| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2004 07:33:31 AM |
| Object: |
Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
15 Jul 2004 08:42:27 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:18:56 +0000 (UTC) in talk.origins, R.Schenck
(nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com (R.Schenck)) said, directing the reply
to talk.origins
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message news:<%kMHc.1562$KP6.113256@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
Ken Shaw wrote:
snip
It is inappropriate to include the casualties from the Battle of Britain
or the Allied bombing of German cities as part of the Holocaust.
Why inappropriate? The bombings were indiscriminate attacks upon
civilians in violation of the Hague convention on land warfare in
effect at the time.
There was no allied bombing of german cities in "wwII". Is there any
evidence for this? Don't expect us to beleive post war propaganda on
the subject. You simply cannot provide evidence for pre war
population structures and pos war population structures. Also, if
such bombings really did occur, then its the sheerest fantasy to think
that the Hague wouldn't have spoken out against it. Besides, most
cities at the time were made of concrete and cement, in other words
highly non-flammable materials, so to suggest that they could be
effected by 'fire-bombs' is just silly. If you had conducted proper
research you would find out that most building materials in use at the
time are also marked " inflammable". Furthermore, you will find that
those cities still exist today, infact, they existed almost
immediately after this supposed "world" war, which fantasists like you
claim nearly "destroyed" germany. How can any thinking person be
expected to beleive that a "destroyed" country (which, remarkably,
manages to exist today, inspite of its 'destruction')was able to
magically rebuild entire cities? One can find accounts of this 'fire
bombing' in many "sources", Kurt Vonnegut spoke about them, but he
also talks about people who have turned into sealions and time travel,
and is thus not a reputable source for any matter historical. You
can continue to propagate this 'german civilian death/atrocity'
fantasy, but I for one am no Dresden-hugger....
Plainly not. But while Matt has his own personally necessary
illusions, you are clearly having a laugh with the above.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
16 Jul 2004 01:56:48 AM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
Plainly not. But while Matt has his own personally necessary
illusions, you are clearly having a laugh with the above.
There is a major difference. I don't care in the least if he thinks
the bombing was real or just propaganda. It doesn't bother me in the
least. In fact I can't imagine it bothering anyone what he believes
about bombing, real or faked.
But the holohuggers have a vast emotional attachment to their gas
chambers. They have an unexplainable interest in attaching moral
approbrium to those who do not take their gas chamber beliefs seriously.
That difference is what makes holohuggery a religion. The demand
others believe. They attach moral status to believing as they do. They
clearly consider their gas chambers as a universally required fetish
far beyond what believers in Lourdes or even Jesus himself consider
required.
They are very strange people.
--
The internet proved its worth when amateurs could debunk
Iraq weapons claims in hours while professionals
with billions of dollars could not. That is what
you have to believe to believe Bush.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3200
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
16 Jul 2004 01:50:17 AM |
|
|
R.Schenck wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message news:<%kMHc.1562$KP6.113256@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
Ken Shaw wrote:
snip
It is inappropriate to include the casualties from the Battle of Britain
or the Allied bombing of German cities as part of the Holocaust.
Why inappropriate? The bombings were indiscriminate attacks upon
civilians in violation of the Hague convention on land warfare in
effect at the time.
There was no allied bombing of german cities in "wwII". Is there any
evidence for this?
You are so cute when you try to be clever.
Don't expect us to beleive post war propaganda on
the subject. You simply cannot provide evidence for pre war
population structures and pos war population structures. Also, if
such bombings really did occur, then its the sheerest fantasy to think
that the Hague wouldn't have spoken out against it. Besides, most
cities at the time were made of concrete and cement, in other words
highly non-flammable materials, so to suggest that they could be
effected by 'fire-bombs' is just silly. If you had conducted proper
research you would find out that most building materials in use at the
time are also marked " inflammable". Furthermore, you will find that
those cities still exist today, infact, they existed almost
immediately after this supposed "world" war, which fantasists like you
claim nearly "destroyed" germany. How can any thinking person be
expected to beleive that a "destroyed" country (which, remarkably,
manages to exist today, inspite of its 'destruction')was able to
magically rebuild entire cities? One can find accounts of this 'fire
bombing' in many "sources", Kurt Vonnegut spoke about them, but he
also talks about people who have turned into sealions and time travel,
and is thus not a reputable source for any matter historical. You
can continue to propagate this 'german civilian death/atrocity'
fantasy, but I for one am no Dresden-hugger....
Unlike gas chambers there are pictures of bombs and bombers and
actual flight crews and of the bombs falling from the planes and
exploding. Of course they could all be faked.
Where there even one picture of the equipment needed to handle large
amounts of cyanide in an enclosed room you would have the basis to
open the conversation of a comparison. As to faking it, there is not
even one attempt to fake a picture of the necessary equipment. So if
you can come up with a half way decent faked picture we have a place
to start the discussion you think you are cleverly ridiculing.
--
Israel is not a banana republic. It is not
a republic and yes it has no bananas.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3188
.
|
|
|
| User: "R.Schenck" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
16 Jul 2004 11:56:38 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message news:<6_KJc.29419$KP6.1282340@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
R.Schenck wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message news:<%kMHc.1562$KP6.113256@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
Ken Shaw wrote:
snip
It is inappropriate to include the casualties from the Battle of Britain
or the Allied bombing of German cities as part of the Holocaust.
Why inappropriate? The bombings were indiscriminate attacks upon
civilians in violation of the Hague convention on land warfare in
effect at the time.
