(May 11, 2013 at 6:43 pm)catfish Wrote: C'mon gramps. You have yet to address my challenge when you claimed to be not a nice person.
So???? Are you basing your judgement of stupidity on a stupidity test that you may or may not have passed?

Actually I am finding this interesting. No one appears to know what this holocaust thing is but they are absolutely certain there are mountains of evidence in support of they don't know what.

You? You just want to bicker. A frightful waste of bandwidth. At least when I wish to remind someone of something they have not done I have the courtesy to repeat what was not done. But no, just attempts to bicker. If I want bickering I can visit my first wife.

Unless I misunderstood a short exchange with the moderators on another matter posting without addition comment is frowned upon. The believers have done almost nothing but that in this thread. Perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps they have been advised and that is why they have chosen to remain silent. I have no idea.

(May 11, 2013 at 7:06 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

(May 11, 2013 at 6:43 pm)catfish Wrote: C'mon gramps. You have yet to address my challenge when you claimed to be not a nice person.
So???? Are you basing your judgement of stupidity on a stupidity test that you may or may not have passed?

Actually I am finding this interesting. No one appears to know what this holocaust thing is but they are absolutely certain there are mountains of evidence in support of they don't know what.

You? You just want to bicker. A frightful waste of bandwidth. At least when I wish to remind someone of something they have not done I have the courtesy to repeat what was not done. But no, just attempts to bicker. If I want bickering I can visit my first wife.

Unless I misunderstood a short exchange with the moderators on another matter posting without addition comment is frowned upon. The believers have done almost nothing but that in this thread. Perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps they have been advised and that is why they have chosen to remain silent. I have no idea.

More fluff, defelection and denial. Predictable Bob is predictable.

Me bicker? I'd hardly call me pointing out your flaws bickering. I state your error, you spew forth foaming fluff (the expanding kind).

What is the definition of "allocution"? Do you maintain that you used that word correctly?

(May 11, 2013 at 7:29 pm)catfish Wrote:

(May 11, 2013 at 7:06 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Actually I am finding this interesting. No one appears to know what this holocaust thing is but they are absolutely certain there are mountains of evidence in support of they don't know what.

You? You just want to bicker. A frightful waste of bandwidth. At least when I wish to remind someone of something they have not done I have the courtesy to repeat what was not done. But no, just attempts to bicker. If I want bickering I can visit my first wife.

Unless I misunderstood a short exchange with the moderators on another matter posting without addition comment is frowned upon. The believers have done almost nothing but that in this thread. Perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps they have been advised and that is why they have chosen to remain silent. I have no idea.

More fluff, defelection and denial. Predictable Bob is predictable.

Me bicker? I'd hardly call me pointing out your flaws bickering. I state your error, you spew forth foaming fluff (the expanding kind).

Yes the above is bickering.

Quote:What is the definition of "allocution"? Do you maintain that you used that word correctly?

Perhaps I used it in error. I used in the sense it is used in US procedurals. It hardly matters correct or not as I spelled out what I meant by it.

Pretending that makes a difference to the thread is also bickering.

Jews can't play basketball......

(May 11, 2013 at 8:10 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Perhaps I used it in error. I used in the sense it is used in US procedurals. It hardly matters correct or not as I spelled out what I meant by it.

Pretending that makes a difference to the thread is also bickering.

Perhaps?
Dude, I pointed out that mistake several times only to have you insist on using it for your definition of acceptable evidence.

You set the standards and later denied them by refusing to admit that a confession is sufficient evidence (you can't deny the confession(s) and the documentary evidence combined).

You want a definition for the holohuggers?

"The attempted or realised mass murder of non-combatants during a time of war"

Of course I expect more fluff, deflection and denial, 'cause you're predictable Bob after all.
.

(May 11, 2013 at 8:11 pm)cratehorus Wrote: Jews can't play basketball......

It is very popular in Israel. You should keep up.

---

(May 11, 2013 at 8:20 pm)catfish Wrote:

(May 11, 2013 at 8:10 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Perhaps I used it in error. I used in the sense it is used in US procedurals. It hardly matters correct or not as I spelled out what I meant by it.

Pretending that makes a difference to the thread is also bickering.

Perhaps?
Dude, I pointed out that mistake several times only to have you insist on using it for your definition of acceptable evidence.

You set the standards and later denied them by refusing to admit that a confession is sufficient evidence (you can't deny the confession(s) and the documentary evidence combined).

I set the standard are more than merely I did it but as a convincing recitation of the nature and manner of the crime. It is much simpler than going through crap like Commandant of Auschwitz and pointing out the book is not traceable to the purported author.

Quote:You want a definition for the holohuggers?

"The attempted or realised mass murder of non-combatants during a time of war"

Of course I expect more fluff, deflection and denial, 'cause you're predictable Bob after all.
.

Far from it but then I have to ask why all this talk about Jews if it had nothing in particular to do with Jews? Based upon the evidence you will provide how mass is mass? The US has had several people described as mass murders in the last 50 years or so. I have heard of 9/11 described as mass murder but that was only of some 3000 people. So you will have to produce evidence of a significant number. I mean 3000 out of the quasi-official 44 million dead for WWII is well down in the noise. It is about 5% of the number of civilians murdered at Dresden. Even the 60,000 or so Palestinians murdered in 1948 is about the same as Dresden and no one finds either significant.

