Two types of Holocaust Deniers?

[Scott Smith]

Roberto, you seem positively hysterical.
So what's your point?

[Roberto]

Roberto, you seem positively hysterical.

Whatever my defects, hysteria was never one of them. It the True Believer resorting to ad hominem attacks because he has again run out of arguments?

So what's your point?

The usual one. Smith produces a lot of nonsense when the day is long, and he's not exactly very imaginative because he produces always the same nonsense. For details see my last post.



A self-portrait of Smith, the frustrated fuming wannabe grand dragon, I presume.

[Scott Smith]

Come now, Roberto! You just rehash the same stuff over and over again and most of it is highly tangential anyway. And you do it with hysteria--oops, how about evangelical fervor? Sometimes you can provide a progressive argument, as Xanthro, Tarpon27, and Hans have done many times, but usually it is just the old reductionistic cut-and-paste. It's not an insult, really. I'm only trying to be honest. You do have your finer qualities, of course. But slaying dragons isn't one of them. Btw, I was impressed by the story of your uncle. Thanks for making that contribution.

Best Regards,
Scott

There are many points-of-view, even at the Superstition Mountains...

[Roberto]

Come now, Roberto! You just rehash the same stuff over and over again and most of it is highly tangential anyway.

No. I take apart Smith's propaganda nonsense over and over again. If I can afford to "rehash" arguments already presented before on many occasions, that's because Smith hardly ever comes up with anything new but keeps repeating the same old beaten articles of faith over and over again.

And you do it with hysteria--oops, how about evangelical fervor?

Both I leave to Smith. Objective and thorough deconstruction of Smith's sermons are what appeals to me. Motivated by my interest in historical facts and the pleasure I take in kicking propagandist liars all over the place.

Sometimes you can provide a progressive argument, as Xanthro, Tarpon27, and Hans have done many times, but usually it is just the old reductionistic cut-and-paste.

A rather feeble and somewhat less than honest insult, considering that my arguments always end up leaving Smith without a response and resorting to cheap name-calling to cover up his nakedness.

It's not an insult, really.

Considering the flagrant dishonesty of it, an insult is what it deserves to be called.

I'm only trying to be honest.

Something you've never been good at, and this does not look like the first time you will be.

You do have your finer qualities, of course. But slaying dragons isn't one of them.

I don't intend to slay the wannabe grand dragon Smith. All I do is point out the half-truths, absurdities and downright lies he tries to hammer into people's heads. And judging by the feeble insults he throws at me instead of arguments he doesn't have, I'd say I'm rather good at it.

There are many points-of-view, even at the Superstition Mountains...

Some quite reasonable and thus convincing, others less so. In stating what I think of the latter, I'm doing nothing more than exercising my right to free speech. It works both ways, you know.

[Scott Smith]

No. I take apart Smith's propaganda nonsense over and over again. If I can afford to "rehash" arguments already presented before on many occasions, that's because Smith hardly ever comes up with anything new but keeps repeating the same old beaten articles of faith over and over again.

No, I just refuse to continue with endless Is-Too/Is-Not or reductionistic Spam. I know you think that is victory but I am satisfied just the same when you clutch your delusions. It would be horrible if you left! The board might die from boredom. Honestly.

There are many points-of-view, even at the Superstition Mountains...

Some quite reasonable and thus convincing, others less so. In stating what I think of the latter, I'm doing nothing more than exercising my right to free speech. It works both ways, you know.

I support your right to free speech, to disagree with me, and to hold earnestly whatever superstitions you desire. That is another reason why I don't necessarily mind if you get the last word. I have always stated that the objective in debate is to agree-to-disagree.

I know that is hard for you and Charles, but bless your hearts, anyway.

Best Regards,
Scott

[Roberto]

No. I take apart Smith's propaganda nonsense over and over again. If I can afford to "rehash" arguments already presented before on many occasions, that's because Smith hardly ever comes up with anything new but keeps repeating the same old beaten articles of faith over and over again.
No, I just refuse to continue with endless Is-Too/Is-Not or reductionistic Spam.

When the facts and arguments presented by his opponent leave him mute, Smith withdraws with his tail between his legs and mumbles some incoherent stuff about "endless Is-Too/Is-Not or reductionistic Spam"
to cover his retreat.

I know you think that is victory but I am satisfied just the same when you clutch your delusions.

This is not about victory. It is about informing and convincing an audience. Once in a while the realization seems to dawn on Smith that he has little to offer in this respect.

It would be horrible if you left! The board might die from boredom. Honestly.

Smith would certainly take care of that. He's trying hard already.

There are many points-of-view, even at the Superstition Mountains...