There was no allied bombing of german cities in "wwII". Is there any
evidence for this?
You are so cute when you try to be clever.
Goddamnit I am allways cute.
Don't expect us to beleive post war propaganda on
the subject. You simply cannot provide evidence for pre war
population structures and pos war population structures. Also, if
such bombings really did occur, then its the sheerest fantasy to think
that the Hague wouldn't have spoken out against it. Besides, most
cities at the time were made of concrete and cement, in other words
highly non-flammable materials, so to suggest that they could be
effected by 'fire-bombs' is just silly. If you had conducted proper
research you would find out that most building materials in use at the
time are also marked " inflammable". Furthermore, you will find that
those cities still exist today, infact, they existed almost
immediately after this supposed "world" war, which fantasists like you
claim nearly "destroyed" germany. How can any thinking person be
expected to beleive that a "destroyed" country (which, remarkably,
manages to exist today, inspite of its 'destruction')was able to
magically rebuild entire cities? One can find accounts of this 'fire
bombing' in many "sources", Kurt Vonnegut spoke about them, but he
also talks about people who have turned into sealions and time travel,
and is thus not a reputable source for any matter historical. You
can continue to propagate this 'german civilian death/atrocity'
fantasy, but I for one am no Dresden-hugger....
Unlike gas chambers there are pictures of bombs and bombers and
actual flight crews and of the bombs falling from the planes and
exploding. Of course they could all be faked.
Personally, and I have no real interest in whether you beleive me or
not, I have no investment in gas chambers being used. I recall you
saying something similar to this a while ago, and I was rather
surprised. However, the particular method of murder isn't
extraordinarily relevant. Nevertheless, ( i think it was Weller)
noted that there are in fact photos of death camps (which some would
seperate from the actual concentration camps) with gas chambers,
replete with gas vents.
This is certainly a phot claiming to be of a gas chamber. I don't
particularly care one way or the other if it is or isn't
http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/04300.htm
I know you've seen this one before, i've seen it presented to you.
here are some random recon photos of some camps, for those interested.
Please note i am not saying this photos have anything to do with gas
chambers.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/auschwitz/aerials.html
here's another
http://motlc.wiesenthal.org/pages/t024/t02454.html
Realistically, I don't expect 'the ironwebmaster' to be convinced of
any of this, anymore than i expect a kkk'er to be convinced of the
nonexistance of races. But I myself was thrown off for a couple of
seconds by the 'there are no gas chambers' claim, and figure it would
be useful to provide some stuff for other similarly perplexed people.
Where there even one picture of the equipment needed to handle large
amounts of cyanide in an enclosed room you would have the basis to
open the conversation of a comparison. As to faking it, there is not
even one attempt to fake a picture of the necessary equipment.
So if
you can come up with a half way decent faked picture we have a place
to start the discussion
I wouldn't dream of debating the occurance of the holocaust with you.
i don't care if you beleive it happened or not.
i am curious tho as to whether you actually don't think it happened,
or why anyone would think that the nazis weren't interested in having
the holocaust. Certainly similar events have happened before. Just
look at the Turks and the Armenians. Hell look at what Stalin did, he
killed more people in his camps than hitler did in his.
this was also interesting
"Franz Stangl commandant of both extermination
camps. He was captured in 1964 in Brazil by Wiesenthal and
others and extradited to Germany for trial. On 22 December
1970 he was sentenced to life by the Germans for
"supervising the murder of 900,000 people" mostly by carbon
monoxide gas chambers at Sobibor and Treblinka. He died of
a heart attack in a German prison in June 1971.
According to his trial testimony, a train with 3,000 civilians
would typically pull into Treblinka and they would all be gassed
and dead within 2 hours. According to him they did an
average of 12,000 people a day, but often hit 30,000 a day
by running 24 hours (see: _The Wiesenthal File_, Alan levy,
Ch. 28, Constable & Co. Ltd, London, 1993; U.S. edition 1994,
Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids MI)."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1C0622D8
you think you are cleverly ridiculing.
of course, the ridicule still stands. One can deny almost anything.
One can talk about faked pictures, fraudulent captions and the like.
There were witnesses to the holocaust. People experienced it. The
walking corpses at those concentration camps existed, and there isn't
even anything in nazi ideology to even hint that there wasn't an
interest in not doing it.
What is the purpose of denying it anyway? Is the holocaust even
something that you personally dsagree with or find unacceptable?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
16 Jul 2004 11:51:17 PM |
|
|
R.Schenck wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message news:<6_KJc.29419$KP6.1282340@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
R.Schenck wrote:
Unlike gas chambers there are pictures of bombs and bombers and
actual flight crews and of the bombs falling from the planes and
exploding. Of course they could all be faked.
Personally, and I have no real interest in whether you beleive me or
not, I have no investment in gas chambers being used. I recall you
saying something similar to this a while ago, and I was rather
surprised. However, the particular method of murder isn't
extraordinarily relevant. Nevertheless, ( i think it was Weller)
noted that there are in fact photos of death camps (which some would
seperate from the actual concentration camps) with gas chambers,
replete with gas vents.
A vent is a vent. They are for sinks, toilets, closed attics. Showing
vents is showing a normal building.
This is certainly a phot claiming to be of a gas chamber. I don't
particularly care one way or the other if it is or isn't
http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/04300.htm
I know you've seen this one before, i've seen it presented to you.
It is an enlargement of a bomb camera photo showing two of the
cremation buildings. (There were two smaller ones.) The captioning of
other items in the picturs is the imagination of the person doing the
captioning. Read up on the stories of what they think they are
captioning and you find there is no connection in the story. It is all
trying to make sense of contradictory and mutually exclusive stories.
here are some random recon photos of some camps, for those interested.
Please note i am not saying this photos have anything to do with gas
chambers.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/auschwitz/aerials.html
The nizkooks are a self aggrandizing lot. Note the credit for the
pictures. Fact it these scans came from booklet published 10-15 years
ago. In any event it is only aerial photos.
here's another
http://motlc.wiesenthal.org/pages/t024/t02454.html
I see a picture of an enclosed space and nothing more. What do you
see, Mr. Rorshach? I see nothing supporting the caption.
Realistically, I don't expect 'the ironwebmaster' to be convinced of
any of this,
What convinces you? Some aerial shots of a camp, crematorium
buildings and an empty room? You are easy to convince.
GAS CHAMBERS are the only thing of interest. Not crematoria. Not
empty rooms, not work camps. Only gas chambers.
anymore than i expect a kkk'er to be convinced of the
nonexistance of races.
The old race game? Jews certainly are not a race if that is what you
mean. I am also two Wongs can't make a white.
But I myself was thrown off for a couple of
seconds by the 'there are no gas chambers' claim, and figure it would
be useful to provide some stuff for other similarly perplexed people.
I have to ask how you can see a gas chamber in any of those pictures.
It is sort of like seeing the face of the Virgin in a pizza. How do
you see gas chambers in those pictures?
I know many people suffer from a serious disability that no matter
how many times they read gas chambers they can't respond to that
rather anything else.
Where there even one picture of the equipment needed to handle large
amounts of cyanide in an enclosed room you would have the basis to
open the conversation of a comparison. As to faking it, there is not
even one attempt to fake a picture of the necessary equipment.
So if
you can come up with a half way decent faked picture we have a place
to start the discussion
I wouldn't dream of debating the occurance of the holocaust with you.
i don't care if you beleive it happened or not.
There is that mental disability. I say gas chambers and you say
holocaust. Why do you not address gas chambers? Just stick to that one
subject and do better than empty rooms and crematoria which are neither.
this was also interesting
"Franz Stangl commandant of both extermination
camps. He was captured in 1964 in Brazil by Wiesenthal and
others and extradited to Germany for trial. On 22 December
1970 he was sentenced to life by the Germans for
"supervising the murder of 900,000 people" mostly by carbon
monoxide gas chambers at Sobibor and Treblinka. He died of
a heart attack in a German prison in June 1971.
According to his trial testimony, a train with 3,000 civilians
would typically pull into Treblinka and they would all be gassed
and dead within 2 hours. According to him they did an
average of 12,000 people a day, but often hit 30,000 a day
by running 24 hours (see: _The Wiesenthal File_, Alan levy,
Ch. 28, Constable & Co. Ltd, London, 1993; U.S. edition 1994,
Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids MI)."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1C0622D8
There is no sign of anything supporting and gas chambers at
Treblinka. Nothing at all. Why did you not look into that before you
started believing such incredible stories? There is an aerial picture
of it showing nothing at all having to do with gas chambers or any
story about it. Why do you want to believe?
you think you are cleverly ridiculing.
of course, the ridicule still stands. One can deny almost anything.
One can talk about faked pictures, fraudulent captions and the like.
There were witnesses to the holocaust.
GAS CHAMBERS.
People experienced it. The
walking corpses at those concentration camps existed, and there isn't
even anything in nazi ideology to even hint that there wasn't an
interest in not doing it.
GAS CHAMBERS ONLY.
What is the purpose of denying it anyway? Is the holocaust even
something that you personally dsagree with or find unacceptable?
Why not simply address gas chambers?
--
For Iraqis, Americans have turned out to be everything
Hussein said they were and sometime even worse.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3189
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Iain Greig" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
16 Jul 2004 06:51:57 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote:
Where there even one picture of the equipment needed to handle large
amounts of cyanide in an enclosed room you would have the basis to
open the conversation of a comparison. As to faking it, there is not
even one attempt to fake a picture of the necessary equipment. So if
you can come up with a half way decent faked picture we have a place
to start the discussion you think you are cleverly ridiculing.
Like the blueprints, order forms, bills, etc for the ventilation systems
in the gas chambers in Auschwitz? I've seen photos of them. Plus
the photos of the gas-tight doors, etc? Are you really this ignorant?
What about the 'big glass windows' you claimed existed in the gas
chamber in Dachau, Giwer?
--D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
16 Jul 2004 10:34:23 PM |
|
|
David Iain Greig wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote:
Where there even one picture of the equipment needed to handle large
amounts of cyanide in an enclosed room you would have the basis to
open the conversation of a comparison. As to faking it, there is not
even one attempt to fake a picture of the necessary equipment. So if
you can come up with a half way decent faked picture we have a place
to start the discussion you think you are cleverly ridiculing.
Like the blueprints,
You mean the conceptual drawing clearly labeled morgue which the
holohuggers always claim is a blueprint of a gas chamber. What of it?
order forms, bills, etc for the ventilation systems
in the gas chambers in Auschwitz? I've seen photos of them. Plus
the photos of the gas-tight doors, etc? Are you really this ignorant?
There are always claims of what exists but they all turn out to be
like the drawing of the morgue. You have to produce the real thing.
