tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post115860981107481657..comments2024-03-29T02:19:32.860+00:00Comments on Holocaust Controversies: Open ThreadNicholas Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159442548355905362006-09-28T12:22:00.000+01:002006-09-28T12:22:00.000+01:00>Anonymous said... >Roberto> Not if you’re interes...>Anonymous said... <BR/>>Roberto<BR/><BR/>> Not if you’re interested in bringing the fire to the highest temperature within the shortest >possible time. ><BR/><BR/>>During a cremation it is not the goal to bring the fire to "highest temperature within the >shortest time". This would be counter productive.<BR/><BR/>>The reason: The protein structure is changed in a way that the corpses do not burn to ashes >any more.<BR/><BR/>>A cremation specialist<BR/><BR/>By the name of "Claudia", I presume. If I remember correctly, the "thermic barrier", where said change of the protein structure will occur during oven cremation, is around 1300º centigrade or something. If you think the fire in open air incineration reached such temperatures, feel free to demonstrate it. Also explain why what applies to cremation in an oven, which was where you presumably got your "protein structure" thing from, would necessarily apply to incineration in an open fire as well.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159434398019485932006-09-28T10:06:00.000+01:002006-09-28T10:06:00.000+01:00[sockpuppet post by the sole banned reader we have...[sockpuppet post by the sole banned reader we have removed]Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159384243445459012006-09-27T20:10:00.000+01:002006-09-27T20:10:00.000+01:00Roberto> Not if you’re interested in bringing the ...Roberto<BR/><BR/>> Not if you’re interested in bringing the fire to the highest temperature within the shortest possible time. ><BR/><BR/>During a cremation it is not the goal to bring the fire to "highest temperature within the shortest time". This would be counter productive.<BR/><BR/>The reason: The protein structure is changed in a way that the corpses do not burn to ashes any more.<BR/><BR/>A cremation specialistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159319266439927822006-09-27T02:07:00.000+01:002006-09-27T02:07:00.000+01:00Chickenvox is like the Black Knight in excelsis. H...Chickenvox is like the Black Knight in excelsis. How many limbs does he have left? Not many.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I have better things to do with my time than go over old ground when an erstwhile debating partner can't even begin to offer any explanations for evidence presented, except to repeat himself over and over again. <BR/><BR/>"The fat is melted by burning wood, the burning wood generates embers and sparks. Falling embers or sparks would ignite any leaking fat."<BR/><BR/>Ah, the endlessly reiterated embers and sparks. <BR/><BR/>"If the bodies are not close enough to the fire for embers and sparks to ignite leaking combustibles they are not close enough for fat to melt."<BR/><BR/>Our poor Black Knight is clearly incapable of offering anything other than dichotomies that might as well be strawmen. Either instant incineration from embers and sparks, or it is not hot enough. <BR/><BR/>Which is nonsense, as Roberto's example of fat liquidising despite alcohol being on fire to cook a sausage for a picnic illustrates quite well in microcosm. <BR/><BR/>Clearly, our poor Black Knight lacks the imagination to appreciate that there is a continuum at work here, not his hot/cold binary logic.<BR/><BR/>"If the temperature in the middle portion of the trench was only just hot enough to melt (but not ignite) the human fat and the temperature of the trench got progressively lower as it descends, the fat wouldn’t flow anywhere, it would either congeal or achieve a level of viscosity that would slow any flow to an insignificant trickle."<BR/><BR/>Bwahaha! Now our intrepid Black Knight resorts to fat melting, then congealing, in a desperate attempt to keep the fat from escaping. This doesn't even vaguely conform to real-world cooking experiences on stoves or barbecues, and certainly is complete wishful thinking in this situation.<BR/><BR/>It all depends on the speed of the fire, doesn't it, oh Black Knight? Sometimes you want the fire to rip through the entire pile, sometimes you pretend it just inched its way along. <BR/><BR/>"For the reason given above the amount of fat flowing from the trench is likely to be a fraction of the 20lb postulated by Terry but even if we assume that Terry is right and that 20lbs of fat could be collected we have to remember that that mere 20lb of fat is being applied to a massive trench in order to burn hundreds and hundreds of bodies. With regard to the demands of the operation 20lb of fat (more like 3lb) is insignificant. To put this into perspective the proverbial “bucket of lard” (yes I know that pig fat isn't exactly the same as human fat) sold for domestic use often contained 50lb, 20lb of fat on a fire this big doesn’t cut it." <BR/><BR/>Once again our poor Black Knight misses the point. The fat was added back onto the fire to stoke it up further. That means, as an accelerant. That means, at a specific stage of the process, after which such stoking was, relatively speaking, unnecessary. One could use petrol for this, but petrol was not in plentiful supply, so if one could substitute even a tiny fraction by using several gallons of fat, then it was worth having the channel dug just so, and worth having a slave labourer make a few scoops and pour the fat back into the fire. Has our poor Black Knight ever ladled 20lbs of liquid before? It is not something that can be done in one go.