Some quite reasonable and thus convincing, others less so. In stating what I think of the latter, I'm doing nothing more than exercising my right to free speech. It works both ways, you know.
I support your right to free speech, to disagree with me, and to hold earnestly whatever superstitions you desire.

What "superstitions", Mr. Smith? I leave those to the True Believers in the supreme virtue of National Socialism and the utter rottenness of World Jewry.

That is another reason why I don't necessarily mind if you get the last word.

With no facts and solid arguments to offer, you don't have much of a choice, do you?

I have always stated that the objective in debate is to agree-to-disagree.

Nothing against that in principle, but it requires facts and defensible arguments on both sides of the debate. Propaganda lies you cannot reasonably "agree to disagree" with.

I know that is hard for you and Charles, but bless your hearts, anyway.

May the Lord give you twice what you're wishing me (a Portuguese saying).

[Scott Smith]

This is not about victory. It is about informing and convincing an audience. Once in a while the realization seems to dawn on Smith that he has little to offer in this respect.

I admit that I don't have all the answers, if that's what you mean.

What "superstitions", Mr. Smith? I leave those to the True Believers in the supreme virtue of National Socialism and the utter rottenness of World Jewry.

I don't recall having ever made those arguments. Let me put on my fire-breathing dragon costume so that you can play St. Roberto on your white steed!

Nothing against that [agreeing-to-disagree] in principle, but it requires facts and defensible arguments on both sides of the debate. Propaganda lies you cannot reasonably "agree to disagree" with.

Don't mock Chuck! It is not very nice, Roberto.

May the Lord give you twice what you're wishing me (a Portuguese saying).

Darn, I don't believe in the Lord. Or, if He exists, I don't think that it has been proved, and therefore I strive to be skeptical and not to hold any superstitions. But I do wish you and Charles the very-best.

[Roberto]

This is not about victory. It is about informing and convincing an audience. Once in a while the realization seems to dawn on Smith that he has little to offer in this respect.

I admit that I don't have all the answers, if that's what you mean.

No, that's not what I mean. I was referring to distortion, misrepresentation or dismissal of facts in support of an ideological agenda.

What "superstitions", Mr. Smith? I leave those to the True Believers in the supreme virtue of National Socialism and the utter rottenness of World Jewry.

I don't recall having ever made those arguments.

If there were such a thing as a hypocrisy contest, this statement would win the first price. Let's refresh Smith's memory with a few quotes of his:

I'm simply not going to be convinced just because Jews suffered and can't forget to stop telling us about it--those who basically have their own cruel Lebensraum imperative going on in the Holy Land, enabled by the Diaspora and perpetually needing to be justified somehow.

I never said that all of these Nazis were honorable men.

Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:16 pm Post subject: SONDERKOMMANDO Reunion
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 87e3e0fb54

Nuremberg's blanket criminality of the SS, the Nazi Party, the German people, and the Gentiles in general, was wrong.

Fri Apr 19, 2002 6:20 pm Post subject: Re: NAZIS
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 87e3e0fb54

Here we have a monumental accusation made against Gentiles in general and Germany in particular, that harms the German people--except of course their leaders, and perhaps also the plastic-spoon generation of neo-Germans--and it harms all of the Palestinian people.

Thu May 09, 2002 6:58 am Post subject: POINTLESS.
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 338adb8cad

The Holocaust, however, is an accusation against the German people (but not their modern leaders or the postwar plastic-spoon generation) and against Gentiles in general.

Mon May 20, 2002 12:40 am Post subject: MY-DOXY and THY-DOXY...
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... b9e137e9e9

I don't call the Holocaust a "Hoax," for example, because, even if I did believe that, I would have to prove a negative or argue a conspiracy-theory or sorts, and I don't think the world works that way.

Fri May 24, 2002 6:31 pm Post subject: SPECIES of DENIAL
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 11460ba464

Since this story consititutes a horrendous and uniquely incomparible accusation made against the German people, and perhaps all Gentiles in general, it is extremely important that we know as much as possible.

Fri May 24, 2002 7:42 pm Post subject: SPECIES of DENIAL...
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... a464#24008

Let me put on my fire-breathing dragon costume so that you can play St. Roberto on your white steed!

I won't slay the poor fellow. I'll just let him fume with rage and laugh at the spectacle. Only watch out for those carpets ...

Nothing against that [agreeing-to-disagree] in principle, but it requires facts and defensible arguments on both sides of the debate. Propaganda lies you cannot reasonably "agree to disagree" with.

Don't mock Chuck! It is not very nice, Roberto.

Why, has Chuck produced any progapadanda lies? Show us one.

May the Lord give you twice what you're wishing me (a Portuguese saying).

Darn, I don't believe in the Lord.

Neither do I. But I like the saying. It works both ways.

