitNoMore

But all jews do speak in absolutes though. Just like you.

-----------

Define idiot
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #930
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
Under what standard of evidence and what judicial proceeding do you assume this to be true? Are you basing this on US law as it stands today? I want specifics because I plan to drag you over the coals for this statement.
heh, well you can do that in your own thread - I have advised you to start a "law" thread here in OV. I am not going to let The Mule off so easily from his ongoing diatribe as avoidance tactic as refusal to answer Herr Gerdes' simple questions. This thread belongs to neither him nor you.

It would be an interesting debate - so, start a thread.

Quote:
Bullshit, consumer type fraud is a very small portion - most civil matters concern claims in tort or contract.
Despite what you may or may not be learning in your law classes, you are wrong. You should not sleep during class, Slammin. I referred to consumer type fraud as a reference; it's not the entirety.

Quote:
There are two Jews sitting on the US Supreme Court, they are not shying away from this arean of the law by any measure. But again, its origins are not Jewish.
Are they now; trying to get ahold of English Common Law - heh, well, those two jews on the Supreme Court are not going to have an easy time of it - first they will have to understand it, then judaise it, and regurgitate their pap and force feed it. ECL does not quite bend the way the juden want it; they stare at it and scratch their heads; but the jews still have yet to figure it out.

Quote:
Why? So you could move the goal posts again?
I do not move goal posts - that's your and The Mule's job, it seems. Since The Mule refuses to answer Herr Gerdes, why don't you take a look at his questions; maybe you can answer them. Some jew should be able to [either actual jew or spiritual jew] come up with something.
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #931
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
No, its just easier for you if you can paint your opposition as Jewish.
It's better to be a Jew standing up for your people - especially if you are one who genuinely believes in the absurd ex-parte notion of anti-semitism - than a soulless mercenary, dupe or traitor.

Most Jews want what others want but the insidious nature of organized Jewry means they get lumped together and that's intentional on the part of big Jew.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #932
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Looks like Gerdes has gone on holiday and left the other two stooges in charge.

Letís take a look at what they have produced, then. Lady first:

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Another of your smokescreens of nonsense to cover your retreat. Donít run away.

Heh, I do not run away. Nor create smokescreens.
Iíll take that as a joke, otherwise I would have to call it a lie. Remember my post # 666 or my question about the relatives you allegedly lost in the Dresden bombing, for instance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
More projection.
Not at all. If any of us two can safely claim to neither run away nor create smokescreens, itís me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:

Most of the evidence I have provided is listed in post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 and in posts that this post links to, so you can stick to that.

No, I do not have to "stick to that"; it's a shoddy reply and provides nothing new.
I strongly doubt you read much of it before, and the shoddy reply here is yours Ė a presumably deliberate misunderstanding of my message, unless youíre just plain dumb. You claimed that, in order to specify what information I have used is "outdated" or "false", you would "pretty much be forced to provide link to near every single relevant post you have made on this thread". I replied by telling you that you can restrict the demonstration supporting your "outdated" and "false" claims to the evidence listed in my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 and in posts that this post links to. That should have been easy to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
You must suffer from a serious bout of megalomania to claim that you speak for your generation.

No, it's actually a matter under discussion; particularly amongst jews and in Germany/Europe; though not so much in America. The lack of belief amongst my generation has even been given a name, it's called "holocaust fatique" - particularly when discussing German youth. I read an article about it just this morning- If I have the time and inclination, I will locate the link - I had thought to post it in the News section of the forum, but didn't bookmark the page.

In the meantime, this man is not WN or NS, he's written an interesting article vis a vis his own awakening to the vagaries of the holocaust and the jews generally; seems like he just figured it out.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/It-...80729-596.html
The term "Holocaust fatigue" suggests that people are getting tired of hearing about the Holocaust, not that they doubt it occurred. This "fatigue" was more or less my position before I met you beautiful people. While not knowing much about the Nazi genocide of the Jews except for what I occasionally read in magazines and saw in TV documentaries or in movies, I was of the opinion that the memory of that horror was being overemphasized, while other horrors like those inflicted by the Nazis on non-Jews, by the regimes of Lenin and Stalin on mostly their own citizens, by the Turks on the Armenians, by the Cambodian communist regime on its own people, by the Rwandan Hutu on the Rwandan Tutsi, and so on, were getting comparatively little if any attention. I still hold this position but have become interested in knowing as much as I can about the Nazi genocide of the Jews. And the reason for that is none other than the disgusting denial stance of people like yourself and my aversion to that stance.

If you people were smart, you would take advantage of the "fatigue" you mention and focus on pointing out how the Holocaust is being overemphasized and taken advantage of for political purposes. That would be an effective way of curbing the Jewish power and influence you are so concerned with, to the extent it a) exists and b) gains strength from promoting the memory of the Holocaust.

