6
   

HOLOCAUST........ Fact or Fiction?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 05:37 am
@Setanta,
There are some people who refuses to take responsibility for what they post on a2k, and refuses to answer questions posed immediately after they make claims about certain things - saying, "I've already answered."

They're not worth the time of day IMHO.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:01 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

Quote:
Only up to the point that someone else responds to it. If no one has responded you can. But as soon as someone responds you can no longer edit it. I don't always proof read everything I type. Especially when I know the person I am responding to doesn't even care about the content.

I don't wish to make a major deal about this, but you're quite wrong.
You can edit a post here right after you've posted it, if you're concerned about what you posted, like the possibility of your auto spell check changing your words ...
Bottom line: if you post something here you take responsibility for what you've said. You don't blame your auto spell check or call someone a "moron" for reading your post as it was posted.


I am aware that you have a short time to edit a post. Why not make it a thing that you can always return to a post?

It is absurd that a simple spelling error is the problem. Irrelevant even since it did in no way hinder the concept. Not to mention that it was some dozen posts prior and then all of a sudden brought up.

This proves that it has nothing to do with the content but instead just a way to derail the conversation. No one here actually cares about the content they just want to derail the discussion. That is why the spelling error was brought up. It is absurd.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:03 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

There are some people who refuses to take responsibility for what they post on a2k, and refuses to answer questions posed immediately after they make claims about certain things - saying, "I've already answered."

They're not worth the time of day IMHO.


This is funny that he says this when I did exactly as he requested. I answered his question and posted a long response but he didn't even read it or look it over and wants to claim that I didn't answer the question. Anyone can go back and see that I have responded as requested but all I got in response was a bunch of non-sense.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:09 am
@Krumple,
My concern was your calling someone a "moron" for a mistake you made yourself, Krumple. The intention was not to derail the discussion.
You (& anyone else who wants to) can now continue the discussion, if you'd like.


Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:15 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

My concern was your calling someone a "moron" for a mistake you made yourself, Krumple. The intention was not to derail the discussion.
You (& anyone else who wants to) can now continue the discussion, if you'd like.


Oh I had been calling him a moron long before that post.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:17 am
@Krumple,
I missed that.
I'm afraid I switched off the discussion, after a bit. Wink
But carry on now, don't let me stop you!
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:18 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

I missed that.
I'm afraid I switched off the discussion, after a bit. Wink
But carry on now, don't let me stop you!


I figured as much. Thanks for the derail.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:20 am
@Krumple,
Well who could blame me (for switching off)?

izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:22 am
@msolga,
I've pointed out Krumple's erroneous use of 'escape goat,' loads of times, and she's still continued oblivious. The penny only dropped when she was forced to confront the possibility that there was no such thing as an 'escape goat.'

It's not a spelling mistake, it's an extra syllable, which shows she's never, prior to this exchange, seen the word written down. Her excuse, that it was the auto speller's fault, is the excuse a stupid person would use. And, despite being told exactly what the score is, and googling the word, she still thinks scapegoat is two words.

She calls everyone who disagrees with her a moron, but it's clear she is very stupid. That's why she takes Holocaust denial seriously, and doesn't understand why that's anti-Semitic.

I'm amazed she has kept this going. Some people don't know when to stop digging. It's quite sad really.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:26 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

Well who could blame me (for switching off)?


Well you probably wouldn't have got started had you actually read some of the previous posts?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:26 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I've pointed out Krumple's erroneous use of 'escape goat,' loads of times, and she's still continued oblivious. The penny only dropped when she was forced to confront the possibility that there was no such thing as an 'escape goat.'

It's not a spelling mistake, it's an extra syllable, which shows she's never, prior to this exchange, seen the word written down. Her excuse, that it was the auto speller's fault, is the excuse a stupid person would use. And, despite being told exactly what the score is, and googling the word, she still thinks scapegoat is two words.

She calls everyone who disagrees with her a moron, but it's clear she is very stupid. That's why she takes Holocaust denial seriously, and doesn't understand why that's anti-Semitic.

I'm amazed she has kept this going. Some people don't know when to stop digging. It's quite sad really.


He is going to hop on his other account to see what I am writing.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:33 am
@Krumple,
Actually, I had read quite a few of your early posts before opting out, Krumple.
And, as I asked Mark very early in the thread, I found myself wondering what exactly you wanted to achieve by your contributions to the discussion.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:36 am
@Krumple,
Your math assumes that this is the ONLY place that Jews were killed.

If we merely assume there were 10 such places suddenly your math shows that 1.44 million could be killed per year.

You keep using the 6 million figure. No one other than you has suggested that 6 million Jews were gassed. Because 6 million Jews were killed doesn't mean they were all gassed. Many died of starvation, typhus, bullets. If we assume that 3 million were gassed suddenly the numbers do add up.

I find it interesting that you argue the Germans couldn't have burned gassed Jews but then later you acknowledge they burned dead Jews that died of other causes. Which is it? You can't argue both sides of the issue.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:38 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

Actually, I had read quite a few of your early posts before opting out, Krumple.
And, as I asked Mark very early in the thread, I found myself wondering what exactly you wanted to achieve by your contributions to the discussion.