[Scott Smith]

What "superstitions", Mr. Smith? I leave those to the True Believers in the supreme virtue of National Socialism and the utter rottenness of World Jewry.

I don't recall having ever made those arguments.

If there were such a thing as a hypocrisy contest, this statement would win the first price. Let's refresh Smith's memory with a few quotes of his:

Nice try! But you are again trying to distort my views with your own slogans: "Bloody Jew," "Dirty Jew," and now, "the utter rottenness of World Jewry."

Nothing against that [agreeing-to-disagree] in principle, but it requires facts and defensible arguments on both sides of the debate. Propaganda lies you cannot reasonably "agree to disagree" with.

Don't mock Chuck! It is not very nice, Roberto.

Why, has Chuck produced any progapadanda lies? Show us one.

No, Chuck's position has been--and I hope that he has come around a little--very similar to yours: that anyone who disagrees with him is a "propaganda liar."

That is more in line with theology, not History, which consists of (hopefully informed) points-of-view, not Moral Certainties and superstitions. Give me a swig from that flask of everlasting-Wahrheit, Good Sir!

I won't slay the poor fellow. I'll just let him fume with rage and laugh at the spectacle.

Come, my Saint, at least TRY to look like you're battling with your demons.

[Roberto]

What "superstitions", Mr. Smith? I leave those to the True Believers in the supreme virtue of National Socialism and the utter rottenness of World Jewry.

I don't recall having ever made those arguments.

If there were such a thing as a hypocrisy contest, this statement would win the first price. Let's refresh Smith's memory with a few quotes of his:

Nice try! But you are again trying to distort my views with your own slogans: "Bloody Jew," "Dirty Jew," and now, "the utter rottenness of World Jewry."

No, my dear boy. I'm just letting your own words speak for themselves:

I'm simply not going to be convinced just because Jews suffered and can't forget to stop telling us about it--those who basically have their own cruel Lebensraum imperative going on in the Holy Land, enabled by the Diaspora and perpetually needing to be justified somehow.

I never said that all of these Nazis were honorable men.

Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:16 pm Post subject: SONDERKOMMANDO Reunion
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 87e3e0fb54

Nuremberg's blanket criminality of the SS, the Nazi Party, the German people, and the Gentiles in general, was wrong.

Fri Apr 19, 2002 6:20 pm Post subject: Re: NAZIS
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 87e3e0fb54

Here we have a monumental accusation made against Gentiles in general and Germany in particular, that harms the German people--except of course their leaders, and perhaps also the plastic-spoon generation of neo-Germans--and it harms all of the Palestinian people.

Thu May 09, 2002 6:58 am Post subject: POINTLESS.
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 338adb8cad

The Holocaust, however, is an accusation against the German people (but not their modern leaders or the postwar plastic-spoon generation) and against Gentiles in general.

Mon May 20, 2002 12:40 am Post subject: MY-DOXY and THY-DOXY...
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... b9e137e9e9

I don't call the Holocaust a "Hoax," for example, because, even if I did believe that, I would have to prove a negative or argue a conspiracy-theory or sorts, and I don't think the world works that way.

Fri May 24, 2002 6:31 pm Post subject: SPECIES of DENIAL
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 11460ba464

Since this story consititutes a horrendous and uniquely incomparible accusation made against the German people, and perhaps all Gentiles in general, it is extremely important that we know as much as possible.

Fri May 24, 2002 7:42 pm Post subject: SPECIES of DENIAL...
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... a464#24008

Nothing against that [agreeing-to-disagree] in principle, but it requires facts and defensible arguments on both sides of the debate. Propaganda lies you cannot reasonably "agree to disagree" with.

Don't mock Chuck! It is not very nice, Roberto.

Why, has Chuck produced any progapadanda lies? Show us one.

No, Chuck's position has been--and I hope that he has come around a little--very similar to yours: that anyone who disagrees with him is a "propaganda liar."

Not people who disagree. Only intellectually dishonest True Believers like Smith. Big difference.

That is more in line with theology, not History, which consists of (hopefully informed) points-of-view, not Moral Certainties and superstitions. Give me a swig from that flask of everlasting-Wahrheit, Good Sir!

How could I give Smith what he already has - the unwavering, quasi-religious moral certainty that whatever doesn't fit into his ideological bubble didn't happen, no matter how conclusive the evidence?

I won't slay the poor fellow. I'll just let him fume with rage and laugh at the spectacle.

Come, my Saint, at least TRY to look like you're battling with your demons.

"Demons" like Smith don't give battle. Their arguments are far too weak for that.

Its just that once a topic comes up that involves his personal biases it seems he is unable to resist the temptation to run the same points again and again, no matter how bad they are, he so desperately wants to believe certain things that he just turns his brain off.