<BR/><BR/>Before our poor Black Knight fixates on the speculative figure of 20lbs, based on a much smaller-scale mass incineration than has been testified to by the witnesses, let us remind him of the numbers again.<BR/><BR/>2500 bodies<BR/>weight @40-50kg average = ca. 100-120 tons<BR/>body fat content, 15 tons<BR/>1% of 15 tons is 150kg<BR/><BR/>"You are only left with a default position in which you claim that it was this level of inefficiency that led to the abandonment of this practice,"<BR/><BR/>Who said anything about the abandonment of the practice? If you were actually familiar with the testimonial evidence on this subject you would know that this technique was tried in 1944, initially as an experiment organised by crematoria chief Otto Moll. It worked well enough that it was worth doing so that witnesses then remembered it. <BR/><BR/>"even if you use this get out of jail free option," <BR/><BR/>We have no need.<BR/><BR/>"you are still left with a situation in which the events described by eyewitnesses are impossible."<BR/><BR/>Oh dear, more argumentum ad ignorantium. Black Knight is still yelping despite the absolute lack of legs to his argument. Would anyone else care to have a go persuading Black Knight of his follies?Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159318176127521812006-09-27T01:49:00.000+01:002006-09-27T01:49:00.000+01:00>Here are a couple of points made by Nick Terry wh...>Here are a couple of points made by Nick Terry which are at least (unlike your nonsense) >worthy of discussion.<BR/><BR/>What “nonsense” exactly? The observation suggesting that either a not-(yet)-so-hot fire can get the fat flowing out of the bodies or even a very hot fire will not necessarily consume all fat? And why would that be nonsense? <BR/><BR/>>“Result: bodies 1.5m higher in the sandwich can well have had their body fat close to >combustion or actually combusting, while bodies 1.5m lower in the sandwich can well be >heated up enough to have the fat melt, but not enough to have the fat combust”<BR/><BR/>>It doesn’t matter how cool the lower portion of the trench is. The fat is melted by burning >wood, the burning wood generates embers and sparks. Falling embers or sparks would ignite >any leaking fat. <BR/><BR/>Assuming that a) human fat reacts like the lard in your examples (it may have higher moisture content and hence not be exactly comparable) and b) embers and sparks would necessarily be falling when and where the fat was flowing out of the bodies in the lower layers. If the reason for ignition due to embers or sparks in your lard pan example is that the oil cannot escape from the heat source, then this might also not necessarily apply to fat flowing at the bottom of the incineration pit. <BR/><BR/>>If the bodies are not close enough to the fire for embers and sparks to ignite leaking >combustibles they are not close enough for fat to melt. <BR/><BR/>Why would that be so? <BR/><BR/>>If the temperature in the middle portion of the trench was only just hot enough to melt (but not >ignite) the human fat and the temperature of the trench got progressively lower as it descends, >the fat wouldn’t flow anywhere, <BR/><BR/>You mean that the temperature of the middle portion got progressively lower as the fire moved downwards? This would be indifferent insofar as the molten fat would have left the middle portion and flown to the bottom of the trench before this happened, by the time the middle portion had reached ignition temperature. Ignition temperature in the middle portion in turn would mean pre-ignition temperature in the lower portion, thus precluding the phenomenon you will claim hereafter. <BR/><BR/>>it would either congeal or achieve a level of viscosity that would slow any flow to an >insignificant trickle. <BR/><BR/>Despite the heat’s moving closer to it as the fire progressed downwards from the middle portion of the trench? Unlikely. <BR/><BR/>>”Even if 99% of the fat remained inside the bodies, or ran off and could not be caught, but 1% >could be, you're talking about many tens of pounds of fat. Fat has a BTU of 20,000 per pound, >which uis close to that of petrol. So even if only 20lb could be captured, this is the equivalent of >several gallons of petrol”<BR/><BR/>>For the reason given above the amount of fat flowing from the trench is likely to be a fraction >of the 20lb postulated by Terry <BR/><BR/>Why, because some embers and sparks might fall on the fat at the bottom and ignite it, assuming it reacted like molten lard in a pan? I’d say that ignited part would go with the “ran off and could not be caught” – part in Nick’s scenario, and my assumption is as substantiated or unsubstantiated as yours, so who loses is the fellow saddled with the burden of proof, which is ou. A 99 % loss is a worst case scenario anyway, for if only one out of, say, ten layers of bodies reached fat melting temperature before fat ignition temperature, chances are that at least a considerable portion of the fat in the bodies in that layer would have flown to the bottom before that layer heated up to ignition temperature. <BR/><BR/>>but even if we assume that Terry is right and that 20lbs of