Definition of and evidence for the holocaust

[catfish]

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.

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?
.