From Stephen’s assessment of Scott Smith in his post # 47 (5/30/01 3:56:00 am) on the thread

American TV Dramatization of Wannsee Conference
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... 21&stop=40

[Anwar bin Zapari]

I don't deny the Holocaust.

I'm a Muslim.

I have a different view from others.

[Xanthro]

I put in water pipe these past few weekends. I have a rather large yard, so I was putting in sprinklers and decided to put in some facets around the yard too.

I used standard schedule 40 PVC 3/4" pipe. Which is rated at 480 PSI at 73 degree F. That might sound like quite a high PSI rating, but my water pressure is 110 PSI.

I decided to calculate how much pressure the entire system is constantly bearing.

The interior diameter of the pipe is .7", that equals a 2.198 circumference.

This means that every inch of pipe is under the pressure of 2.198 times the water pressure, in this case 110lbs. That's 241.78 lbs of pressure per inch.

I laid over 400 feet of pipe, I said it was a big yard.

241.78 * 12 = 2,901.36 lbs. Or over a ton per foot.

2,901.36 * 400 = 1,160,544 lbs or 580 tons.

I hope this finally puts to rest the arguement on whether on not concrete can withstand 7 PSI, or bear the combined weight of it.

If the piping in my yard can bear much greater pressure and total pressure than that, it's silly to argue that concrete can't.

Xanthro

[Dan]

Off topic.


You may want to consider a regulator. 3/4 inch valves can handle 110 if they are commercial quality, but they frankly hate it, and sometimes go out. Also, do you get a strong clinking sound when the valves open? If so, I'd recommend cutting the pressure to 55-70 max. If your sprinkler heads are too misty, this will also help.

As to you figures, the pressure goes down fairly quickly after 100 feet or so, so I trust you used lots of lateral lines.

Sch. 40 is overkill for a system's pipes from the valve downwards, but if you designed it right, it will last you 'till your grandkids inherit the place.

Regards
Dan

[cobalt]

Having read the arguments about numbers and who did most of the killings, who was responsible for it all and to what degree I feel like I'm watching religious fanatics arguing about some obscure biblical scriptures. I have heard it said that the total number of people killed during and after (but as a result of) WWII numbered roughly 50 - 60 million. Considering this number why should anybody want to deny that 6 million Jews were killed and what difference does that make? Lets face it , WWII was a mass slaughter in which everyone joined in.
I hope that no one is naive enough to believe that the allied paticipants were in it to save the world. They were in it for one thing only: to advance their position of power at any cost. What do you think would happen today if suddenly the OPEC countries would stop all oil production? Would there be any doubt that the U.K. and the U.S. would launch a military assault and install a government to their liking, no matter what the cost in human lifes? And it all would be perfectly justifyable and righteous.
We all know about the "devious" plans of the Germans because all those records were available and made public after WWII, but we don't know what went on in the smoky rooms of strategic planning on the allied side. Once and a while we get a glimpse. For example, one of the British war office officials admitted that the firebombing on German cities was intended to kill as many civilians as possible.
To the person who objects to anyone denying that the Nazis were the "bad" guys. Let me know who the "good" guys are, and I show you another form of denial.
Finally, it has been said that the repeated reminders of Nazi "misdeeds" are for historical purposes, to educate and to learn from the past. Is that so?

[cobalt]

Having read the arguments about numbers and who did most of the killings, who was responsible for it all and to what degree I feel like I'm watching religious fanatics arguing about some obscure biblical scriptures. I have heard it said that the total number of people killed during and after (but as a result of) WWII numbered roughly 50 - 60 million. Considering this number why should anybody want to deny that 6 million Jews were killed and what difference does that make? Lets face it , WWII was a mass slaughter in which everyone joined in.
I hope that no one is naive enough to believe that the allied paticipants were in it to save the world. They were in it for one thing only: to advance their position of power at any cost. What do you think would happen today if suddenly the OPEC countries would stop all oil production? Would there be any doubt that the U.K. and the U.S. would launch a military assault and install a government to their liking, no matter what the cost in human lifes? And it all would be perfectly justifyable and righteous.
We all know about the "devious" plans of the Germans because all those records were available and made public after WWII, but we don't know what went on in the smoky rooms of strategic planning on the allied side. Once and a while we get a glimpse. For example, one of the British war office officials admitted that the firebombing on German cities was intended to kill as many civilians as possible.
To the person who objects to anyone denying that the Nazis were the "bad" guys. Let me know who the "good" guys are, and I show you another form of denial.
Finally, it has been said that the repeated reminders of Nazi "misdeeds" are for historical purposes, to educate and to learn from the past. Is that so?