fat could be collected we have to >remember that that mere 20lb of fat is being applied to a massive trench in order to burn >hundreds and hundreds of bodies. <BR/><BR/>It’s not being applied to burn, as Nick explained. It’s only being applied to help the burning, raise the fire’s temperature more quickly. <BR/><BR/>>With regard to the demands of the operation 20lb of fat (more like 3lb)<BR/><BR/>That’s a mere speculation, which you have nothing to show for. I am also just speculating, for sure, but the burden of proof is on you as the one who claimed that this process would be impossible. <BR/><BR/>>is insignificant. To put this into perspective the proverbial “bucket of lard” (yes I know that pig >fat isn't exactly the same as human fat)<BR/><BR/>Is lard the same as pig fat in its natural state? <BR/><BR/>>sold for domestic use often contained 50lb, 20lb of fat on a fire this big doesn’t cut it. <BR/><BR/>Why not? Is the relationship between fat mass and body mass so much different from the relationship in an oven when you’re pouring some of a turkey’s fat over the turkey? <BR/><BR/>>You are only left with a default position in which you claim that it was this level of inefficiency >that led to the abandonment of this practice, <BR/><BR/>No, there’s no need for that. 20 to 50 lb of fat scooped off the burning of a thousand bodies would still be a contribution to that burning worth the effort of gathering the fat. <BR/><BR/>>even if you use this get out of jail free option, you are still left with a situation in which the >events described by eyewitnesses are impossible.<BR/><BR/>You haven’t demonstrated any impossibility. The most you could claim would be that this procedure wasn’t worth while, and even that you haven’t demonstrated.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159311584225977142006-09-26T23:59:00.000+01:002006-09-26T23:59:00.000+01:00Here are a couple of points made by Nick Terry whi...Here are a couple of points made by Nick Terry which are at least (unlike your nonsense) worthy of discussion.<BR/><BR/>“Result: bodies 1.5m higher in the sandwich can well have had their body fat close to combustion or actually combusting, while bodies 1.5m lower in the sandwich can well be heated up enough to have the fat melt, but not enough to have the fat combust”<BR/><BR/>It doesn’t matter how cool the lower portion of the trench is. The fat is melted by burning wood, the burning wood generates embers and sparks. Falling embers or sparks would ignite any leaking fat. If the bodies are not close enough to the fire for embers and sparks to ignite leaking combustibles they are not close enough for fat to melt. If the temperature in the middle portion of the trench was only just hot enough to melt (but not ignite) the human fat and the temperature of the trench got progressively lower as it descends, the fat wouldn’t flow anywhere, it would either congeal or achieve a level of viscosity that would slow any flow to an insignificant trickle. <BR/><BR/>”Even if 99% of the fat remained inside the bodies, or ran off and could not be caught, but 1% could be, you're talking about many tens of pounds of fat. Fat has a BTU of 20,000 per pound, which uis close to that of petrol. So even if only 20lb could be captured, this is the equivalent of several gallons of petrol”<BR/><BR/>For the reason given above the amount of fat flowing from the trench is likely to be a fraction of the 20lb postulated by Terry but even if we assume that Terry is right and that 20lbs of fat could be collected we have to remember that that mere 20lb of fat is being applied to a massive trench in order to burn hundreds and hundreds of bodies. With regard to the demands of the operation 20lb of fat (more like 3lb) is insignificant. To put this into perspective the proverbial “bucket of lard” (yes I know that pig fat isn't exactly the same as human fat) sold for domestic use often contained 50lb, 20lb of fat on a fire this big doesn’t cut it. <BR/><BR/>You are only left with a default position in which you claim that it was this level of inefficiency that led to the abandonment of this practice, even if you use this get out of jail free option, you are still left with a situation in which the events described by eyewitnesses are impossible.Vothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04715751005122434993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159307022212880542006-09-26T22:43:00.000+01:002006-09-26T22:43:00.000+01:00>“No, you tell me why you think there would have b...>“No, you tell me why you think there would have been no way to collect fat emanating from >these pyres”<BR/><BR/>>Quite simple really, as I’ve already explained to Nick Terry who gave up the ghost some time >ago now, If you can’t understand my previous posts give me your snail mail address and I’ll >write it out in crayon for you.<BR/><BR/>Trying to run away from repeating your claim, bigmouth? If it’s the one about the collecting trench or trenches needing to have a certain shape or position in relation to the incineration trench, forget about it unless you can prove that shaping or positioning the collection trench or trenches in such way would have been impossible. Same if you wish to continue claiming that no liquid fat would have reached the bottom of the incineration trench to be collected from there, which you also cannot demonstrate. If you have any new idea, however, feel free to share it with us. <BR/><BR/>>Your single contribution to the debate was some inane and irrelevant observation about alcohol >stoves.