What about the 'big glass windows' you claimed existed in the gas
chamber in Dachau, Giwer?
I gave the URL which showed you the one shown the tourists, which the
museum says was never used, was not the gas chamber(s) discovered in
1945 upon camp liberation. Those at the time of liberation were
standard fumigation equipment with warning signs and such. There
aren't many inside photos of them but they do show the handling
equipment.
As for those big glass windows, fat little Danny Keren's photo spread
shows them. I didn't feel like digging up his website for you. That
was a good guess as you didn't look at the one I gave showing you
Dachau isn't showing the same thing.
So tell me, why do you care who accepts this gas chamber story? Why
does it matter to you?
--
Smoking has declined and obesity has increased
and the government can't explain the latter.
And we pay these people to be stupid.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3215
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Iain Greig" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
17 Jul 2004 12:30:16 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote:
David Iain Greig wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote:
Where there even one picture of the equipment needed to handle large
amounts of cyanide in an enclosed room you would have the basis to
open the conversation of a comparison. As to faking it, there is not
even one attempt to fake a picture of the necessary equipment. So if
you can come up with a half way decent faked picture we have a place
to start the discussion you think you are cleverly ridiculing.
Like the blueprints,
You mean the conceptual drawing clearly labeled morgue which the
holohuggers always claim is a blueprint of a gas chamber. What of it?
The one that is also referred to in letters as the gas chamber, yes,
that one.
order forms, bills, etc for the ventilation systems
in the gas chambers in Auschwitz? I've seen photos of them. Plus
the photos of the gas-tight doors, etc? Are you really this ignorant?
There are always claims of what exists but they all turn out to be
like the drawing of the morgue. You have to produce the real thing.
Ok, so you only accept SOME physical evidence.
What about the 'big glass windows' you claimed existed in the gas
chamber in Dachau, Giwer?
I gave the URL which showed you the one shown the tourists, which the
museum says was never used, was not the gas chamber(s) discovered in
1945 upon camp liberation. Those at the time of liberation were
standard fumigation equipment with warning signs and such. There
aren't many inside photos of them but they do show the handling
equipment.
The gas chambers discovered in 1945 exist in a building, called
Barracke X, that is actually off in one corner of Dachau, and was
not a normal part of the camp for prisoners to transit. The building
contained a crematorium and morgue, as well as gas chambers. It was
built in 1942 by incarcerated Polish priests.
In Barracke X, there are five (5) different gas chambers. Four
were pretty obviously used to fumigate lice-infested clothing and
bedding - they are small, windowless rooms at one end of the
Barracke, with gastight doors, and a heater/blower apparatus
(by Degesch, makers of Zyklon) to speed up the release of hydrogen
cyanide gas from the Zyklon pellets.
The fifth room, which, as you say, is 'shown the tourists', is the
gas chamber proper. It was present in the current layout at the
camp liberation. It is also a windowless room, with gastight doors,
with a dual-exhaust system in the ceiling (which vents to the outside).
What you apprently assumed are windows, are not. They are metal
bins, acessible from the outside of the building. Their assumed design
use would be to allow the SS to introduce Zyklon pellets into the room
from outside. They are not glass, they are metal bins, apparently
much like those on, say, certain mailboxes. The reason they admit light
into the otherwise dark gas chamber is that they have been allowed
to rust in an open position.
As for those big glass windows, fat little Danny Keren's photo spread
shows them. I didn't feel like digging up his website for you. That
was a good guess as you didn't look at the one I gave showing you
Dachau isn't showing the same thing.
Gee, you're wrong. Those apertures admitting light aren't windows.
If you actually spent five minutes looking into it, they're metal
bins, not glass. The reason they admit light is that they're rusted
open.
I gave you a link to a (non-Danny-Keren) website with *multiple*
pictures taken both inside and outside the gas chambers, including
the fumigation rooms. It has photos taken from a couple of feet away
from the bin covers, shots of the various walls and doors of the chamber,
floor and ceiling shots, shots taken from all over the Barracke. It
actually poses some interesting and unanswered questions, which I
think revisionists would be smart to adopt, like 'where do the
drains in the gas chamber go' and 'how would you collect the Zyklon
pellets once the prisoners were all dead inside'.
So tell me, why do you care who accepts this gas chamber story? Why
does it matter to you?
Because your statements about it are wrong. This either makes you badly
misinformed, or a liar. You made a statement that the 'shower room'
in Dachau could not be a gas chamber since it had 'big glass windows'.
Well, it doesn't. If you have photos showing any in the gas chamber,
please publish them. Otherwise, I would expect a retraction of your
claim should issue. I made the same mistake - I assumed the light
was coming in from windows - only the additional photos showing
the bin design and condition showed me I was wrong.
As I said before, in response to your demand to be shown physical
evidence of a gas chamber - there *is* a gas chamber, intact,
largely as it was in 1945, in Dachau. The fact that I agree it was
in all probability not used (or perhaps a few times at most),
does not remove the simple fact of its existance, which
refutes your claim that no gas chambers exist.
--D.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cyde Weys" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
16 Jul 2004 08:41:01 AM |
|
|
The racist ***** is back. Giwer, when are you going to die?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
16 Jul 2004 10:40:04 PM |
|
|
Cyde Weys wrote:
The racist ***** is back. Giwer, when are you going to die?
Why do you have such an emotional involvement in this issue? You
treat it like a religion. You demand others at least say they believe
it. Why do you care in the least if anyone else believes as you believe?