By idiotically denying that the Holocaust happened, on the other hand, you achieve the exact opposite. You make people who were previously more or less indifferent to the Holocaust become interested in it. You awaken sympathy with the Jews on the part of such people, a sympathy that mirrors revulsion at your hateful lies. You provide a reason for setting up sites like Nizkor, THHP and the HC blog, and you make sure that lots of people read them. You wake up lots of sleeping dogs like myself, who then dedicate much of their free time to showing what a bunch of sick-minded fanatics you and how baseless your contentions are. In other words, you shoot yourselves in the foot.

The author of the article under http://www.opednews.com/articles/It-...80729-596.html , who seems to be a Gypsy (I also have some Gypsy blood from my great-grandmotherís side, by the way) addresses the issue of an "exclusivist" position that he claims is often or generally found among Jews, an attitude that what happened to the Jews was something uniquely horrible and that what happened to non-Jews under the Nazis or to other people under other criminal regimes doesnít compare. Aversion to such "exclusivism" is one of the reasons that led me to put together a number of RODOH threads and write some articles on HC about non-Jewish victims of Nazi persecution and mass murder. You find links to these threads and articles on the RODOH thread under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/6101 .

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
And even if your generation consisted entirely of bloodthirsty fanatics like yourself, that still wouldnít change the fact that the "outrageous claims" you ramble against (because they donít fit your preconceived notions and for no other reason) have long been proven.

Heh - however my generation of "bloodthirsty fanatics" could easily bring about the end of holocaustian insanity and claims - and do it without shedding a drop of blood, neither our own nor anyone elses.
No, baby, historical facts are not removed by any amount of idiots who refuse to accept them for ideological reasons, and the more such idiots whine against such facts, the more interest in such facts and the more sympathy with those they whine against they will elicit. As I said before, you people are shooting yourselves in the foot.

Itís amusing to note that youíre tuning down your bloodthirsty "kill the kikes" Ė stance of previous posts, by the way. You seem to have realized the self-damaging nature of that stance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
One is concern that your lies may be believed by an ignorant and gullible public. Another is that the filth you spout is simply too disgusting to be left unanswered.

Pretence to moral indignation is shakey ground for you Mule. I would try to avoid it were I you.
No, itís no pretense. I do find the filth you spout disgusting. And not only on moral grounds, but also because itís an assault on logic, reason and historical truth. All it takes to dislike your ideologically motivated attempt to falsify history is an interest in the study of history, as a matter of fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
I do not ask nor demand to be "believed" - I do suggest that the holocaust be thouroughly questioned and investigated - particularly by my generation, if they are even interested in the subject at all, most are not - and I agree with you, they should be very interested; though not for the reason you espouse. Rather the opposite, obviously.
What your "opposite" reason directly motivates is not investigation, but desperate one-sided attempts to find arguments supporting a preconceived ideological notion. But indirectly it arouses an interest in genuinely investigating the relevant events and obtaining as much evidence about them as possible. Thatís why the reaction of serious researchers to your propaganda has greatly enhanced historical knowledge on the Nazi genocide of the Jews over the past years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
In what posts am I supposed to have altered the thread to exactly what, my dear? Show me.

Well, your reply to me in this post is as good an example as any. I had merely reprinted Herr Gerdes questions, a post you have ignored, both his original and my reprint.
What are you talking about? As I already suggested in post # 919, you should read my post # 916 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=916 . All of Gerdes' mostly irrelevant and sometimes instructively imbecile questions are addressed there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Then, there are the rest.
Such as?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
I donít remember having said that my work was "in the mail" or announced that the challenge requirements would be met any time soon. What I remember is having said that archaeological work takes time and results will be available when they are available.

That's not what you stated over several, several posts when you first decided to "accept" the challenge; however, refresh my memory if I am wrong
No, baby, the game goes the other way round. You show me what to the contrary of what is summarized in my above-quoted statement Iím supposed to have stated in previous posts. With post numbers and links, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
- I do however, admit that you did not state when you put your "stuff" in the mail. That's a subject you have been dancing around for several pages.
Iím not dancing at all, on the contrary. I have expressly stated that I cannot give a date. Tell me, why should I be obliged to give a date? And why the heck should I even be able to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
I donít think you can explain what Iím supposed to be projecting. And you better donít make projection Jewish, for that would make your friend Gerdes a Jew and maybe yourself as well.

You are projecting your own anxieties onto Revisionists, Revisionism and Folks who are involved with it.
What "anxieties", baby? Iím not the one who is jumping up and down yelling "show me, show me" and asking "when, when?". What exactly am I supposed to be "anxious" about, and how am I supposed to have expressed that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
And, it is a jewish trait, one learned or taught to non-jews.
So youíre telling me that you learned self-projection from Jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Unlike you and your brothers-in-spirit, I donít post nonsense. And thanks for admitting that it takes "patience" not to censor or ban opposition posters. The finger on the "delete" button is always itching, isnít it?