<BR/><BR/>Assuming our great intellectual can explain what’s supposed to be “inane and irrelevant” about my observation, which shows that fire hot enough to suppurate the skin of a Portuguese chouriço nevertheless does not completely consume the fat dripping into the tub full of burning alcohol. <BR/><BR/>>“What’s your Christian name again, chickenshit?”<BR/><BR/>>No it’s not chickenshit, guess again nimrod.<BR/><BR/>It’s chickenshit as long as don’t show the balls to tell me your Christian name, buddy. <BR/><BR/>“>You have a gift bordering on genius for compressing the least amount of thought into the >greatest number of words, Muelenkamp.” Me<BR/><BR/>>”Same as above.” You<BR/><BR/>>Takes one to know one?<BR/><BR/>The “same as above” referred to my previous comment: «In your irrelevant opinion, that may be so. Is the great intellectual's hysteria getting out of control?» <BR/><BR/>>How appropriate that the wit of the playground follows the wisdom of the lunatic asylum.<BR/><BR/>About which you seem to know a lot. Have you been temporarily released, or are you writing from there?Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159305215215540892006-09-26T22:13:00.000+01:002006-09-26T22:13:00.000+01:00“No, you tell me why you think there would have be...“No, you tell me why you think there would have been no way to collect fat emanating from these pyres”<BR/><BR/>Quite simple really, as I’ve already explained to Nick Terry who gave up the ghost some time ago now, If you can’t understand my previous posts give me your snail mail address and I’ll write it out in crayon for you.<BR/><BR/>Your single contribution to the debate was some inane and irrelevant observation about alcohol stoves.<BR/><BR/> “What’s your Christian name again, chickenshit?”<BR/><BR/>No it’s not chickenshit, guess again nimrod.<BR/><BR/> “>You have a gift bordering on genius for compressing the least amount of thought into the >greatest number of words, Muelenkamp.” Me<BR/><BR/>”Same as above.” You<BR/><BR/>Takes one to know one? How appropriate that the wit of the playground follows the wisdom of the lunatic asylum.Vothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04715751005122434993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159303617385853942006-09-26T21:46:00.000+01:002006-09-26T21:46:00.000+01:00>“Yep, that’s why I only engage in it when fanatic...>“Yep, that’s why I only engage in it when fanatics like yourself can't keep their trap shut”<BR/><BR/>>Your “trap” has just been open for the full duration of the longest least informative post of this >thread. <BR/><BR/>In your irrelevant opinion, that may be so. Is the great intellectual's hysteria getting out of control? <BR/><BR/>>You have a gift bordering on genius for compressing the least amount of thought into the >greatest number of words, Muelenkamp.<BR/><BR/>Same as above. <BR/><BR/>>Now take your tongue out of Nick Terry’s arse for a moment <BR/><BR/>What’s your Christian name again, chickenshit? <BR/><BR/>>and tell me again how this molten fat was collected from these pyres?<BR/><BR/>No, you tell me why you think there would have been no way to collect fat emanating from these pyres.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159299435394385342006-09-26T20:37:00.000+01:002006-09-26T20:37:00.000+01:00“Yep, that’s why I only engage in it when fanatics...“Yep, that’s why I only engage in it when fanatics like yourself can't keep their trap shut”<BR/><BR/>Your “trap” has just been open for the full duration of the longest least informative post of this thread. You have a gift bordering on genius for compressing the least amount of thought into the greatest number of words, Muelenkamp.<BR/><BR/>Now take your tongue out of Nick Terry’s arse for a moment and tell me again how this molten fat was collected from these pyres?Vothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04715751005122434993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159289367471810012006-09-26T17:49:00.000+01:002006-09-26T17:49:00.000+01:00>“I would strongly resent the insinuation that I’m...>“I would strongly resent the insinuation that I’m claiming credit for Nick’s performance”<BR/><BR/>>I don’t blame you. <BR/><BR/>Your irrelevant opinion about Nick’s arguments aside, this means that you would claim credit for someone else’s performance. Which doesn’t surprise me at all. <BR/><BR/>>“your failure to respond to the last part of my post of September 22, 2006 1:03:00 PM and to >my post of September 23, 2006 8:39:20 PM, among others”<BR/><BR/>>Hit me with your most brilliant point then Muelenkamp.<BR/><BR/>Why should I repeat points you haven’t responded to? Just go looking for them on this thread. <BR/><BR/>>“That you just got bored?”