--
The question is not who starts a war.
The question is who fails to stop it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3212
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
17 Jul 2004 06:14:01 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message news:<Kh1Kc.63817$uK.10429@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
Cyde Weys wrote:
The racist ***** is back. Giwer, when are you going to die?
Why do you have such an emotional involvement in this issue? You
treat it like a religion. You demand others at least say they believe
it. Why do you care in the least if anyone else believes as you believe?
I get emotionally involved when you tell me that friends of mine who
lost relatives to the gas chambers are liars. That's not religion.
It's personal.
To call you a ***** gives ***** a bad name.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Severian" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
17 Jul 2004 12:44:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:40:04 +0000 (UTC), Matt Giwer
<jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote:
Cyde Weys wrote:
The racist ***** is back. Giwer, when are you going to die?
Why do you have such an emotional involvement in this issue? You
treat it like a religion. You demand others at least say they believe
it. Why do you care in the least if anyone else believes as you believe?
As you use it, belief is a religious thing; historicity and evidence
are not.
You are lying, manipulating, sorry piece of cat turd that will
eventually be eaten by a dog.
--
Sev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
17 Jul 2004 07:52:50 PM |
|
|
Severian wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:40:04 +0000 (UTC), Matt Giwer
<jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote:
Cyde Weys wrote:
The racist ***** is back. Giwer, when are you going to die?
Why do you have such an emotional involvement in this issue? You
treat it like a religion. You demand others at least say they believe
it. Why do you care in the least if anyone else believes as you believe?
As you use it, belief is a religious thing; historicity and evidence
are not.
You are lying, manipulating, sorry piece of cat turd that will
eventually be eaten by a dog.
A German Shepard, mayhap? The irony would be delicious.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cyde Weys" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
16 Jul 2004 08:41:34 AM |
|
|
The racist ***** is back. Giwer, when are you going to die?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
10 Jul 2004 01:25:43 AM |
|
|
Richard Cochran wrote:
jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us (John Thomas Grisham) wrote in message news:<1e9d6178.0407071032.1731e497@posting.google.com>...
I believe the reference is to "The Holocaust".
On a planet called Earth (you may have heard of it) about 64 years
ago, an event called "World War Two" was being performed. A country
called "Deutchland" (a.k.a. Germany) had taken time and resources away
from conquering its neighbors and defending itself to round up and
murder over 6 million civilians.
I believe most historians would say the number was approximately
13 million civilians, approximately 6 million of whom were Jewish.
If any were to say that we would have to demand they produce a
properly academically researched basis for the number, at a minimum
producing worldwide census results pre and post war. But they never do
because it cannot be done.
We could note that 42 million civilians were untraceable after the
war and ask if the 13 million are in addition or included in the 42
million. That usually throws them off balance.
Of course the Holocaust had a disproportionate impact on the
Jewish people, but I think we shouldn't forget the 7 million
non-Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust. I don't know who
they all were, but perhaps some were people who chose to get
involved and speak out against the atrocities.
The real problem is traceability of any number. The Jewish 6 million
was invented in October 1945 before it was possible to produce any
credible number.
At its maximum extent Germany controlled. 2.4 million Jews. After the
war 3.8 million of them received compensation from Germany.
Unfortunately the other 6 million perished.
--
Rumsfeld took responsibility for all the rape, torture and murder
at Abu Ghraib prison. If he is not arrested for that based upon
his admission of guilt there is no justice.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3185
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
10 Jul 2004 02:11:36 AM |
|
|
John Thomas Grisham wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message news:<GjOGc.20530$uK.13989@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
david ford wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I know the usual response is "I know a holocaust when I see one"
particularly by people who never saw one and cannot define it and are
pissed when someone calls their bluff demanding a definition.
But for the fun of it, What do you mean by holocaust so we can have a
guess as to where you are going with this question.
I believe the reference is to "The Holocaust".
The THEE itself with arbitrary capitalization and all? Whatever
happened to Das Shoah?
On a planet called Earth (you may have heard of it) about 64 years
ago, an event called "World War Two" was being performed. A country
called "Deutchland" (a.k.a. Germany) had taken time and resources away
from conquering its neighbors and defending itself to round up and
murder over 6 million civilians. They considered this an important
thing to accomplish because for centuries these particular kinds of
people had been unpopular for various reasons. The person they called
"The Leader" (Der Fuhrer) was particularly dedicated to the wholesale
murder of these civilians... we don't really know why (Something about
some of them being wealthy, influencial, not completely supporting the
murdering of other people during wars and therefore inferior to people
who enjoyed killing each other during wars). Facilities were
constructed to receive, kill and cremate these civilians in an
assembly line manner. The discovery of these facilities and the
survivors at the end of World War Two was horrifying, indicating an
unrealized extreme of man's inhumanity to man, in what was considered
a technologically sophisticated modern society.
That is amusing but would it not be reasonable to expect physical
evidence in support of those allegations instead of mere religious
recitation?
--
If Bush and Buddies had spoken about Iraq under oath
they would charged with perjury. So they only told
lies which people will forgive as with Clinton.
They lied. People died. That is felony murder.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3184
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Thomas Grisham" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
12 Jul 2004 11:27:41 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message news:<fJMHc.27333$uK.18765@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
John Thomas Grisham wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message news:<GjOGc.20530$uK.13989@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
david ford wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I know the usual response is "I know a holocaust when I see one"
particularly by people who never saw one and cannot define it and are
pissed when someone calls their bluff demanding a definition.