Nah, it's becoming entertaining actually to watch you increasingly twist and turn and spin with every post.
That entertainment is all on my side, notwithstanding your hollow claims to the contrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
I have no mod powers, nor would I want them; but if I did, I would most definitely continue to allow you to post, Mule.
Of course you would. Banning me would mean conceding defeat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Like demanding that my pertinent questions be answered and the evidence I show as well as the reasonable arguments I make are addressed? Iíd say Iím entitled to that.

Yes, you may be "entitled" to that, however, you are not entitled to demand anything on this forum;
Actually Iím entitled to demand on this forum what Iím entitled to demand on any discussion forum. If my opponents are not able or willing to comply with my reasonable demands, I have no problem with that, however. It looks bad on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
particularly since you are using abuse to do so.
The worst you can accuse me of is responding in kind to the abuse that is being thrown at me, but I donít think you can even claim that. I donít mess with my opponentsí names and gratuitously call them faggots and such, do I?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:

I would check his Aryan background, if I were you (and as weíre at it, I would also check your Aryan background if I were any of the other White folks here,

The juden have already attempted to attack my Aryan background; and, they have failed. I would imagine that any one of the other White Folk here could become subject to the same i-net attack.
No, only those whose self-damaging incompetence raises the suspicion that they were planted here as agents provocateurs. Your friend Gerdes is doing an excellent job making "Revisionism" look like shit, which is just what Iíd expect a good infiltrator to do. And you are close behind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
considering how splendidly you contribute to making "Revisionism" look like the sick-minded filth it is).

How so. I ask that you provide proof, evidence that is credible to me about the hoax.
Whereupon I ask you what would be credible to you, what your standards of credibility are based on and what evidence for a "hoax" you can offer. Whereupon you fall silent or change the subject and have thus again exposed "Revisionist" charlatanry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
I was raised a National Socialist as that is my personal family background. I do not automatically accept Holocaustianity just because that is what you would desire.
Frankly I donít give a flying fuck what you accept or not. Iím here to expose the imbecility of your articles of faith, and with your self-projecting "Holocaustianity" babbling and other trash youíre being very cooperative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
I do not make claim to being a Revisionist; however, I have been raised sensibly and to ask questions.
I donít think so, otherwise you might have asked why all known evidence points to mass murder and none points to an alternative possibility and/or a monstrous conspiracy of evidence manipulation, among other things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:

I see youíre desperate enough to read a concession into what is just a plain statement of fact. But youíre not alone in this wishful thinking, itís a common trait in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land

Well, until you provide coherent answers to Herr Gerdes rather simple questions, I continue to take your flat statement as concession. Spin it any way you like.
So now that answers have been provided to Gerdesí "rather simple" (read "rather simple-minded at best, mostly irrelevant and sometimes inanely abusive") questions, they are not "coherent"? Thatís just the helplessly lame reaction I was expecting from you, assuming you read my answers at all. How about trying to demonstrate the "incoherence" of my answers, one by one?
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #933
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
Meaning includes consequence, doesnít it?

You claimed to be a proud German and I doubt your claim; and ever since I asked you a simple question: what is pride, you've excused mistaking hate for pride with irrelevant consequence talk which is intended to waste time.
Actually my first response to your question what being a proud German meant to me was the following:

Quote:
Opposing apologists of the Nazi criminals who led Germany to shame and disaster, among other things.
You made that into "hatred for Hitler" (which I did not object to because I donít like the fellow indeed), and accused me of "mistaking hate for pride".

I responded saying that I had responded to your original questions by referring to one of the implications or consequences of pride: hating what harmed the object of pride.

You then went splitting hair on not having asked about a consequence of pride but about the meaning of pride, as if meaning did not include consequence.

I pointed out that meaning includes consequence.

You ignored my reply an simply repeated your first stance with the following question:

Quote:
Why would you want to talk about the consequence of pride when the simple question was what is pride? Why would you waste so much time doing this?
I thereupon gave you the following possibilities for you to choose from:

Quote:
Maybe because you didnít word your question clearly enough. Maybe because I felt like baiting you a little. Youíll never know.
Actually the way your question was worded allowed for exemplifying the meaning by pointing to a consequence, which was what I did. The specific example I picked arguably included an element of baiting, considering that it obviously conflicts with your notions of what pride in being German means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
In the post before this you admitted that you are playing a game; now you are talking about consequence again.
No, I gave you "playing a game" as a possibility to choose from. Besides, exemplifying meaning on hand of a consequence and "playing a game" by antagonizing my opponent with the consequence chosen as an example are not mutually exclusive propositions. They may well go together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
This behaviour says much about your character;
Actually your ignoring or misrepresenting my arguments says much about yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
I should point out that you are an ambassador of sorts.
Yep, from the world outside the cloud-cuckoo-land of ideological fanaticism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Iím not conscious of an error. The most you can claim is that we misunderstood each other.

