...they do not disprove the entirety of the claims about that camp, let alone the other campuses of that camp or the other camps.
You next respond to this:
"I have facts!!!111!".
with:
I do. You have....... a random polock. Congratulations, princess. The pinnacle of evidence.
Saying "I do" doesn't make it more true. You've presented one documentary with facts that do not prove the overwhelming majority of the arguments you are making. If you have more facts, please present them. Until then, you don't, and saying you do doesn't change that.
I've provided far more evidence than a single "random Polock" (which is also disingenuously untrue in and of itself); I provided three sources, each of which contain excerpts from stacks upon stacks of documentation from the period. Those excerpts are the single greatest proof POSSIBLE for assertion of any events in the period; if we have records of Nazi officials writing about the happenings of the Holocaust, and those records can be carbon dated to verify their validity, that is proof that can only be refuted in two ways; either the Nazis writing were lying, or the Nazis writing were delusional. Given that these writings come from some of the top officials, neither explanation makes much sense.
On top of that, the other evidence from the "random Polock" (Polock is a term for Polish immigrants; he would not be a Polock because he was not an immigrant) is much more than you dismiss it as. He was not "random"; he was a founding member of the Polish underground resistance. He was not the only one of the resistance to make such claims; his official government report was signed by at least a half dozen other officials; they were there, it was documented before that report that they planned on going there. If I'm not mistaken, his arrest record may even be around today as well. There were semi-regular updates form inside the camp, as well; it wasn't just a random Pole writing a random story well after any of it happened; there is a tremendous paper-trail of documentation, from the time. If the report contains details of gas chambers; that evidence is stronger than analysis of modern-day reconstructions, as said reconstructions may not have any forensic trail at all due to their nature as reconstructions. You then took my solidification of this person as a source as an attempt to deceive you?
(Me:)
Witold Pilecki's report is not Communist propaganda
(You:)
The fact that you have to say that.....
When I'm trying to per-counter your argument. If you read the entire statement, you'll see that Witold Pilecki was KILLED by the communist regime for continuing his work of liberating Poland; subverting the occupation in the process. If he was a communist, why did he fight Communist occupation? Why was he executed?
Anyway; next, you respond to this statement of mine:
Your only capacity for argument seems to be in refuting official documentation with personal attacks
with:
You're wrong. I refuted your bullshit propaganda with SCIENCE.... while personally attacking you. To be fair, I don't think I started it. Hypocrite.
What science? My sources have nothing to do with levels of Zycklon B trace on the walls of the chamber; they don't claim that that chamber was used, to my knowledge. That is all of the science you have demonstrated. Your argument "SCIENCE" sounds eerily like the arguments of left-wingers when they try to claim that a virtually non-lethal disease should be "prevented" with a vaccine with higher mortality rate. When their arguments fail, they resort to claiming "I have the facts" and "science is on my side". Do not make their same mistakes; it diminishes your argument.
As far as who started it, go back and look at my first post. I am respectfully disagreeing. As I recall, your response is where things get aggressive. You started it tremendously, and you are the one that maintains doing it; It makes your arguments look weak. What benefit does it bring you? Why bother continuing? You don't offend me; I've been called worse and I frankly don't care; it just makes your arguments look bad, and it both distorts them and fills valuable time and space in posts.
Next, you focus on my statement:
for example, the Polish-Soviet war of 1919 and 1920 which effectively proves no even remote or conceivable alliance between Poland and communism.
and respond with:
How does it prove anything? The "soviets" (bolshevist jews) were at war with constitutional russia. Does that prove russia was never communist?
If Poland had lost the war, it would be a comparable analogy. Poland did not lose the war; they almost did, but they prevailed. Do you think Tsarist Russia would have had any tolerance for communism if they had succeeded in putting the revolution down? I think not. Similarly, Poland was thoroughly and aggressively against Communism, and they were very weary of any nation around them building up forces.
Next, me:
for example; I go on throughout the remaining ~6000 characters detailing my sources; which are far greater and factually irrefutable; such as the writings of the Nazis themselves, at the time of actions which PROVE what happene
you:
So you believe the Nazis when they say they infiltrated poland but not when they say poland attacked first? How completely unbiased. Funny how you can pick and choose when to believe people.