<BR/><BR/>>I was quite happily debating with NT but unfortunately he seemed to get bored. You on the >other hand are rather boring. <BR/><BR/>As I said before, that’s a lame excuse not at all compatible with someone whose heated discussion with Nick didn’t exactly make him look like he would owe a response unless he didn’t have one. <BR/><BR/>>You seem to be labouring under the delusion that you were banned from CODOH because of <BR/>>your obvious brilliance. <BR/><BR/>No, the only one here who believes in his "obvious brilliance" is the great intellectual. I was censored and eventually banned simply because "Revisionists" were having trouble responding to the evidence I showed and the arguments I made, and I am by no means the only one to whom this has happened. Just go to the "Memory Hole" section of the RODOH forum: http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18 . <BR/><BR/>Or consider this comment by one of our readers on the thread http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/sticky-chicken-challenge.html#c115872847774002413 : <BR/><BR/>«Someone already commented to denierbud: Let's have a comprehensive discussion at either the Holocaust Controversies website or the RODOH discussion forum. You choose.<BR/><BR/>His response: (my comments in brackets)<BR/>I'll choose:<BR/><BR/>forum.codoh.com<BR/><BR/>You know you won't get deleted there. (Bwahahahahahahaha) Lokulotes and Sobe can post there too. (At least until they start kicking my ass -- then their posts will mysteriously disappear)<BR/><BR/>Anyone who takes a look at the ones proposed by Cortagravatas and the one proposed by me, can see that Codoh forum is the best one. (At least, if you want to avoid any SERIOUS debate or critisism) No name calling, orderly. (And Deniers are guaranteed to win) See you there.<BR/><BR/>Further comment -- who is this guy kidding? He can't address the evidence, and he's going to hide over at CODOH to boot. What intellecutal honesty.»<BR/><BR/>As you can see, censorship on the CODOH forum is old news. I don’t consider myself any more brilliant than anyone else who has experienced it. I don’t have to be. <BR/><BR/>>Have you ever considered that it might have been because you are an abusive pedant who >makes bad arguments? <BR/><BR/>No, already because bad arguments would allow the "Revisionist" side to display its "obvious brilliance" in response. Besides, what kind of debate would that be were posts are censored because the moderator considers them to contain "bad arguments"? <BR/><BR/>>For most sane people endless discussion of the holocaust is boring. <BR/><BR/>Yep, that’s why I only engage in it when fanatics like yourself can't keep their trap shut. <BR/><BR/>>Endless discussion of the holocaust with you takes it to a whole new level.<BR/><BR/>The length of a discussion depends entirely on you, my friend. If you’re tired of discussing, just piss off. <BR/><BR/>>“And when can we expect you to reveal the Christian name that is behind this "Sirgay" ad >hominem smear?”<BR/><BR/>>So the macho Neanderthal didn’t like the suggestion that he might be gay? Is homophobia >another one of his charming traits? What does my identity have to do with the validity of my >arguments?<BR/><BR/>With the validity of your arguments, nothing. With the cowardice you display by throwing ad hominem manure from behind the safety of an alias, everything. <BR/><BR/>>Hiding behind a hasty counter-challenge wont get you off the hook sunshine, link the thread or >button your lip. <BR/><BR/>I don’t need to hide behind anything, already because the one of us two who could link this thread to our Cesspit "rivals" is you, not me. I would love to do so if I could, and if you can convince "Hannover" to let me in it is the first thing I will do. <BR/><BR/>Ah, but you just gave me an idea, my good man: http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm50.showMessage?topicID=281.topicRoberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159285769998885662006-09-26T16:49:00.000+01:002006-09-26T16:49:00.000+01:00“I would strongly resent the insinuation that I’m ...“I would strongly resent the insinuation that I’m claiming credit for Nick’s performance”<BR/><BR/>I don’t blame you. <BR/><BR/>“your failure to respond to the last part of my post of September 22, 2006 1:03:00 PM and to my post of September 23, 2006 8:39:20 PM, among others”<BR/><BR/>Hit me with your most brilliant point then Muelenkamp.<BR/><BR/>“That you just got bored?”<BR/><BR/>I was quite happily debating with NT but unfortunately he seemed to get bored. You on the other hand are rather boring. You seem to be labouring under the delusion that you were banned from CODOH because of your obvious brilliance. Have you ever considered that it might have been because you are an abusive pedant who makes bad arguments? For most sane people endless discussion of the holocaust is boring. Endless discussion of the holocaust with you takes it to a whole new level.<BR/><BR/>“And when can we expect you to reveal the Christian name that is behind this "Sirgay" ad hominem smear?”<BR/><BR/>So the macho Neanderthal didn’t like the suggestion that he might be gay? Is homophobia another one of his charming traits? What does my identity have to do with the validity of my arguments?<BR/><BR/>Hiding behind a hasty counter-challenge wont get you off the hook sunshine, link the thread or button your lip.Vothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04715751005122434993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159261282463204232006-09-26T10:01:00.000+01:002006-09-26T10:01:00.000+01:00>More hot air.… is what you’re offering, as so oft...>More hot air.