There's no misunderstanding. Deliberately complex language followed time wasting deception from you and it failed to achieve the desired confusion.
I donít think you can explain what Iím supposed to have "deceived" you about and what Iím supposed to have desired confusion about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
My assertion was that pride may lead to hate, just like fear, and it expresses a conviction that I see no need to change.

It's not a conviction due to the "may"; in fact it's an ambiguity and you tacitly admit that by italicising "may". It's plain old sleight of wording and clear proof of intention to deceive.

If you were to, as I do, say: fear, directly leads to hate, but swap "fear" for "pride" that would be a conviction.
Utter nonsense. I may be convinced of a possibility as I may be convinced of a certainty. And Iíd say one has to be a more than a little paranoid to spot an "intention to deceive" in my statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Did I show such inability? I have no problem with accepting that calling someone an obnoxious asshole is an insult even if that someone is your friend Gerdes.

Asking whether you did is deliberate time wasting; I suppose that's all you have.
Itís an introduction to what follows, and your supposition is baseless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
No, outrage is related to pride, as a possible consequence of pride when the object of pride is harmed.

Again the "possible" makes this an ambiguous statement indicating a deceitful personality.
No, it indicates differentiating observation that avoids undue generalization, while your comment indicates more than a little paranoia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
When you finally make the conviction I will ask for some real world examples of how pride gives rise to outrage and hate.
I already provided such an example. You havenít been paying attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Thatís right, it especially doesnít make the "Jew" look any better.

Whinging about being called a Jew at this point is grasping.
I'm not whining, I'm having fun with that crap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Simple and consistent is what I consider my argument to be, somewhat incoherent is how your argument comes across to me.

I say with conviction: fear, directly leads to hate.

You say:

Quote:
What applies to the fear of what may harm what you love also applies to the outrage about harm done to what you love. Both may lead to hate. Iíd say the latter is even likelier to do that than the former.

Your statement is wrong in two respects. One is that fear may but must not lead to hate. The other is that the same applies to pride.

Occam's razor say's you are a deceiver and I agree.
So considering something possible but not certain is supposed to be "deceitful", according to Occamís razor? Iíd say thatís simply nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
You are baselessly postulating that the issue of the article was proving the crimes committed at Chelmno, and even in that case the shortage of photographs (thereís one in the article, actually) wouldnít mean a thing. Actually the issue was desecration of human remains, and I wouldnít be surprised if the author had refrained from copiously photographing such remains lest he be guilty of some of the behavior he was complaining about.

Non sequitur: you assert that the rabbi unintentionally gave testimony making the speech particularly credible evidence. This new statement seems to be an about turn and contains more of that emotionalism which protects the disputed centerpiece; also the photo I saw was of no relevance to mass murder claims - just a few guys at a distance standing around a hole.

Quote:
Photographic illustration of physical evidence might be a reasonable expectation in the context of a present-day forensic investigation, but in the context of a religiously motivated complaint about desecration of human remains it is rather unreasonable to expect such illustration.

More emotionalism = deception.
More utter nonsense from you, actually. A forensic investigator is likely to take photographs of what he intends to document, a religiously motivated complainant is likely to consider taking photographs comparable to what he is complaining about. This is not about whether emotions are understandable or not, but about what kind of behavior they may lead to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Thatís just more of the same "guarantee" from the same lousy source, actually. Unlike yours and that of your brothers-in-spirit, my reasoning does not follow the criterion of convenience to certain interests. If it happens to favor certain interests, thatís but an incidental consequence of following the evidence where it leads.

Your ideological posture is profoundly Jewish: only Jews and their dupes enforce the 'caust and then not to the extreme you display;
Actually I have no ideological posture at all but a strong aversion to ideologically motivated propaganda, and rather than enforce anything Iím exposing the fallacious reasoning and mendacity of who tries to enforce such propaganda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
you claim to know nothing of Jew media/money/legal/political control; you say things such as this:

Quote:
One thing they seem to have learned: that however hard they try to be good citizens of the countries they live in (like the German Jews before and during the First World War) there will always be fanatics trying to "expel" them.