Where do i claim that the Nazis infiltrated Poland? Where does that argument attempt to prove that? That argument is about the actions of Germany with regards to the Holocaust; actions which are supported both by the writing and documentation of top Nazi officials and by Polish officials. Had they been in dispute, more evaluation would be required; but they are not.
Me:
These are not disputed by David Cole,
You:
Lol. And you haven't disputed that you're ancestors are dog fucking retards. Therefore, you're admitting your ancestors are dog fucking retards.
You want to keep playing these child ass games bitch? Try me, I'll go all fucking day.
Allow me to clarify; David Cole was questioned about that document, and has admitted revisionists have no counter-explanation. Continue to make your arguments worse with illogical attacks, why don't you?
Me:
and they can be factually verified through carbon dating of the paper.
You:
Hahahahahahahaha. I'll just leave that up for you to ponder why it's retarded, you product of beastiality.
Do you believe carbon dating is fake? Where in physics do you stop believing and start denying? Carbon dating is deeply tied to atomic theory; either you believe that or you don't, but if you don't, good luck explaining the Atomic Bomb. Why is chemical analysis of the walls of the reconstructed chamber scientifically valid but carbon dating is not?
Are you alternatively suggesting that the documents were written at the time of by someone else? That can also be proven or disproven through detailed microscopic handwriting analysis. These documents are verifiable in date and origin, and they detail some of the happenings of the Holocaust.
Me:
You cannot say "I proved it" and have it be true;
You:
Oh, but YOU can. Why is that? Because you're a weak inbred polock?
The difference is that I supply and directly connect my evidence, while you make no effort to source what part of your evidence proves what and how. I don't call "proof" of anything without presenting the proof alongside; you, on the other hand, have a propensity to say "I proved it" without providing anything else.
Me:
you must prove it using actual sources
You:
Chemical analysis, census data, and the head curator of antiquities at the polish museum of auchwitz aren't "actual sources" but your syphilitic dog raping grandpappy is the absolute gold standard of evidence? Go fuck yourself
Refer to my previous statements.
Me:
You have not done so, a
You:
Yes. I have. you self important faggot.
Show it, instead of saying you did and then insulting me to take the focus off of the fact that you continue to refuse to provide direct proof of your claims and an explanation as to how the proof connects.
Me:
I'll give you one more opportunity
You:
You won't GIVE me anything, you bitch made coward ass son of a whore. I'll GIVE you $10,000 in dental work for free faggot.
Good luck with that, bud. Are you aware that "might does not make right"? Punches are not proof; nor are they an argument. I am giving you my attention and time. You have no ability to take that from me; when I decide I'm done, we're done. Simple as that.
Jumping ahead because there's nothing of value discussing in the middle:
Me:
Don't piecemeal it together quoting line by line in a vacuum,
You:
What is this "in a vacuum", faggot? You're just saying random fucking words.
Have you ever cleaned your house? Do you understand the concept of "vacuum"? It is not a big word; it is not a random word. I speak to children that understand that expression; a "vacuum" is an empty space; void of air or frankly anything. A "vacuum cleaner" is called such because the fan (or whatever means that cleaner possesses of creating a vacuum) is propelling air out of the container, creating a vacuum inside the device which causes air to rush inside, taking crumbs and other debris with it. When the experession "In a vacuum" is used, it is to say that something is being isolated or taken out of context. For example, if I were taking your words selectively in a vacuum, I would say that "the only words you use are insults"; it is a lie based on the distortion of the truth.
Me:
that makes your argument look weak and is a complete logical fallacy.
You:
There is no "logical fallacy" faggot. I'm not replacing evidence with personal attacks, I'm peppering them into evidence because you attacked me first, then have the chutzpah to pretend to be a victim. How stereotypically polish of you.
Do i need to explain those big words to you too?
An Ad Hominem attack: "Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical [speaking] strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making the argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." Do I even need to quote the countless examples of you doing this?
A Logical Fallacy: "A misconception resulting from flaw in reasoning, or a trick or illusion in thoughts that often succeeds in obfuscating facts/truth."