<BR/><BR/>… is what you’re offering, as so often already throughout our brief acquaintance. <BR/><BR/>Vox<BR/>>The only real argument in this thread came from Nick Terry who gave up. <BR/><BR/>Wishful thinking again? You seem to be big at it. <BR/><BR/>>You were just the afterbirth. You are claiming that you won this argument. <BR/><BR/>Does the "you" refer to me, or to me and my fellow contributors? I would strongly resent the insinuation that I’m claiming credit for Nick’s performance, to which I only contributed some ideas. As to claiming that whoever "you" is won this argument, what other conclusions are we supposed to draw from your failure to respond to the last part of my post of September 22, 2006 1:03:00 PM and to my post of September 23, 2006 8:39:20 PM, among others? That you just got bored? Sorry, Vox, but you haven’t come across like someone who would owe a response if he had one. <BR/><BR/>>I’d have thought that you would be proud to post news of your victory in the camp of your >sworn enemies. <BR/><BR/>Well, maybe you misunderstood the purpose of this blog, then. But of course we have no problem in taking this discussion to "Hannover"’s Cesspit, each of whose members is also welcome to engage any of us either here or at the RODOH open discussion forum (unfortunately for RODOH, few of "Hannover"’s acolytes will ever venture out of the Führerbunker, and "Hannover" is too much a coward to do that anyway). Have you already asked "Hannover" whether he would allow me to post on his forum? <BR/><BR/>>Do it or concede like a man.<BR/><BR/>Your reasoning is somewhat strange, my friend. How would our not taking this discussion to the Cesspit change the apparent fact that you ran out of arguments here? Please explain that. And keep us informed about your efforts to obtain my (re-)admission to the CODOH Cesspit, will you? <BR/><BR/>Talk about being a man, have you already opened your RODOH account? <BR/><BR/>And when can we expect you to reveal the Christian name that is behind this "Sirgay" ad hominem smear?Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159233229646861832006-09-26T02:13:00.000+01:002006-09-26T02:13:00.000+01:00More hot air. The only real argument in this threa...More hot air. The only real argument in this thread came from Nick Terry who gave up. You were just the afterbirth. You are claiming that you won this argument. I’d have thought that you would be proud to post news of your victory in the camp of your sworn enemies. Do it or concede like a man.Vothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04715751005122434993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159226811243431142006-09-26T00:26:00.000+01:002006-09-26T00:26:00.000+01:00>How about winning the fight you’re in now? If you...>How about winning the fight you’re in now? If you are so confident that you have proved that >fat can be drained from humans in the way described by your eyewitnesses, proclaim your >victory on the websites of your rivals. <BR/><BR/>I have no problem with that. I used to post on the CODOH forum until censored and eventually banned, and will continue posting there if someone can convince the moderator "Hannover" to give me an account. But tell me, how would the reaction of our "rivals" change the fact that you ran out of arguments here? Is their judgment supposed to be any standard or something? <BR/><BR/>>I’ve posted my arguments in a hostile environment, don’t you have the balls to do the same? <BR/><BR/>As I told you, I have no problem with posting in a "Revisionist" environment and have done so before. But you don’t even seem to have the balls to meet me in a neutral environment (RODOH). As you also didn’t have the balls to reveal your identity as requested to do after getting personal, that doesn’t surprise me at all, however.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159224959896660292006-09-25T23:55:00.000+01:002006-09-25T23:55:00.000+01:00How about winning the fight you’re in now? If you ...How about winning the fight you’re in now? If you are so confident that you have proved that fat can be drained from humans in the way described by your eyewitnesses, proclaim your victory on the websites of your rivals. I’ve posted my arguments in a hostile environment, don’t you have the balls to do the same?Vothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04715751005122434993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159218335333468532006-09-25T22:05:00.000+01:002006-09-25T22:05:00.000+01:00>Ahhh! So I’ve been spanked? We’ve arrived at the ...>Ahhh! So I’ve been spanked? We’ve arrived at the last sorry act in the pathetic cabaret that is >holocaust fundamentalism, the hollow declaration of victory. <BR/><BR/>Hollow declarations of victory are the trademark of white supremacist or other conspiraloons. Sergey’s was just a plain statement of fact. <BR/><BR/>>Okay, you are claiming that I’ve been spanked, <BR/><BR/>No, we’re concluding on this. <BR/><BR/>>considering the amount of keyboard time >several of you have spent in your clumsy attempts >at rebuttal; <BR/><BR/>No, considering the poverty of your evidence (if any) and arguments. <BR/><BR/>>this “spanking” must be giving you some satisfaction. <BR/><BR/>No, the satisfaction comes from the instructive showpiece of white supremacist intellectual manure you kindly provided. We like to show our readers what you people are all about, and you cooperated splendidly. <BR/><BR/>>I challenge you to post this thread in it’s entirety on Stormfront (I’m neither a fan or a >reader), The Birdman’s website or some other organ of your enemies, to show what a >“spanking” I’ve had. Be prepared to be laughed out off the blogosphere, until then STFU.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I’m sure the Birdbrain or Stormfront troglodytes (see some samples under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/08/meet-celtic-patriots-best-friend.html ) will be laughing their heads off and thereby providing further showpieces of phenomena we like to show our readers. Whether they’ll even understand what they are supposed to be laughing about is another matter. <BR/><BR/>Talk about challenges, here’s one for you: meet me on the forum for Real Open Debate on the Holocaust (RODOH), which you find under http://p102.ezboard.com/brodohforumYou won’t be alone there, trust me. While you may not necessarily find fellow white supremacists, so-called "Revisionists" there are enough. The forum’s boss, Scott Smith, is one as well. This forum was created in response to the discussion forum of the inaptly named "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust" (http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=2), aka the Cesspit, where great intellectuals of your kind slap each other on the back and any critic sees his posts mysteriously disappear as soon as he starts kicking "Revisionist" ass. <BR/><BR/>Ah, before I forget it: <BR/><BR/>>Voxceltica is a male homosexual; surely the most puerile ad hom know to mankind. You are >really showing your class Lippman.<BR/><BR/>… said the same fellow who called my fellow contributor "Sirgay". <BR/><BR/>Never had a problem with contradicting yourself, great intellectual?Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159206982874746862006-09-25T18:56:00.000+01:002006-09-25T18:56:00.000+01:00Ahhh! So I’ve been spanked? We’ve arrived at the ...Ahhh! So I’ve been spanked? We’ve arrived at the last sorry act in the pathetic cabaret that is holocaust fundamentalism, the hollow declaration of victory. <BR/><BR/>Okay, you are claiming that I’ve been spanked, considering the amount of keyboard time several of you have spent in your clumsy attempts at rebuttal; this “spanking” must be giving you some satisfaction. I challenge you to post this thread in it’s entirety on Stormfront (I’m neither a fan or a reader), The Birdman’s website or some other organ of your enemies, to show what a “spanking” I’ve had. Be prepared to be laughed out off the blogosphere, until then STFU.<BR/><BR/>VOXVothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04715751005122434993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159175800183988602006-09-25T10:16:00.000+01:002006-09-25T10:16:00.000+01:00Poor Chickenvox. He thought he got into a lair of ...Poor Chickenvox. He thought he got into a lair of some naive liberals. Instead he got a spanking of his life.<BR/><BR/>Cluck cluck cluck!<BR/><BR/>:-)Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159174853520972232006-09-25T10:00:00.000+01:002006-09-25T10:00:00.000+01:00>“So denier quibbling over the grisly mechanics of...>“So denier quibbling over the grisly mechanics of the Auschwitz gas chamber and crematoria >do not disprove the Holocaust...they have nothing to do with the Einsatzkommandos, the >other camps, or the other extermination measures”<BR/><BR/>>Ahhhh! Finally the holocaust fundamentalists invoke their escape clause. After posting several >thousand words badly defending improbable allegations they turn around and claim that the >whole subject is irrelevant. Bravo gentlemen!<BR/><BR/>Wishful thinking is also thinking, apparently much the only thinking that the great intellectual is capable of. The thought that David might just have wanted to remind him of the futility of his haggling about details of the body disposal process at Auschwitz-Birkenau apparently didn’t occur to this showpiece of white supremacist intellectual brilliance. And it apparently takes that intellectual brilliance to see a contradiction between exposing the evidentiary and/or argumentative fallacies of his haggling and pointing out the irrelevance thereof. <BR/><BR/>>I’m glad you acknowledge the extensive anti-White racism engendered by subscription to the >multicultural philosophy of Jewish intellectual Horace Kallen. The worst example of this racism >was the protracted torture, mutilation and burning alive of fifteen-year-old Kriss Donald, a >murder that strangely didn’t get the same national media attention as far less savage murders >of Blacks like Anthony Walker and Steven Lawrence for some reason.<BR/><BR/>No comment except one: please give us more such "what they do nobody cares about, what we do everybody howls about" - statements, Vox. They are so instructive of that oh-so-brilliant mind’s deplorable contents that they are worth collecting.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159120721872249462006-09-24T18:58:00.000+01:002006-09-24T18:58:00.000+01:00“So denier quibbling over the grisly mechanics of ...“So denier quibbling over the grisly mechanics of the Auschwitz gas chamber and crematoria >do not disprove the Holocaust...they have nothing to do with the Einsatzkommandos, the >other camps, or the other extermination measures”<BR/><BR/>Ahhhh! Finally the holocaust fundamentalists invoke their escape clause. After posting several thousand words badly defending improbable allegations they turn around and claim that the whole subject is irrelevant. Bravo gentlemen!<BR/><BR/>“to advance his own worthless cause and to invest his life and existence with importance and attention that he does not deserve”<BR/><BR/>A perfect example of Freudian projection, and also a perfect description of holocaust fundamentalists; bravo once more.