The odds that a White man would say this in honesty - assuming he would study the phenomenon and reach that erroneous conclusion - are nil.
The conclusion is not erroneous (see, for instance, the RODOH thread under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2487 about the Reich Association of Jewish Frontline Soldiers and the site that this thread links to), and you seem to equate "White" with adherence to articles of faith the foundation of which one hasnít bothered to study let alone question. If thatís what it takes to be "White" then Iím not, what the heck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
No, the rule of evidence in question never protects dubious claims. It only protects claims that have already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The claim is hotly disputed although it is protected by this despotism.
There are also people who "hotly" dispute that the earth is round or that dinosaurs ever existed, and I guess they also complain about the "despotism" of who considers their theories a load of bullshit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Answers to what relevant and reasonable questions?

How exactly are current investigations supposed to be beating about the bush?

The centerpiece of this "ostensibly inscrutable issue" has long been laid bare without regard for any "emotionalistic defensive barriers". Nobody cared about the emotions of survivor eyewitnesses when they were "grilled" in cross-examination before West German courts, and the essential facts of this "issue" have been laid bare by participants in the killing, in court or in documents issued at the time of the killing. What we need to do now is brush aside any barriers Ė emotionalistic, administrative or whatever Ė that hinder expanding our knowledge about this "issue" through archaeological research.

You responded to my sentences out of context again. As I've already said, the current so called investigations are digging up bits and bobs: whistles, spectacles etc., nothing of any substance and that's unsatisfactory for the unfaithful majority whilst being totally in keeping with predictions.
The current investigations are digging up objects that are of archaeological and historical interest, actually. And from what Iíve learned they will also proceed to digging up what you call "substance" and thus further demonstrate that the "unfaithful majority" are what all known evidence has already shown them to be: a lunatic fringe of self-projecting fanatics faithfully clinging to baseless, ideologically motivated and quasi-religious dogmas.

Such as expressed in the following prayerlike utterance:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
The myth will not be denied by science because Jew power will put a stop to genuine investigation.
whose author baselessly postulates that the facts he doesnít accept are a "myth", that ďscienceĒ would disprove that "myth" and that "Jew power" wonít let that happen Ė apparently without realizing the utterly unscientific, mythological nature of his postulations.
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #934
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
In 2000-2001 the proper archeological research was initiated by professor Andrzej Kola's team from the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, commissioned by the Council for Protection of Memory of the Battle and Martyrdom in Warsaw (Kola 2000, 2001).
Sounds like a pretentious version of The Ghetto Fighters.
Actually it's a non-Jewish organization of the Polish government, as far as I know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
We uncovered seven mass graves with an average depth of five meters. In them there were charred human remains and under them remains in a state of decay. That means that in the final stage the victims were burned,'' archaeologist Andrzej Kola was quoted by the Polish PAP news agency telling a news conference. He said the largest grave measured 70 meters by 25 meters, the others 20 by 25 meters.''We also found a hospital barracks. The people there were probably shot, as we found over 1,800 machine gun cartridges,'' Kola said.''In the woods we found remnants of barbed wire, which enabled us to reconstruct the boundary of the camp.''

That's what the faithful like to hear: gory stories from a supposed archeologist with added supposition to boot. He's a professional titillator.
Are you just letting off steam, or do you also have an argument? Prof. Kola is not a "supposed" but a professional archaeologist from the University of Toruń, Poland, who has among other things archaeologically investigated the Soviet murders of Polish officers at Katyn and other places in the spring of 1940. Was he also a "professional titillator" then, or do you only call him names when his findings donít fit yor articles of faith?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Actually Iím able to prove the existence of all of these mass graves by simply referring to Prof. Kolaís description.

Kola's description is worth as much as the rabbi's speech.
Actually the "rabbiís speech" is unintentional and thus particularly credible evidence, like a Wehrmacht commandantís complaint about the stench of corpses emanating from Treblinka extermination camp. And Kolaís description is a public description from a renowned archaeologist who has proved his merit in undertakings like the aforementioned investigation of the so-called "Katyn crimes". What is more, it is matched by what becomes apparent from all known documentary and eyewitness evidence and belied by no evidence whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
A Prof. not producing a satisfactory picture of the alleged mass graves is not just unprofessional, it's typically absurd.
Says who? CS? Give me something better. Something like rules or standards whereby an archaeologist is discredited by not "producing a satisfactory picture" of his findings. Did you see the pictures of core samples, by the way?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
I have not seen any historian or criminal investigator calling in question the accuracy of Prof. Kolaís description of his archaeological findings.

This is what you mean by acceptable standards of evidence: a man claims he has discovered something and scientists accept his description without empirical proof = "it is simply a fact." Bogus science!
Actually the man in question happens to be an archaologist of note, and empirical proof corroborating his "claim" comes from the documentary and eyewitness evidence proving the mass murder at Sobibor and the absence of even the slightest indication of an alternative scenario. Corroboration of evidence by other evidence independent thereof and convergence of evidence from various sources towards a given conclusion Ė those are indeed the reasonable standards of evidence that are applied in historical research and criminal investigation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
...the members of the Sobibor Archaeology Project are not frauds. They are serious and competent archaeologists.

