DrG -- You said:
When, in this thread: Did the US drop booby-trapped toys in WWII, I wrote:
if the presence of "explosive pens" was so feared by people (even today by old ones), there must have been a real base.
you dismissed sarcastically my point:
David Thompson wrote:
I suppose that because the "evil eye" (mal occhio) was so feared by people (even today by old ones), there must have been a real basis for that, too.
But when it's time to help your own position, you use my same reasoning (by the way, at least I didn't state that booby-trapped toys were used, I was just trying to rationalize that claim).
Your observations are wide of the mark:
(1) In that thread, you presented no witness testimony as to who, if anyone, dropped the pens.
(2) In your statement "if the presence of "explosive pens" was so feared by people (even today by old ones), there must have been a real base. "; you did not distinguish between witnesses (persons who had some personal knowledge of the event), and persons who were uninvolved in the event, but nonetheless were fearful even today. There is a difference between belief in a widespead rumor and a demonstrable fact, just as there is a difference between faith or belief, and truth. The latter can be verified, the former cannot. If you feel that pointing out that distinction is sarcastic, so be it.
(3) Because I consider that the pen-bomb allegation, if true, was a war crime, I went to some lengths to determine whether there was a basis to the story and who was responsible for it. Until now, we're not getting that approach here.
Needless to say, I did not propose a variation of Friedhof Meyer's definition of "witness" for the pen-bomb occurrences. Consequently I did not ask or require you or anyone else to provide the names and accounts of witnesses who saw the pen bombs manufactured, who saw then packed with an explosive, who saw them loaded onto an aircraft, who saw the pen-bombs dropped, and who then saw a child pick one up and then saw the pen-bomb explode in the child's hands, as a prerequisite to prove the proposition true.
In this discussion, things are a little different:
(1) There are many witness statements, referenced by url.
(2) We are actively trying to distinguish here between persons who had some personal knowledge of the event, and persons who merely heard about the homicidal gassings without having been directly involved; and
(3) There is no question as to whether there is a basis to the "gas chamber story," nor is there any question as to who was responsible for the gas chambers. There were homicidal gas chambers, which were constructed and used by the Nazis, and there were people who saw them used to kill folks.