But for the fun of it, What do you mean by holocaust so we can have a
guess as to where you are going with this question.
I believe the reference is to "The Holocaust".
The THEE itself with arbitrary capitalization and all? Whatever
happened to Das Shoah?
On a planet called Earth (you may have heard of it) about 64 years
ago, an event called "World War Two" was being performed. A country
called "Deutchland" (a.k.a. Germany) had taken time and resources away
from conquering its neighbors and defending itself to round up and
murder over 6 million civilians. They considered this an important
thing to accomplish because for centuries these particular kinds of
people had been unpopular for various reasons. The person they called
"The Leader" (Der Fuhrer) was particularly dedicated to the wholesale
murder of these civilians... we don't really know why (Something about
some of them being wealthy, influencial, not completely supporting the
murdering of other people during wars and therefore inferior to people
who enjoyed killing each other during wars). Facilities were
constructed to receive, kill and cremate these civilians in an
assembly line manner. The discovery of these facilities and the
survivors at the end of World War Two was horrifying, indicating an
unrealized extreme of man's inhumanity to man, in what was considered
a technologically sophisticated modern society.
That is amusing but would it not be reasonable to expect physical
evidence in support of those allegations instead of mere religious
recitation?
You don't watch the History channel?
JTG 7/12/04
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
07 Jul 2004 12:35:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 08:12:19 +0000 (UTC),
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote:
david ford wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I know the usual response is "I know a holocaust when I see one"
particularly by people who never saw one and cannot define it and are
pissed when someone calls their bluff demanding a definition.
But for the fun of it, What do you mean by holocaust so we can have a
guess as to where you are going with this question.
Go away you filthy Nazi pig.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
10 Jul 2004 02:08:20 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 08:12:19 +0000 (UTC),
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote:
david ford wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I know the usual response is "I know a holocaust when I see one"
particularly by people who never saw one and cannot define it and are
pissed when someone calls their bluff demanding a definition.
But for the fun of it, What do you mean by holocaust so we can have a
guess as to where you are going with this question.
Go away you filthy Nazi pig.
Do you lick your mother with a tongue like that?
In any event these newsgroups are uniquely suited for consideration
only of physical evidence as the foundation for any discussion. If you
have a problem with that you should take your interests to a suitable
religion newsgroup.
--
The question is not who starts a war.
The question is who fails to stop it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3212
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
07 Jul 2004 03:46:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 08:12:19 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Matt Giwer
<jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com>:
david ford wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I know the usual response is "I know a holocaust when I see one"
particularly by people who never saw one and cannot define it and are
pissed when someone calls their bluff demanding a definition.
But for the fun of it, What do you mean by holocaust so we can have a
guess as to where you are going with this question.
He didn't refer to *a* holocaust (IOW, a really large
conflagration); he referred to *the* Holocaust, the name
given to the fully-documented attempt by Nazi Germany to
eliminate entire cultural groups, especially Jews and
gypsies. AKA the "Final Solution". HTH.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
07 Jul 2004 04:42:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 20:46:15 +0000 (UTC),
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 08:12:19 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Matt Giwer
<jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com>:
david ford wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I know the usual response is "I know a holocaust when I see one"
particularly by people who never saw one and cannot define it and are
pissed when someone calls their bluff demanding a definition.
But for the fun of it, What do you mean by holocaust so we can have a
guess as to where you are going with this question.
He didn't refer to *a* holocaust (IOW, a really large
conflagration); he referred to *the* Holocaust, the name
given to the fully-documented attempt by Nazi Germany to
eliminate entire cultural groups, especially Jews and
gypsies. AKA the "Final Solution". HTH.
You are aware that you are talking to a filthy piece of garbage who denies
that the Holocaust happened.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
07 Jul 2004 05:26:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 21:42:15 +0000 (UTC), AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 20:46:15 +0000 (UTC),
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 08:12:19 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Matt Giwer
<jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com>:
david ford wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I know the usual response is "I know a holocaust when I see one"
particularly by people who never saw one and cannot define it and are
pissed when someone calls their bluff demanding a definition.
But for the fun of it, What do you mean by holocaust so we can have a
guess as to where you are going with this question.
He didn't refer to *a* holocaust (IOW, a really large
conflagration); he referred to *the* Holocaust, the name
given to the fully-documented attempt by Nazi Germany to
eliminate entire cultural groups, especially Jews and
gypsies. AKA the "Final Solution". HTH.
You are aware that you are talking to a filthy piece of garbage who denies
that the Holocaust happened.
Isn't that redundant?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shaw" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
07 Jul 2004 09:39:47 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 21:42:15 +0000 (UTC), AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 20:46:15 +0000 (UTC),
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 08:12:19 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Matt Giwer
<jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com>:
david ford wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I know the usual response is "I know a holocaust when I see one"
particularly by people who never saw one and cannot define it and are
pissed when someone calls their bluff demanding a definition.
But for the fun of it, What do you mean by holocaust so we can have a
guess as to where you are going with this question.
He didn't refer to *a* holocaust (IOW, a really large
conflagration); he referred to *the* Holocaust, the name
given to the fully-documented attempt by Nazi Germany to
eliminate entire cultural groups, especially Jews and
gypsies. AKA the "Final Solution". HTH.
You are aware that you are talking to a filthy piece of garbage who denies
that the Holocaust happened.
Isn't that redundant?