Do any historians or criminal investigators dare call their words into question?
Not unless theyíre eager to make bloody fools of themselves, but there are always idiots willing to do that in the service of their ideological beliefs. Like certain defense attorneys at trials before West German courts who argued that no mass extermination in camps like Majdanek had ever taken place, for instance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Are we supposed to accept your claim without question as the so called scientists do these days?
No, you are free to demonstrate that they manipulate their results or otherwise act in a fraudulent manner, if thatís what you think they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
And I wouldnít give a flying fuck about some howling lunaticís fraudulent "FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE" and a reward for which I would probably have to run after 21 characterless and probably also penniless frauds, made from the same used toilet paper as Mr. Gerdes, for the part of the reward amount to which each of them has supposedly committed.

However, I might make available evidence material to who feels like making those frauds put their money where their mouths are, or at least humiliate the most obnoxious of those frauds.

You are backing out of the challenge then; but you're going to get some Jew to accuse Greg of hurting his feelings as with the IHR.
Wishful thinking is getting the better of you, CS. Who do you think I hope the archaeologists wil make evidence material available to?
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #935
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
heh, well you can do that in your own thread - I have advised you to start a "law" thread here in OV. I am not going to let The Mule off so easily from his ongoing diatribe as avoidance tactic as refusal to answer Herr Gerdes' simple questions. This thread belongs to neither him nor you.
What "avoidance tactic" are you talking about, once again? Read my post # 916. I have answered all of Gerdesí simple-minded and mostly irrelevant questions, some of which are no more than self-projecting, infantile abuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
I do not move goal posts - that's your and The Mule's job, it seems.
How am I moving what goal posts exactly, darling? Please be specific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Since The Mule refuses to answer Herr Gerdes, why don't you take a look at his questions; maybe you can answer them. Some jew should be able to [either actual jew or spiritual jew] come up with something.
Really, darling, you should read my post # 916 and stop making a fool of yourself. Thatís well-meaning advice.

# 914 and the post and blog article it refers to are also interesting, by the way. Read them, if possible without those ideological tomato-slices covering your eyes. You might learn something.
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #936
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

I’ll take that as a joke, otherwise I would have to call it a lie. Remember my post # 666 or my question about the relatives you allegedly lost in the Dresden bombing, for instance?
I did lose a few relatives; and I did reply to your post - go back and read my reply. But, I can recap it here. Basically, you gloss over the incineration of Dresden as nothing compared to the Hoax. Well, I disagreed. The jews got a "homeland"; Germany's future, and I do mean myself and all other young, indigenous Germans have nothing.

In my reply, I asked for my "reparations" - ie, the return of the Fatherland to Germany's children; and I will add to that, the ousting of all non-whites living in and claiming Germany as their ''home''; as well as a return of government to Germans; removal of the Occupation Government.

Quote:
Not at all. If any of us two can safely claim to neither run away nor create smokescreens, it’s me.
Mellifluous verbiage ad nauseum is a smokescreen.


Quote:
I strongly doubt you read much of it before
You are right; I skim over your 'stuff' these days - you are in need of an editor; or learning how to edit yourself -

Quote:
http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777

and in posts that this post links to. That should have been easy to understand.
I did not say your post was hard to understand; I still say your information is hackeneyed Holocaustian tripe that can be found all over the i-net and in books, ect.

Quote:
While not knowing much about the Nazi genocide of the Jews except for what I occasionally read in magazines and saw in TV documentaries or in movies,
Your education and writing on Holocaustianity reflects it's roots.

Quote:
If you people were smart, you would take advantage of the "fatigue" you mention and focus on pointing out how the Holocaust is being overemphasized and taken advantage of for political purposes.
This has been done.


Quote:
The author of the article under http://www.opednews.com/articles/It-...80729-596.html , who seems to be a Gypsy (I also have some Gypsy blood from my great-grandmother’s side, by the way)
Ah, so there's the sympathetic link to the juden. You are jealous of them perhaps; of their holocaust, whilst the gipsy 'holocaust' is ignored. For that matter; you might as well toss in the irate faggots who rail against the jews for complaining about their having their very own holocaust memorial as well.

All the numbers of which still need to be proven - fluctuating as they are, there is still no hard evidence.

Quote:
It’s amusing to note that you’re tuning down your bloodthirsty "kill the kikes" – stance of previous posts, by the way. You seem to have realized the self-damaging nature of that stance.
The kikes scream about getting killed, I concur that they should have their fantasy of holocaust - a recurring theme throughout their several millenia history - fulfilled at long last - it's one prophecy the jews keep whining about; if their identity as jews is dependent on it, and it does seem to be that way as their other behaviours in Host Nations provide; then, the jews should be accomodated. They are, after all confident in and accustomed to getting their way, if they bitch and scream long enough and loud enough.