<BR/><BR/>“In other words, he's trying very, very, very hard to be the middle school bullies who probably threw his schoolbags down the stairs, smacked him on the back of the head, and calling him unpleasant names, in front of the other kids and the girls upon whom he had unrelieved crushes...and maybe the boys, too”<BR/><BR/>The crafting of a psychological mythos for understanding dissent has its genesis in Communist Russia (the state inspired by Marx and Engles), where dissidents were diagnosed as mentally ill. <BR/><BR/>“and maybe the boys, too”<BR/><BR/>Voxceltica is a male homosexual; surely the most puerile ad hom know to mankind. You are really showing your class Lippman.<BR/><BR/>“My guess is that those bullies were probably Indian, Pakistani, African, and Asian kids in his Glasgow comprehensive”<BR/><BR/>I’m glad you acknowledge the extensive anti-White racism engendered by subscription to the multicultural philosophy of Jewish intellectual Horace Kallen. The worst example of this racism was the protracted torture, mutilation and burning alive of fifteen-year-old Kriss Donald, a murder that strangely didn’t get the same national media attention as far less savage murders of Blacks like Anthony Walker and Steven Lawrence for some reason.<BR/><BR/>Amateur historian, amateur psychologist, your talents have almost no beginnings Dave.Vothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04715751005122434993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159071028088138192006-09-24T05:10:00.000+01:002006-09-24T05:10:00.000+01:00KW, look up these sites: http://holocaust-info.dk/...KW, look up these sites: <BR/><BR/>http://holocaust-info.dk/statistics/hillberg_cause.htm<BR/>http://www.deathcamps.org/occupation/auschwitz.html<BR/><BR/>The death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau was about 1 million, thereof about 900,000 Jews, according to recent research by Gerlach and Aly. <BR/><BR/>>So denier quibbling over the grisly mechanics of the Auschwitz gas chamber and crematoria >do not disprove the Holocaust...they have nothing to do with the Einsatzkommandos, the >other camps, or the other extermination measures.<BR/><BR/>I don’t think our friend wants to "disprove" the Nazi genocide of the Jews. He just wants to show what a great intellectual he is. <BR/><BR/>> Actually, as you noted, his purpose is not only to show off an erudition he neither earned nor deserved, but to hurl derision and contempt at people who defend the truth so as to advance his own worthless cause and to invest his life and existence with importance and attention that he does not deserve, either.<BR/><BR/>But as you also noted, he's admitted to not being "intelligent and articulate" enough for dialogue, and his only real weapons are "derision and contempt."<BR/><BR/>In other words, he's trying very, very, very hard to be the middle school bullies who probably threw his schoolbags down the stairs, smacked him on the back of the head, and calling him unpleasant names, in front of the other kids and the girls upon whom he had unrelieved crushes...and maybe the boys, too...<BR/><BR/>My guess is that those bullies were probably Indian, Pakistani, African, and Asian kids in his Glasgow comprehensive, and he is still determined to show those bullies that "white power" can rule the school and the day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159058303717682942006-09-24T01:38:00.000+01:002006-09-24T01:38:00.000+01:00>Another point is that the Auschwitz death toll is...>Another point is that the Auschwitz death toll is 1.5 million, which is just over one-sixth of the >Holocaust death bill.<BR/><BR/>KW, look up these sites: <BR/><BR/>http://holocaust-info.dk/statistics/hillberg_cause.htm<BR/>http://www.deathcamps.org/occupation/auschwitz.html<BR/><BR/>The death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau was about 1 million, thereof about 900,000 Jews, according to recent research by Gerlach and Aly. <BR/><BR/>>So denier quibbling over the grisly mechanics of the Auschwitz gas chamber and crematoria >do not disprove the Holocaust...they have nothing to do with the Einsatzkommandos, the >other camps, or the other extermination measures.<BR/><BR/>I don’t think our friend wants to "disprove" the Nazi genocide of the Jews. He just wants to show what a great intellectual he is.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159053570040320252006-09-24T00:19:00.000+01:002006-09-24T00:19:00.000+01:00Another point is that the Auschwitz death toll is ...Another point is that the Auschwitz death toll is 1.5 million, which is just over one-sixth of the Holocaust death bill.<BR/><BR/>So denier quibbling over the grisly mechanics of the Auschwitz gas chamber and crematoria do not disprove the Holocaust...they have nothing to do with the Einsatzkommandos, the other camps, or the other extermination measures.<BR/><BR/>"No holes...no Holocaust" is a sweeping generality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1159041970294934432006-09-23T21:06:00.000+01:002006-09-23T21:06:00.000+01:00>SirgayUnlike the great intellectual’s puerile mon...>Sirgay<BR/><BR/>Unlike the great intellectual’s puerile moniker, Sergey’s "chickenvox" is an appropriate designation, considering the great intellectual’s ongoing failure to identify himself.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.com