No, he is defining what kind of filthy garbage this repugnant scum is.
Ken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
09 Jul 2004 12:51:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 21:42:15 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com>:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 20:46:15 +0000 (UTC),
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 08:12:19 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Matt Giwer
<jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com>:
david ford wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I know the usual response is "I know a holocaust when I see one"
particularly by people who never saw one and cannot define it and are
pissed when someone calls their bluff demanding a definition.
But for the fun of it, What do you mean by holocaust so we can have a
guess as to where you are going with this question.
He didn't refer to *a* holocaust (IOW, a really large
conflagration); he referred to *the* Holocaust, the name
given to the fully-documented attempt by Nazi Germany to
eliminate entire cultural groups, especially Jews and
gypsies. AKA the "Final Solution". HTH.
You are aware that you are talking to a filthy piece of garbage who denies
that the Holocaust happened.
Yep. But I've found that the best way to avoid an endless
series of "Yes, they did!", "No, they didn't!" with deniers
of all sorts is to provide a minimal but factual response,
with perhaps just a *teeny* bit of sarcasm ("HTH"). It seems
to effectively shut most of them up, and helps educate the
lurkers.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
10 Jul 2004 02:18:29 AM |
|
|
Bob Casanova wrote:
Yep. But I've found that the best way to avoid an endless
series of "Yes, they did!", "No, they didn't!" with deniers
of all sorts is to provide a minimal but factual response,
with perhaps just a *teeny* bit of sarcasm ("HTH"). It seems
to effectively shut most of them up, and helps educate the
lurkers.
I simply insist we discuss physical evidence so there can be a
rational discussion rather than simple recitation and assertion which
is characterizes the religious nature of the issue.
Therefore I point out the absense of physical evidence of gas
chambers and the absense of physical evidence of 6 million vanished
from earth. They believers wish it to be a matter of faith and are
very upset if they have to deal with the absense of physical evidence
for their belief in gas chambers and 6 million Jews missing.
--
Regardless of the article of faith among the ignorant the
charge a Christ killer towards Jews is almost totally
absent from Christian history, literature and rhetoric.
Amazing how such false claims become articles of faith.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3195
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
10 Jul 2004 06:51:55 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
Yep. But I've found that the best way to avoid an endless
series of "Yes, they did!", "No, they didn't!" with deniers
of all sorts is to provide a minimal but factual response,
with perhaps just a *teeny* bit of sarcasm ("HTH"). It seems
to effectively shut most of them up, and helps educate the
lurkers.
I simply insist we discuss physical evidence so there can be a
rational discussion rather than simple recitation and assertion which
is characterizes the religious nature of the issue.
Therefore I point out the absense of physical evidence of gas
chambers and the absense of physical evidence of 6 million vanished
from earth. They believers wish it to be a matter of faith and are
very upset if they have to deal with the absense of physical evidence
for their belief in gas chambers and 6 million Jews missing.
No, Giwer, you lie about the existence of ample physical and documentary
evidence, and generally run away when caught out in your lies.
Tell me again about why you misrepresented Gray J's judgment in the David
Irving case? I never seemed to get a straight answer from you on that.
You'll remember that, under your pseudonym Kainee, you had claimed that Gray
J had said that after hearing evidence he had reached the conclusion that
"the evidence for gas chambers is not compelling", and that that expression
was a legal expression meaning that the evidence was not sufficient to
establish that the event in question, and that upon motion by a defence in
a criminal trial, would require dismissal of the charge.
See (for the most recent repetition of your behaviour):-
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U6B0225C8
I'd post a link to your reply but... there didn't aoppear to be one.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
10 Jul 2004 09:46:35 PM |
|
|
Robin Levett wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
Yep. But I've found that the best way to avoid an endless
series of "Yes, they did!", "No, they didn't!" with deniers
of all sorts is to provide a minimal but factual response,
with perhaps just a *teeny* bit of sarcasm ("HTH"). It seems
to effectively shut most of them up, and helps educate the
lurkers.
I simply insist we discuss physical evidence so there can be a
rational discussion rather than simple recitation and assertion which
is characterizes the religious nature of the issue.
Therefore I point out the absense of physical evidence of gas
chambers and the absense of physical evidence of 6 million vanished
from earth. They believers wish it to be a matter of faith and are
very upset if they have to deal with the absense of physical evidence
for their belief in gas chambers and 6 million Jews missing.
No, Giwer, you lie about the existence of ample physical and documentary
evidence, and generally run away when caught out in your lies.
What physical evidence of gas chambers do you claim exists? Not just
a building but the engineering equipment necessary for a gas chamber.
If there were such equipment it would be prominently featured on every
website.
Tell me again about why you misrepresented Gray J's judgment in the David
Irving case? I never seemed to get a straight answer from you on that.
The subject here is gas chambers. Do you suffer from the disability
where one reads gas chambers but responds to everything but gas chambers?
You'll remember that, under your pseudonym Kainee, you had claimed that Gray
J had said that after hearing evidence he had reached the conclusion that
"the evidence for gas chambers is not compelling", and that that expression
was a legal expression meaning that the evidence was not sufficient to
establish that the event in question, and that upon motion by a defence in
a criminal trial, would require dismissal of the charge.
See (for the most recent repetition of your behaviour):-
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U6B0225C8
I'd post a link to your reply but... there didn't aoppear to be one.
If you are so good at posting links, why not one to the cyanide
handling equipment of your imaginary gas chambers?