Quote:
All it takes to dislike your ideologically motivated attempt to falsify history is an interest in the study of history, as a matter of fact.
Well, I am still waiting for the "historical facts" behind the jewish claim to holocaust. When will they be forth-coming? For your Prof. Kola for instance, fails to provide.

Quote:
What your "opposite" reason directly motivates is not investigation, ...But indirectly it arouses an interest in genuinely investigating the relevant events and obtaining as much evidence about them as possible. That’s why the reaction of serious researchers to your propaganda has greatly enhanced historical knowledge on the Nazi genocide of the Jews over the past years.
All that work, and still no evidence of a single, gassed unto death, holocausted jew. You all need to get to work.

Quote:
What are you talking about? As I already suggested in post # 919, you should read my post # 916 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=916 . All of Gerdes' mostly irrelevant and sometimes instructively imbecile questions are addressed there.
That was not an answer you have given - it's a retort - there is a difference.


Quote:
I’m not dancing at all, on the contrary. I have expressly stated that I cannot give a date. Tell me, why should I be obliged to give a date? And why the heck should I even be able to?
Because you accepted the challenge. It would follow would it not that you would then be able to provide a reasonable date that Herr Gerdes could expect the results of your work. Just common sense.

Quote:
What "anxieties", baby? I’m not the one who is jumping up and down yelling "show me, show me" and asking "when, when?". What exactly am I supposed to be "anxious" about, and how am I supposed to have expressed that?
I have noticed that when men, jews and niggers in particular, and you are admitting to gipsy ancestry - do not get the desired attention they would want; they tend to become very anxious; taking to calling complete strangers "Baby"; ect - an attempt to make the unfamiliar, familiar so that they can feel less anxious -

Quote:
Actually I’m entitled to demand on this forum what I’m entitled to demand on any discussion forum. If my opponents are not able or willing to comply with my reasonable demands, I have no problem with that, however. It looks bad on them.
It depends on what considers "reasonable" - you have not been reasonable for several pages now; if you ever were on this thread. Here, as elsewhere on the i-net, your low brow behaviour does not deserve the credit and special treatment you demand.

Quote:
I don’t mess with my opponents’ names and gratuitously call them faggots and such, do I?
No, you prefer to call me "Baby" for some odd reason.

Quote:
Your friend Gerdes is doing an excellent job making "Revisionism" look like shit, which is just what I’d expect a good infiltrator to do. And you are close behind.
Now you are sounding like a jewish inspired "neo-nazi" - As I stated before, you are a jew's wet dream.

Quote:
Whereupon I ask you what would be credible to you, what your standards of credibility are based on and what evidence for a "hoax" you can offer.
I've made it very simple - show me proof of one gassed unto death, holocausted jew.

Quote:
Frankly I don’t give a flying fuck what you accept or not.
Yes, we know. You are not serious about your Holocaustianity; but a pseudo-intellectual poseur dabbling in jewish mythos and ''magik'". It's been obvious for some time; on other Boards, as well as this one.

Last edited by EireannGoddess; August 1st, 2008 at 11:05 AM.
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #937
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

15 unanswered questions about Sobibor.

Please notice the dullards continued refusal to answer / provide the following. It seems the following is just too inconvenient for her to answer and/or provide:

1 - Tell us on what EXACT dates her partner shermer was physically in the Sobibor camp.

2 - Show us photographs that prove he ever steped foot in the camp.

3 - Tell us on what EXACT dates her other partner Kola was physically in the Sobibor camp.

4 - Show us photographs that prove he ever steped foot in the camp.

5 - Show us photographs of Kola actually excavating the alleged graves.

6 - Show us photographs proving that said graves actually exist.

7 - Tell us what the results were of the analysis of those soil core samples that she claims are: "ashes of human bone and tissue for the light gray stuff, wood ashes for the black stuff and pure bone ashes or lime for the white stuff."

8 - Show us proof that the "huge ash mountain" of Sobibor is actually comprised of human ash.

9 - Show us were the huge pit is that this "mountain of human ash" was dug out of.

10 - We're waiting for Roberta to publish, in "SKEPTIC" magazine, proof that there exists just one mass grave that contains just one percent of the alleged mass murder at Sobibor and Treblinka. On what date can we expect this to be published Roberta?

* See bottom of post


Roberta:

ďActually Iím able to prove the existence of all of these mass graves by simply referring to Prof. Kolaís description. Proof is contained in Prof. Kolaís published report about his findings on site, and in the documentary and eyewitness evidence about the mass killings at Sobibor, which is compatible with Kolaís findings.Ē


11 - And where can we find this published report?

12 - Or did you lie about it being published?

