The quote-mining of Bruno Baum

[Lohengrin]

In my reaction to the thread "show me alleged gas chamber" (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7092), I wrote about "Hans":

Yes, I hesitate, because serious members of this forum rightfully do no longer answer “Hans” or “ask” him questions: as his postings show, he believes in the most impossible and weird “Holocaust”-Miracles ad absurdum and ad infinitum, he habitually does not answer important questions/problems, repeats refuted nonsense endlessly, gives worthless links and “evidence” (Olère, c.s.), dodging facts, etc.

Thence, I asked him 3 weeks ago now some very, very serious questions about his "Gaschambers" and . . . got (as usual) no answers whatsoever.

Nevertheless, he is allowed to open new threads on this Forum and spreads his baseless opinions/nonsense again and again.

Couldn't it be made a tool for the Moderator, to ban a poster who again-and-again-and-again not seriously (or not at all) answers important questions?

In this item here, the same is happening. Poor "Hans" guy et al., seems not to know there is a big and principal difference between 'information' and 'propaganda'. To be short: information stands for objective non-ideological facts; propaganda for (let's be mild) 50% facts and the rest of it omission, phantasy, would-be nonsens, dogma and lies. In other words, serious people will never take that serious, and no judge, right by his mind, will sentence anybody on grounds of "propaganda", because propaganda = nonsens.

This apart from the contents of the Auschwitz-propaganda about "mass-gassings", etc. Befores tating anything further about that, Hans, answer first my questions in the thread previously mentioned above.

Otherwise, you better stick to the Believers Fora.

[Hektor]

@ Hannover:
Hans correctly, in his OP, pointed to the fact that the word "propaganda" three generations or more ago had another meaning than it has today. What is "Orwellian" with this? Every linguist will tell you that it is a quite normal phenomenon in every living language.

OK Mr Neander, what according to you did the word propaganda mean then?

What do you think, by the way, when Dr. Goebbels wrote in his diary that "we will use the Katyn discoveries in our propaganda"? Did he spread lies about Katyn? So you see that, in the early 1940s, "propaganda" by far not exclusively meant "spreading falsehood."

Leaving authenticity questions aside. Personally, I think he meant exactly what he just said. There is nothing funny about a party in a conflict using incidents and findings for their agitation regardless how true that is. I am sure we will find incidents and findings were Axis powers use them. And they weren't exactly the truth. Now what would make the Allies more reliable or credible then the Axis in this regard?