Examples of Logical Fallacies: "Formal Fallacies: Bad Reason Fallacy, Quantification Fallacies, Propositional fallacies, Syllogistic Fallacies; Informal Fallacies: Ad Hominem, Anecdotal, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Ridicule, Argument from repetition, Bandwagon, Burden of Proof, Continuum Fallacy, Etymological Fallacy, etc."
Me:
not, I'm done debating with you because you cannot present a logical argument.
You:
You have no "debate". If you run away now you will concede that the BEST thing you can come up with is some random pole who's been proven full of shit with forensic analysis. Then you have the gall to tell me what's "logical"
I wonder how the jew could've played such a stupid fucking people. Life's mysteries, I guess.
See above.
I believe I have made a sufficient argument, and rebutted your attempts to counter it. Unless fresh evidence or arguments are made by you (or others, for that matter), I will rest my case, as I believe any rational or logical person would see the value and logic in my arguments.
If you do not provide any new evidence, or any good connections, I will proceed to ignore you. If you continue to utilize insults and Ad Hominem attacks, I will ignore you; I will not reward the utilization of logical fallacies any longer.
I expect you will be unable to resist your impulses, so this is likely the end. I wish you the best in life, and I pray for you to understand more as you get older and reconsider your positions. God bless you!
...they do not disprove the entirety of the claims about that camp, let alone the other campuses of that camp or the other camps.
You next respond to this:
with:
Saying "I do" doesn't make it more true. You've presented one documentary with facts that do not prove the overwhelming majority of the arguments you are making. If you have more facts, please present them. Until then, you don't, and saying you do doesn't change that.
I've provided far more evidence than a single "random Polock" (which is also disingenuously untrue in and of itself); I provided three sources, each of which contain excerpts from stacks upon stacks of documentation from the period. Those excerpts are the single greatest proof POSSIBLE for assertion of any events in the period; if we have records of Nazi officials writing about the happenings of the Holocaust, and those records can be carbon dated to verify their validity, that is proof that can only be refuted in two ways; either the Nazis writing were lying, or the Nazis writing were delusional. Given that these writings come from some of the top officials, neither explanation makes much sense.
On top of that, the other evidence from the "random Polock" (Polock is a term for Polish immigrants; he would not be a Polock because he was not an immigrant) is much more than you dismiss it as. He was not "random"; he was a founding member of the Polish underground resistance. He was not the only one of the resistance to make such claims; his official government report was signed by at least a half dozen other officials; they were there, it was documented before that report that they planned on going there. If I'm not mistaken, his arrest record may even be around today as well. There were semi-regular updates form inside the camp, as well; it wasn't just a random Pole writing a random story well after any of it happened; there is a tremendous paper-trail of documentation, from the time. If the report contains details of gas chambers; that evidence is stronger than analysis of modern-day reconstructions, as said reconstructions may not have any forensic trail at all due to their nature as reconstructions. You then took my solidification of this person as a source as an attempt to deceive you?
(Me:)
When I'm trying to per-counter your argument. If you read the entire statement, you'll see that Witold Pilecki was KILLED by the communist regime for continuing his work of liberating Poland; subverting the occupation in the process. If he was a communist, why did he fight Communist occupation? Why was he executed?
Anyway; next, you respond to this statement of mine:
with:
What science? My sources have nothing to do with levels of Zycklon B trace on the walls of the chamber; they don't claim that that chamber was used, to my knowledge. That is all of the science you have demonstrated. Your argument "SCIENCE" sounds eerily like the arguments of left-wingers when they try to claim that a virtually non-lethal disease should be "prevented" with a vaccine with higher mortality rate. When their arguments fail, they resort to claiming "I have the facts" and "science is on my side". Do not make their same mistakes; it diminishes your argument.
As far as who started it, go back and look at my first post. I am respectfully disagreeing. As I recall, your response is where things get aggressive. You started it tremendously, and you are the one that maintains doing it; It makes your arguments look weak. What benefit does it bring you? Why bother continuing? You don't offend me; I've been called worse and I frankly don't care; it just makes your arguments look bad, and it both distorts them and fills valuable time and space in posts.
Next, you focus on my statement:
and respond with:
If Poland had lost the war, it would be a comparable analogy. Poland did not lose the war; they almost did, but they prevailed. Do you think Tsarist Russia would have had any tolerance for communism if they had succeeded in putting the revolution down? I think not. Similarly, Poland was thoroughly and aggressively against Communism, and they were very weary of any nation around them building up forces.