Please feel free to modify your definition and produce evidence for a number of interest. Now I agree one murder is an bad as a million as the perp can only hang once so it does have to be something significant.

(May 11, 2013 at 9:27 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

(May 11, 2013 at 8:20 pm)catfish Wrote: Perhaps?
Dude, I pointed out that mistake several times only to have you insist on using it for your definition of acceptable evidence.

You set the standards and later denied them by refusing to admit that a confession is sufficient evidence (you can't deny the confession(s) and the documentary evidence combined).

I set the standard are more than merely I did it but as a convincing recitation of the nature and manner of the crime. It is much simpler than going through crap like Commandant of Auschwitz and pointing out the book is not traceable to the purported author.

You set the standard as "acceptable by US court standards" or something similar. Your opinion as to what is a "convincing recitation" does not matter at this point.

(May 11, 2013 at 9:27 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

(May 11, 2013 at 8:20 pm)catfish Wrote: You want a definition for the holohuggers?

"The attempted or realised mass murder of non-combatants during a time of war"

Of course I expect more fluff, deflection and denial, 'cause you're predictable Bob after all.
.

Far from it but then I have to ask why all this talk about Jews if it had nothing in particular to do with Jews? Based upon the evidence you will provide how mass is mass? The US has had several people described as mass murders in the last 50 years or so. I have heard of 9/11 described as mass murder but that was only of some 3000 people. So you will have to produce evidence of a significant number. I mean 3000 out of the quasi-official 44 million dead for WWII is well down in the noise. It is about 5% of the number of civilians murdered at Dresden. Even the 60,000 or so Palestinians murdered in 1948 is about the same as Dresden and no one finds either significant.

Please feel free to modify your definition and produce evidence for a number of interest. Now I agree one murder is an bad as a million as the perp can only hang once so it does have to be something significant.

Deflection? Really?

Do you accept that definition or not? Shall we take a poll to determine it's validity?
.

so where did the lamps made from human skin and all the other lovely artpeices the nazis designed for fun... come from?



http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fea...-skin.html

(May 11, 2013 at 10:04 pm)catfish Wrote:

(May 11, 2013 at 9:27 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: I set the standard are more than merely I did it but as a convincing recitation of the nature and manner of the crime. It is much simpler than going through crap like Commandant of Auschwitz and pointing out the book is not traceable to the purported author.

You set the standard as "acceptable by US court standards" or something similar. Your opinion as to what is a "convincing recitation" does not matter at this point.

(May 11, 2013 at 9:27 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Far from it but then I have to ask why all this talk about Jews if it had nothing in particular to do with Jews? Based upon the evidence you will provide how mass is mass? The US has had several people described as mass murders in the last 50 years or so. I have heard of 9/11 described as mass murder but that was only of some 3000 people. So you will have to produce evidence of a significant number. I mean 3000 out of the quasi-official 44 million dead for WWII is well down in the noise. It is about 5% of the number of civilians murdered at Dresden. Even the 60,000 or so Palestinians murdered in 1948 is about the same as Dresden and no one finds either significant.

Please feel free to modify your definition and produce evidence for a number of interest. Now I agree one murder is an bad as a million as the perp can only hang once so it does have to be something significant.

Deflection? Really?

Do you accept that definition or not? Shall we take a poll to determine it's validity?
.

I thought reference to Dresden was conceding 57,000 civilians were murdered during WWII. If that was not clear. Yes WE AGREE that 57,000 civilians were murdered and that that is properly described as mass murder.

What is your problem?

---

(May 11, 2013 at 10:32 pm)cratehorus Wrote: so where did the lamps made from human skin and all the other lovely artpeices the nazis designed for fun... come from?

Good EFing question. Care to post the forensic analysis of whatever all that stuff is supposed to be? There had to have been forensic analyses to establish the fact. As I have no idea how to establish either religion or cause of death from skin samples I am very interested in how it was done. Please post the appropriate links.

Quote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fea...-skin.html

Amusing story but if falls short of the requisite evidence of cause of death and religion -- if you are defining it as religion matters to whatever definition you propose.

But if you are saying a few objects of human skin is all this holy holocaust thing is all about I must say it is hardly worth all the crap surrounding it. Gruesome perhaps even demented but a handful of objects from one camp seems hardly noteworthy.

(May 11, 2013 at 10:37 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

(May 11, 2013 at 10:04 pm)catfish Wrote: You set the standard as "acceptable by US court standards" or something similar. Your opinion as to what is a "convincing recitation" does not matter at this point.


Deflection? Really?

Do you accept that definition or not? Shall we take a poll to determine it's validity?
.

I thought reference to Dresden was conceding 57,000 civilians were murdered during WWII. If that was not clear. Yes WE AGREE that 57,000 civilians were murdered and that that is properly described as mass murder.

What is your problem?

LOL, still deflecting?

Do you accept the definition of "holocaust" as I gave it or not???
.