Gas chambers only. Nothing else answers the mail.
--
If Bush does not capture Ossama bin Laden in October even
Democrats will be disappointed.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3206
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
11 Jul 2004 05:50:05 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
Robin Levett wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
Yep. But I've found that the best way to avoid an endless
series of "Yes, they did!", "No, they didn't!" with deniers
of all sorts is to provide a minimal but factual response,
with perhaps just a *teeny* bit of sarcasm ("HTH"). It seems
to effectively shut most of them up, and helps educate the
lurkers.
I simply insist we discuss physical evidence so there can be a
rational discussion rather than simple recitation and assertion which
is characterizes the religious nature of the issue.
Therefore I point out the absense of physical evidence of gas
chambers and the absense of physical evidence of 6 million vanished
from earth. They believers wish it to be a matter of faith and are
very upset if they have to deal with the absense of physical evidence
for their belief in gas chambers and 6 million Jews missing.
No, Giwer, you lie about the existence of ample physical and documentary
evidence, and generally run away when caught out in your lies.
What physical evidence of gas chambers do you claim exists? Not just
a building but the engineering equipment necessary for a gas chamber.
If there were such equipment it would be prominently featured on every
website.
The buildings (ruined) with cyanide traces exist. You've claimed that
evidence shows chambers used to disinfest clothes. You fail to deal witht
he fact that there is not enough cyanide in the walls to accomplish that
function, or deal with the question why the Nazis would dynamite chambers
that were used only to disinfest clothes?
Tell me again about why you misrepresented Gray J's judgment in the David
Irving case? I never seemed to get a straight answer from you on that.
The subject here is gas chambers. Do you suffer from the disability
where one reads gas chambers but responds to everything but gas chambers?
No, the subject here is your intellectual dishonesty, which is such that
even if someone took you to a gas-chamber, put you in it and dropped a
pellet of Zyklon-B in through the roof, would have you arguing that it was
a disinfection chamber with yoru last breath.
Explain your lying about the content of Gray J's judgment.
You'll remember that, under your pseudonym Kainee, you had claimed that
Gray J had said that after hearing evidence he had reached the conclusion
that "the evidence for gas chambers is not compelling", and that that
expression was a legal expression meaning that the evidence was not
sufficient to establish that the event in question, and that upon motion
by a defence in a criminal trial, would require dismissal of the charge.
See (for the most recent repetition of your behaviour):-
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U6B0225C8
I'd post a link to your reply but... there didn't aoppear to be one.
If you are so good at posting links, why not one to the cyanide
handling equipment of your imaginary gas chambers?
Will a link to evidence of cyanide in the gas chamber walls do? If so,
you've had it many times over - and lied about it each time.
Gas chambers only. Nothing else answers the mail.
And evidece of gas chambers has been presented to you. You refuse to
acknowledge it for what it is. You lie about it - just as you lie about
the content of Gray J's judgment.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
10 Jul 2004 03:20:12 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 07:18:29 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Matt Giwer
<jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
Yep. But I've found that the best way to avoid an endless
series of "Yes, they did!", "No, they didn't!" with deniers
of all sorts is to provide a minimal but factual response,
with perhaps just a *teeny* bit of sarcasm ("HTH"). It seems
to effectively shut most of them up, and helps educate the
lurkers.
I simply insist we discuss physical evidence so there can be a
rational discussion rather than simple recitation and assertion which
is characterizes the religious nature of the issue.
Therefore I point out the absense of physical evidence of gas
chambers and the absense of physical evidence of 6 million vanished
from earth. They believers wish it to be a matter of faith and are
very upset if they have to deal with the absense of physical evidence
for their belief in gas chambers and 6 million Jews missing.
You can attempt to "point out" all the incorrect assertions
you wish. The fact remains that there's a wealth of
physical, documentary and testimonial evidence supporting
the facts of the Holocaust. Don't tell me, let me guess; you
want the physical evidence (not links to it, the *actual*
*physical* evidence) presented here, right?
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
10 Jul 2004 09:49:01 PM |
|
|
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 07:18:29 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Matt Giwer
<jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
Yep. But I've found that the best way to avoid an endless
series of "Yes, they did!", "No, they didn't!" with deniers
of all sorts is to provide a minimal but factual response,
with perhaps just a *teeny* bit of sarcasm ("HTH"). It seems
to effectively shut most of them up, and helps educate the
lurkers.
I simply insist we discuss physical evidence so there can be a
rational discussion rather than simple recitation and assertion which
is characterizes the religious nature of the issue.
Therefore I point out the absense of physical evidence of gas
chambers and the absense of physical evidence of 6 million vanished
from earth. They believers wish it to be a matter of faith and are
very upset if they have to deal with the absense of physical evidence
for their belief in gas chambers and 6 million Jews missing.
You can attempt to "point out" all the incorrect assertions
you wish. The fact remains that there's a wealth of
physical, documentary and testimonial evidence supporting
the facts of the Holocaust. Don't tell me, let me guess; you
want the physical evidence (not links to it, the *actual*
*physical* evidence) presented here, right?
In your quirky religion there are always claims of physical evidence
of GAS CHAMBERS but no one can ever produce it. GAS CHAMBERS only. If
you took the time to respond why did you not simply recite the
physical evidence of GAS CHAMBERS? It would be much simpler than these
eternal claims evidence exists but never producing it.
--
Iraq embrace western values? We can't even get our
fundies to embrace the American value of freedom
from religion in our government.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3192
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