Next, me:
you:
Where do i claim that the Nazis infiltrated Poland? Where does that argument attempt to prove that? That argument is about the actions of Germany with regards to the Holocaust; actions which are supported both by the writing and documentation of top Nazi officials and by Polish officials. Had they been in dispute, more evaluation would be required; but they are not.
Me:
You:
You want to keep playing these child ass games bitch? Try me, I'll go all fucking day.
Allow me to clarify; David Cole was questioned about that document, and has admitted revisionists have no counter-explanation. Continue to make your arguments worse with illogical attacks, why don't you?
Me:
You:
Do you believe carbon dating is fake? Where in physics do you stop believing and start denying? Carbon dating is deeply tied to atomic theory; either you believe that or you don't, but if you don't, good luck explaining the Atomic Bomb. Why is chemical analysis of the walls of the reconstructed chamber scientifically valid but carbon dating is not?
Are you alternatively suggesting that the documents were written at the time of by someone else? That can also be proven or disproven through detailed microscopic handwriting analysis. These documents are verifiable in date and origin, and they detail some of the happenings of the Holocaust.
Me:
You:
The difference is that I supply and directly connect my evidence, while you make no effort to source what part of your evidence proves what and how. I don't call "proof" of anything without presenting the proof alongside; you, on the other hand, have a propensity to say "I proved it" without providing anything else.
Me:
You:
Chemical analysis, census data, and the head curator of antiquities at the polish museum of auchwitz aren't "actual sources" but your syphilitic dog raping grandpappy is the absolute gold standard of evidence? Go fuck yourself
Refer to my previous statements.
Me:
You:
Show it, instead of saying you did and then insulting me to take the focus off of the fact that you continue to refuse to provide direct proof of your claims and an explanation as to how the proof connects.
Me:
You:
Good luck with that, bud. Are you aware that "might does not make right"? Punches are not proof; nor are they an argument. I am giving you my attention and time. You have no ability to take that from me; when I decide I'm done, we're done. Simple as that.
Jumping ahead because there's nothing of value discussing in the middle:
Me:
You:
What is this "in a vacuum", faggot? You're just saying random fucking words.
Have you ever cleaned your house? Do you understand the concept of "vacuum"? It is not a big word; it is not a random word. I speak to children that understand that expression; a "vacuum" is an empty space; void of air or frankly anything. A "vacuum cleaner" is called such because the fan (or whatever means that cleaner possesses of creating a vacuum) is propelling air out of the container, creating a vacuum inside the device which causes air to rush inside, taking crumbs and other debris with it. When the experession "In a vacuum" is used, it is to say that something is being isolated or taken out of context. For example, if I were taking your words selectively in a vacuum, I would say that "the only words you use are insults"; it is a lie based on the distortion of the truth.
Me:
You:
Do i need to explain those big words to you too?
An Ad Hominem attack: "Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical [speaking] strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making the argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." Do I even need to quote the countless examples of you doing this?
A Logical Fallacy: "A misconception resulting from flaw in reasoning, or a trick or illusion in thoughts that often succeeds in obfuscating facts/truth."
Examples of Logical Fallacies: "Formal Fallacies: Bad Reason Fallacy, Quantification Fallacies, Propositional fallacies, Syllogistic Fallacies; Informal Fallacies: Ad Hominem, Anecdotal, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Ridicule, Argument from repetition, Bandwagon, Burden of Proof, Continuum Fallacy, Etymological Fallacy, etc."
Me:
You:
See above.
I believe I have made a sufficient argument, and rebutted your attempts to counter it. Unless fresh evidence or arguments are made by you (or others, for that matter), I will rest my case, as I believe any rational or logical person would see the value and logic in my arguments.
If you do not provide any new evidence, or any good connections, I will proceed to ignore you. If you continue to utilize insults and Ad Hominem attacks, I will ignore you; I will not reward the utilization of logical fallacies any longer.
I expect you will be unable to resist your impulses, so this is likely the end. I wish you the best in life, and I pray for you to understand more as you get older and reconsider your positions. God bless you!