Well you would have had that answer if you had looked at my posts. I clearly stated it. Not just once but several times. I'll say it again to remind you what to look for. I am skeptical of the numbers that have been considered to be actual facts. I presented my case clearly but I get branded as a bigot or antisemitic for saying I don't believe the numbers. Even though I have not said anything negative or pointed directly at jews themselves. I don't have any hatred for them. I am just skeptical of the claims that were made. I challenged them because the evidence doesn't support the claims. This ties right into the discussion topic. Does it not?
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:45 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Your math assumes that this is the ONLY place that Jews were killed.


No but they still need to be moved or handled afterwards.

parados wrote:

If we merely assume there were 10 such places suddenly your math shows that 1.44 million could be killed per year.


But there weren't 10 such places. Auschwitz was considered to be the focal point of where "most of the deaths occured". Those are not my words, those are the claims that I am challenging.

parados wrote:

You keep using the 6 million figure. No one other than you has suggested that 6 million Jews were gassed. Because 6 million Jews were killed doesn't mean they were all gassed. Many died of starvation, typhus, bullets. If we assume that 3 million were gassed suddenly the numbers do add up.


I am saying that 2 million is too large of a number to have been gassed realistically. Disposing of the bodies would have taken too long. I doubt there were 2 million gassed. So your 3 million doesn't even work.

I also mentioned that others did die of disease and malnutrition. Never said they weren't. In fact I think the reality is that most did die of neglect and disease and malnutrition and there were gassing but not at the level that is claimed.

parados wrote:

I find it interesting that you argue the Germans couldn't have burned gassed Jews but then later you acknowledge they burned dead Jews that died of other causes. Which is it? You can't argue both sides of the issue.


There were definitely burning, but they weren't at the amount that is claimed is what I am referring to. I never said that there were NO burnings. I don't know how much more clear I could have been. All I can think is that you fall into that same category of people who immediately assume positions that are not actually being mentioned.

You seem to think since I am skeptical of a number that there are NO numbers. I never said there are no numbers, I am saying I am skeptical of the claimed numbers. There is a difference here and I don't understand why you can't pick that up.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 07:07 am
@parados,
So Krumple, let's start to find the holes in your argument.
You argued that the Germans had no reason to cut off the hair of those being gassed.
BUT...
Quote:
Women had their hair cut off before going into the gas chamber.[14][29] This hair was used "in the manufacture of hair-yarn socks for 'U'-boat crews and hair-felt foot-wear for the Reichs-railway", to quote from a directive sent to all concentration camp commanders in 1942.[3

An order exists showing why that would have been done. In light of that, what is your response?
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 07:11 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

He is going to hop on his other account to see what I am writing.


And what would that other account be? You're paranoid as well as stupid and bigotted?

Btw, if you managed to prove that the Nazis only killed 5 million Jews, and not 6 million, would that make everything alright?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 07:11 am
@Krumple,
Quote:

But there weren't 10 such places. Auschwitz was considered to be the focal point of where "most of the deaths occured". Those are not my words, those are the claims that I am challenging.

Really? Which claim are you challenging? Where did anyone other than YOU claim that 6 million Jews were killed at Auschwitz?

Quote:

I am saying that 2 million is too large of a number to have been gassed realistically. Disposing of the bodies would have taken too long. I doubt there were 2 million gassed. So your 3 million doesn't even work.
No one has claimed that 2 million were gassed at Auschwitz. The estimate is 1.1 million. There was more than one crematory at Auschwitz. According to the timeline there were at least 5. If Auschwitz had 5 crematories why are you basing your numbers on just one of them?

The difference is you are simply ignoring many facts which leads us to believe you are doing so willfully.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 07:22 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Btw, if you managed to prove that the Nazis only killed 5 million Jews, and not 6 million, would that make everything alright?


No it is the point of the matter. It is the fact that it is being used to wedge people against each other. It has been used as a cushion so that they can do evil acts and then if anyone challenges them they can just turn around and call the challenger a nazi to shut them up.

I doubt there were 2 million gassed. So belittling it to say 5 million is just as absurd as saying 6 million.

The whole point is the leverage aspect that is being used.

There is a video on youtube of a girl who is questioning the acts in palestine and even though she has not said anything harsh to anyone she gets called a nazi by some people who are clearly committing crimes. They realize they are being caught stealing land and she is calling them on the theft. To get her to shut up they call her a nazi. She isn't holding any guns or victimizing anyone. She is just shedding light on the reality that israelis are stealing land.

I see this as hypocritical. One the one hand they are victims and yet they turn around and do the exact same thing to others. Which leads me to think that what they claim to be true is not in fact true. So I went back to investigate for myself the claims that were being made to see if they held any water. What I come to discover as that they don't add up. The evidence does not support the numbers.

But as it goes, people don't care about the truth. They have done a really good job at protecting the truth by using antisemitic comments as attempts to get anyone who would investigate the data would shy away from it. Thus preserving the lies so they can be reused later as defensive reasoning why they should be allowed to commit evil acts against other humans.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 07:24 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
If Auschwitz had 5 crematories why are you basing your numbers on just one of them?


It is clear you didn't even bother to read over what I had written. I clearly explored that to the highest extreme and still could not make the numbers work. The fact that you bring this up proves that you didn't even bother to check what was discussed.
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:59:09