Robin Levett wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

Robin Levett wrote:

PeteM wrote:

It's an example of pointing to what *he thinks* is a problem, which is
all that any of us can do. Any of us can be wrong and anyone who thinks
Mr Giwer is mistaken can simply contradict him. Then he will have his
turn, and so on until we have seen what everyone has to say. At that
point each reader can make his judgement as to whether Mr Giwer's point
genuinely is a problem, or not.

The problem we have experienced, however, is that Giwer (or Kainee, as
he used to call himself) will refuse to accept any evidence of
gaschambers, while insisting that all he is asking for is evidence of
gaschambers.

Perhaps the best explanation for your failure to read my replies is
your silly trick of setting the replies to talk.origins only so you
can claim I never respond to your claims as I never see your reply.

I beg your pardon? All but two of my replies to you have been to all
four groups to which you are spamming your nonsense.

QED. You do what I said.

You introduce a precise knowledge of how many times as a means of
claiming events over the last 5-6 years since you have been doing
this.

Does the word DUMB have any meaning in your vocabulary?

I had always wondered how cops get information from people so easily.
When I was told it was volunteered I didn't believe it. Dealing with
holohuggers was the first time I was able to see massive evidence
confirming it.

It is juvenile tricks like yours that are used to create a false
impression of what I post.

(Anyone curious, scroll back in the thread and look at this cuckold
playing that game. Why does he do this only on matters where he wants
to claim success in the light of failure?)

What is means is you are lying through your teeth. If I don't catch
it, I never see replies to my post. If I do catch it I usually reset
the newsgroups but leave out talk.origins so you never see the
response.

This time I restore and include talk.origins simply to give
your holohugger trick exposure in talk.origins.

In the future, every time you try the trick I will restore without
including talk.origins.

Stop the game, silly boy.

Specific to your claim, I say PHYSICAL evidence and you never provide
it. You merely recite evidence, not physical evidence, has been
provided.

When I recite why it is not physical evidence of course you
do not read it because I do not include t.o in the list which I have
to restore.

His stance is not one of a neutral skeptic; it is that of an apologist
for
the Nazis.  He has, with a straight face, claimed that World War II was
the fault of the British (specifically) and the French because they stood
in the way of Germany's legitimate claims.

Silly boy. The newsgroups are replete with apologists for communism
which murder ten times more than Hitler is accused of.

People like you
excuse the British who enslaved over a BILLION people simply because
the billion were not white.

He has misrepresented the significance of the evidence of cyanide found
at Auschwitz; he has even misrepresented the Irving trial!

Silly, silly boy. What does that have to do with physical evidence of
gas chambers?

In any event, little boy, stop setting the follow-ups and you may be
able to participate in the discussion so everyone can see what an
idiot you are. This is the last time I will include t.o when you set
follow-ups to t.o only.

David Iain Greig wrote:

PeteM <me@privacy.net> wrote:

You might as well say, hell, who cares whether the Black Death of the
14th century was bubonic plague or something else? Who cares whether it
was a third of the English population who died, or only a quarter? Who
cares whether it was spread by rats, fleas, bad personal hygiene or
infected drinking water? All that matters is that lots of people died
and it was awful!

As I clearly said above, Dachau was not a deathcamp. That inmates
from Dachau were killed is also undisputable - plus the Soviets
who were shot nearby.

When did "soviets" get near Dachau? But you bring up the once
indisputable issue of 400,000 people having been gassed at Dachau. How
can indisputable facts change?

Well actually that's *not* all that matters. These are not just
"semantic games". They are the facts, or otherwise, of history, and the
legitimate subject of free enquiry and discussion, including sceptical
inquiry and doubt. You may disagree with Mr Giwer, but he is doing a lot
more by pointing to problems with the official account, and asking
people to overcome his objections, than those who simply bleat their
agreement with it.

His statement about 'windows in the gas chamber' in Dachau is presumably
an example of 'pointing to problems' is it?

I gave the link showing the "gas chambers" which were "used" for the
Dachau war crimes trials and the one built later to show ticket buying
tourists who insisted upon seeing a gas chamber. Why did you not look
at the pictures?

We know that some of the atrocity stories of WWII, including some
stories of the extermination camps, were lies. We know that, even today,
a lot of people have a great many misconceptions about how many people
were killed where and by what means.

Agreed. Only something like 1.1 to 1.3 million people died in Auschwitz
(including Birkenau), not the 3 million figure that came out at the end
of the war.

In fact the books that recorded the deaths at Auschwitz released by
Russia over ten years ago show only 120,000 or so and all from
recorded and unsuspicious causes. Where is the physical evidence of a
higher number? What was the method of death and the physical evidence
of the method?

It really does not increase credibility to exchange one large WAG for
a smaller WAG.

There are legitimate questions here. You may not be interested in
knowing the truth, and its converse, knowing what is *not* true, or at
least what is not known for sure. Others are.

By 'deathcamp', I agree this should be restricted to the Aktion
Reinhard camps. However, reasonable people may say that at the
end of the war, Bergen-Belsen *became* 'a death camp', as opposed
to 'a deathcamp'. Even Auschwitz wasn't 100% a 'deathcamp' anyhow,
unlike Treblinka or Sobibor or others. But then, Auschwitz was
special. Mayhbe we should say 'todeslager' or 'vernichtungslager'?

The issue is gas chambers. Do you have physical evidence for gas
chambers? If not, then you are free to introduce physical evidence for
the other causes of death you propose and sufficient evidence to
arrive at a total number.

Merely working "death" into a descriptive term is no more than an
exercise in creative linguistics.

Sporkmastar Fred wrote:

It really doesn't matter how much evidence people give, does
it? You'll always be there, ready to give your fresh and
radical opinion on the subject. I mean, it's what makes you
smarter than everyone else, right? You're right and everyone
else is wrong. Makes you pretty special, doesn't it?
Everybody likes to be special.

I also know the Old Testament is total myth. I also know alien
abductions are *****. This is just one more among very
many. There are so many people who believe so many stupid
things it is hard to keep track of them all. Would you believe
there are even people who believe Bush was right to invade
Iraq? Who swear WMDs have been found? And that is only in the
last couple years when it is very easy to check the facts.

Am I right?

I am still waiting for the first physical evidence of gas
chambers just like I am waiting for Iraqs enormous stockpile
of weapons capable of attacking the US. I am not holding my
breath for either.