13 - BTW Roberta, why do you keep running from the queations about the soil core samples of Sobibor?

14 - What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say those core samples are comprised of?

15 - Can you show us a single bone or a single tooth that has been found at Sobibor?

* * * * *

* Please notice Roberta's cowardly response to questions # 10 (notice I said response, not answer. And her response was:

* It will be answered in the form required on the NAFCASH site when the necessary information is available, interest and availability on the part of SKEPTIC magazine provided.

No lying cowardly jewbitch. You accepted THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE. That means, you will submit to "SKEPTIC" magazine your "proof." If - IF - "SKEPTIC" magazine rejects your submittal, then, we will discuss whether or not ARCHAEOLOGY magazine can be used as an alternative source in your attempt to become a claimant for the reward money.

You're so transparent retardo. Thank you again for showing the world what a cowardly liar you are.

BTW Roberta, have I ever told you that your priceless?
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #938
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Time for a little recap to refresh everyones minds just how pathetically Roberta is doing in presenting proof of the Sobibor / Treblinka holocausts:


“Physical evidence” documented in photographs – presented to date - by and in the dullards own words:

A mound of the ashes of victims of the Sobibor extermination camp, at the remembrance site on the grounds of the camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5938_1_web.jpg

A mound of the remains of victims of the Sobibor extermination camp, at the remembrance site on the grounds of the camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5964_1_web.jpg


“A glass display case containing ashes and bones of victims of the Sobibor extermination camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5968_1_web.jpg

“Hair, bones and ashes found on the grounds of the Sobibor extermination camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...6238_1_web.jpg

“Hair, bones and ashes in the area of the Sobibor extermination camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...6239_1_web.jpg

While no photographs are required to prove that the mass graves actually exist, the three photographs from the above-mentioned series obviously show substances taken with a core drill out of Sobibor mass graves, which are clearly distinguishable from the light brown soil of Sobibor – (Photo’s f5, f6 & f7):”

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...nia/index.html

“The light gray substance on the first two photos must be ashes of human bone and tissue.

The black substance on the second photo must be wood ash.

The white substance on the third photo must be either bone ash or lime.

My assumptions regarding the nature of these substances are supported by

a) their aspect
b) their context (Prof. Kola’s investigation in 2001, the essential result of which was finding the mass graves) , and
c) the absence of any alternative theory (at least Gerdes has provided none) as to what these substances might be.”


And of course, the dullard has repeatedly referred to the Sobibor Archaeology Project’s home page, with all the photos of the alleged “huge mass graves:”

http://undersobibor.org/


And let’s not forget what else the cowardly dullard has said:

"Boy, one can sense how carpet-biting mad Gerdes is at my having accepted the challenge... You will hear from me again on this subject when you find an issue of SKEPTIC or ARCHEOLOGY magazine with an article about my research findings in your mailbox... I’m doing my research independently of how big a chance there is that meeting the challenge requirements will get me any money. If I don’t get paid for submitting proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements, that’s fine. If I do get paid, that’s even better... but the next time you repeat that "looking for an angle out" - BS you’ll be telling another lie, asshole. I have already made clear that the reward money would be nice to have but is not the main motivation for my research... 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... If you don’t want to accept my suggestions... 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... As you well know, I’m not trying to change anything to my "liking"... what I’m showing the world is that I’m willing to play by the standards of the NAFCASH challenge... And just to make it clear once more, I intend to publish proof meeting the requirements in ARCHAEOLOGY or SKEPTIC magazine and submit such proof to NAFCASH as soon as I have it in my hands, independently of what my chances are of ever actually seeing any reward money. If I meet the challenge requirements but cannot obtain payment... that’s fine. If I can obtain payment, that’s even better.”

So the question that reamins is:

What are you waiting for Retardo?

Are you some kind of a coward, or what?
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #939
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

[quote=EireannGoddess;817145]
Quote:

heh, well you can do that in your own thread - I have advised you to start a "law" thread here in OV. I am not going to let The Mule off so easily from his ongoing diatribe as avoidance tactic as refusal to answer Herr Gerdes' simple questions. This thread belongs to neither him nor you.

It would be an interesting debate - so, start a thread.

I think it would be best served if you started, since you have the bone to pick and I do not want to be accused of misstating your position.
__________________
RabbitNoMore

But all jews do speak in absolutes though. Just like you.

-----------

Define idiot
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #940
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post

I think it would be best served if you started, since you have the bone to pick and I do not want to be accused of misstating your position.
What a coward. You are the alleged kike attorney from California. Don't you want your own thread where you can extol the virtues of ambulance chasing and sleazy divorces?

Start your own thread. Remember, you said you were going to "rake" me over the "coals.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 AM.
Page generated in 0.25625 seconds.