Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
You're quite correct. Those who accept the standard story should relish the opportunity to refute the Revisionists, but heretofore they have either been to afraid to try (inwardly knowing they would be shot down), or their attempts have been refuted with the greatest of ease. They have every opportunity to refute us, but simply cannot when they go head to head with informed Revisionists. Their absurd stories, their anger, their frustrations, and their desires to ban open discussion of the subject exposes them like nothing else. AshesAreBurning has come unglued with the raw truth in his face.
Let us call them the 'science deniers'.
Don't simply repost here what someone else posted and then claim that your rebuttal was censored, show us the rebuttal you claim was censored. I hope you understand the difference.
Please post any examples you have here:
'Are there points that have been missed or censored?'
Here's your chance.
AshesAreBurning wrote:1. You do not use an academically acceptable format for sources
2. A many of your sources are secondary from revisionist sites
3. Every attempt to refute a source has been censored. tisk tisk
Your reply is somewhat disappointing. You know, quite honestly, I would appreciate you to give some strong arguments. In a way, I would even be relieved to find that the Story was true, honest scientists and all in it's due order.
Ad 1. Doesn't really matter. Form is only secondary to science. There is lots of established science with perfect form that is still total crap.
Ad 2. If you try to track some of the information given down, you will find that what they claim - at least as far as sources are concerned - is usually true. I started just like you by suspecting they make it up, but when you actually make the effort to validate the sources - as far as you've access to them - it turns out they're not lying.
Ad 3. Don't know about that. Try again? I'm still hoping for your convincing evidence.
-Michael C. Howard, Contemporary Cultural Anthropology
I believe you've done that before.
The word I get is that it was a bit too aggressive.
Ok. I will try again, but toned down a bit.
The utter hypocrisy exhibited by Ashes is breathtaking.
You're a bunch of scummy sick little bastards.
Typical. Never address the issue, just call names. How many times have we tried to engage this guy in reasonable conversation?
You seek to reincarnate hatred by creating a hoax.
As others have pointed out, this one really takes the cake. Probably the best example of that old Polish Proverb I alluded to before: "The jew screams stop kicking me while he kicks you." The H is the biggest lie ever, and how many Germans are hated for it?
Just know one thing, if one Jew is harmed as a result of this website,...
There are revisionists in jail, Germar Rudolf had to flee Germany, Faurrison got the crap beat out of him, Graf has to live in exile, Zundel rotted in a Canadian jail, now he sits in a German jail cell, etc., etc., etc. Once again, The Polish Proverb.
Hey, Ashes, what is worse, telling about tossing babies into a fire but being meant as a joke, or LYING about tossing babies into a fire and meant to be serious? Well, I assume you agree that the latter is worse. Not only is it in bad taste, but it is a serious allegation, quite harmful to the accused. Now, according to Elie Wiesel, (The guy you refuse to denounce as a liar, despite my many offers), the Germans did just that. That he is lying should be clear; not even the 'establishment' Big H historians go along with him on that one. Also, depsite your claim that "You will take a quote out of context. ", well, I invite you to read Night. You can also read how he chose to go with those sadistic baby burners rather than wait to be 'liberated' by the Soviets.
So, once again, Ashes, are you going to continue to complain because we are more concerned with telling the truth than worshiping the Big H, or are you going to start to debate in a fair manner? Tell us a specific point you feel supports the standard story, and we'll discuss it is a reasonable way.
Yes, well put. Exactly! And, not only willing, but we have done just that!: We believe we have the truth on our side, and we're willing to state intelligent reasons why. It's that simple.
They won't come on, at least for long, because they aren't able to effectively debate their untrue position. Thus they do what you do: Villify us.
Well, boo-hoo. I think Mr Twain is entitled to make a joke if he wants. The Big H Lie is so despicable, and that article so pathetic (I still don't know what to make of it!) how could ANY type of response be considered bad taste?"...there was an offensive joke in there involving mothers".
I actually on one level admire AshesAreBurning for getting mad about that and saying something that he knows will get him banned.
What does he have, 13 posts? He could not give a damn about getting banned! And, he is not mad about mothers. He is mad about JEWISH mothers. He is mad someone dared to mock their sacred, gutter religion, The Big H.
1. You do not use an academically acceptable format for sources
2. A many of your sources are secondary from revisionist sites.
The problem with revisionism is its challengers don't read or inform themselves of revisionist material before criticizing it.
It's obvious to me that criticism of revisionism's format is a technicality being used as an excuse to avoid the main truths involved in the material. The quote above is the avoidance of those main points that it appears to be. It is just another classic example of moving the argument into technical side issues in order to avoid discussing pertinent material.
But it is worse than that because it obviously originates from a source that is neither familiar with or interested in learning about that material. When you reject all revisionist material without objectively considering its merit, you usually end up discussing sources and formats instead of facts.
What these critics don't comprehend is that the sources and references are exactly the same as those used by holocaust authorities. In fact, they are even more thorough and researched. As much as I like to encourage debate, I think it is pretty hopeless with people who refuse to acknowledge irrefutable facts or even study the material.
What options are there for bearers of the exterminationist argument? The witchunt is on.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests