monty16

Now you are starting to act like a petulant child and that loses my attention. You'll have to do better if you want to convince anyone of your revisionist theories of the holocaust.

John Paul II? Was that the Nazi sympathizing pope?

Again you spew an untruth. There are plenty of Polish Jews alive today who lived through the holocaust. There are also plenty of firsthand accounts from Polish Jews. If you want to do something worthwhile here why don't you ferret them out and determine if they are consistent? I'm really beginning to lean toward the suspicion that you and some others here are not consistent in the least. You come off as uneducated and nothing but a parrot repeating what you have heard without actually understanding anything you say.

Boges says: I think that if that's your definition of the holocaust then it certainly would make it less obscene. I don't think I've ever heard anyone minimalize the holocaust in that manner before. It wouldn't be my definition at all! No it isn't and again I have never seen that sort of description that plays down the holocaust claims in that manner. This is about equivalent to saying that that whites in the US south during the early sixties were guilty of a holocaust against blacks! It's rather a disgusting analogy in my opinion. Again, none of those above would a holocaust make. Not even the most egregious of the three which minimalizes the holocaust to the shooting of 'thousands' of innocent people. You need to learn to use the word 'holocaust' in it's proper place and that place is exclusively the holocaust we're talking about. Not what the US did to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on false pretenses. The holocaust and holocaust claims stand by themselves and are not to be mistaken with other atrocities against human beings. Check the baloney detector again and get back to me. This is not in agreement with our JBG who practically says the opposite. That is, the gassing was minimal compared to other means of putting Jews to death during that timeframe. check the baloney detector again to see where it applies. This has become a debate among others besides me. I have not taken a position and won't. I'm finding that you people are doing the work for me and will understand much better when you reach a conclusion. If you do? Maybe then I will commit to being either pro or con.

I've heard that idea expressed before.

I think you understand that gibberiwh very well. Thanks for your answer. I was always under the impression that 6 million were gassed because that's how the original story went. I have never denied that happened but now we are to believe that there were no lethal gassing in gas chambers built specifically for the purpose. Fair enough. Yet now we have an argument developing between you and Boges who maintains something different. Which one of you is the denier and which one is the believer. This is where the baloney detector comes in handy.

JBG, I'm assuming you wrote this: You seem to not be mentioning lethal gassing and it appears to be purposeful. That leads one to believe that you are denying the holocaust. I say this because to put the deaths down to other causes perhaps does not a holocaust make. Or, is it your opinion as a Jewish person that there were no lethal gas chambers built and employed in the extermination of Jewish prisoners? thusly, a holocaust under a total different understanding from what we have believed in the past? Please explain further.

Hey wait a minute, how could taxes be rising when Harper just granted corporations a tax cut? He wouldn't raise one while reducing the other.

Santorum? the gooogled Santorum? The creationist Santorum? Who would have ever thought that he would take his turn as an anti-Romney? The whole world is watching this clown show. Americans should be proud!

And what's more, I've just noticed that you have called me a Nazi. Are there no rules on this forum against that? And you don't even have the slightest idea of what side I'm taking and I've given you no clues!

I think I can safely say that you have no credibility to offer on the question of the holocaust. I'll look up which side you represent and then mark down one against that side's credibility.

Then who posted the photo? The same questions apply. And why would you insult me against the rules of the forum if you know nothing about the photo? Or do you know something about the photo?

Do you have living members of your family who experienced the holocaust? Who are they as to being related to you? What country did they live in during the time in question? What nationality are they? How old are they? Are they on record for the claims they have made? What nationality are you? How old are you? Who told you your information? Can we research any of those people so we can judge their credibility? Can you furnish any proof on what your family members have told you? Are your family members deniers?

That's not a very good answer DogonPorch, and in fact it's a personal insult. Is that allowed in this forum? That's another mark against your side DogonPorch. You're not doing your side any favours so far. We need to watch for more from you and more from your side. What is your side anyway?

DogonPorch, what is your photo of the pile of footwear? Where was the picture taken? When was it taken? Who took the picture? Whose footwear is it? Did somebody witness the picture being taken? Where did you get the picture? Is your source reliable?

You all can form whatever conclusion you want about me. Call me a denier or call me a believer, it doesn't matter. If I told you what I believe about the holocaust there's really no reason to believe me. Michael Shermer in the video makes that point very early on. You need to be sceptics, not only be sceptical of the believers but also be sceptical of the deniers. And so I've given you the baloney detection kit to use in order to come to your own conclusions on the questions. So do you really want to know the truth or are you all just spending time haranguing each other for cheap thrills? When, or if you watch and listen to the video you should try to think of how you can apply each rule to the question you are asking. In this case the holocaust but it works equally well for lots of questions. But don't think the answers come easy because they don't. It's going to take a lot of research. And here's another hint: When somebody makes a claim that you aren't sure is verifiable then ask for more verification of that claim. Then judge what you get in response, if anything, and then apply the applicable rule. If all you get is insults or anger then that tells you something right away. For instance, I've made a mental note of Boges and DogonPorch labelling me a denier and I'll be watching those two more closely in the future. I'm already having doubts on both of them arriving at their own conclusions based on anything substantial. So what side of the debate are they on? Mark down one point against each of their respective sides. And I'm already on my way to getting to the truth! Here's another hint: One poster commented that the German people at some camp denied seeing evidence. If he/she comes back with the evidence then he will gain credibility. If he doesn't he/she will lose credibility. I'll just apply the applicable rule. Then I'll mark one down for or against his/her side.

You all can form whatever conclusion you want about me. Call me a denier or call me a believer, it doesn't matter. If I told you what I believe about the holocaust there's really no reason to believe me. Michael Shermer in the video makes that point very early on. You need to be sceptics, not only be sceptical of the believers but also be sceptical of the deniers. And so I've given you the baloney detection kit to use in order to come to your own conclusions on the questions. So do you really want to know the truth or are you all just spending time haranguing each other for cheap thrills? When, or if you watch and listen to the video you should try to think of how you can apply each rule to the question you are asking. In this case the holocaust but it works equally well for lots of questions. But don't think the answers come easy because they don't. It's going to take a lot of research. And here's another hint: When somebody makes a claim that you aren't sure is verifiable then ask for more verification of that claim. Then judge what you get in response, if anything, and then apply the applicable rule. If all you get is insults or anger then that tells you something right away. For instance, I've made a mental note of Boges and DogonPorch labelling me a denier and I'll be watching those two more closely in the future. I'm already having doubts on both of them arriving at their own conclusions based on anything substantial. So what side of the debate are they on? Mark down one point against each of their respective sides. And I'm already on my way to getting to the truth!

The Polish people denied nothing and had no reason to. What people are you referring to who denied something. You must be talking about some German people near some other camp perhaps in Germany? All you people need is a little encouraging and you will figure out what the truth is all by yourselves. Supposing some of you are rational thinkers. You'll feed on each other until you get at the truth but as you are doing so you will hear lots of interference from both sides. I'll get you a 'baloney meter' to use when I get around to it. And here it is, your own baloney detection kit. Study it and refer back to it once in a while if you want to figure it all out.

Hitchens didn't so much try to have others accept his truths as he wanted others to reject Christian lies and fantasies. He did that in the name of making the world a better place and a more peaceful place. If you are a practicing Christian who takes the bible literally then you are simply wrong. If one choosed to live their life as a lie then that's their business but they have no business teaching children the lies too before those children are old enough to separate fact from fiction. Those children who are indoctrinated will live their entire lives in the dark. No caring and rational parent would do that to a child if they first stopped and considered what they are doing to the child and the person for life. It has to be a form of child abuse.

And what? Can you separate fact from fiction. For example, are you a rational thinking person who is able to understand that the earth is billions of years old or do you think there is a possibility that it's more like a few thousand years old. If you are capable of the former then you won't have a lot of difficulty with understanding holocaust fact and separating it from fiction. What you do with your conclusions will then be up to you and that will also determine your character, or lack of. It's really not all that difficult to come to correct conclusions on the holocaust. My friend put some facts and fictions to me in a logical way and I was able to figure it out pretty easily. You can too if you want to. It was easy for me when I listened to him that he was not motivated in any way to tell me lies. I hope that answers your question. And I hope that allows you to rise above this rabble here on this thread. If you have any further questions then just p.m. me. But be aware that I will probably have no further satisfaction for you than what I have already given you. This goes for any of you.

I have a Polish friend who lived very close to Auschwitz Birkenau during the period of time in question. He has told me the true story of what happened and didn't happen in that camp.

One thing for sure fellow evolutionists, we've got em on the run now. It was bound to happen considering that the fairy tales are just too incredible for them to even stand behind anymore. And so they run from the debate with their shrinking quasi-tails between their legs.

I would say that the christian community is heavily weighted with bitter, hate filled people Jack. And again, I have to reply to this inane and ridiculous question because it's necessary to make the point of my not suggesting 'all' christians. Had you not suggested 'all' then I wouldn't have had to even bother. Try not to waste my time Jak.

Good grief, the constitution? Your constitution probably outlined the rules for gentlemen to follow when proposing a duel to the death with another gentleman who insulted his choice of linen for a three cornered hat. Are there not more important issues to take into consideration in this 21st. century? This choice of linens for a hat is roughly equivalent in importatance to the topic you people choose to waste cyber space discussing here!

Taking a topic on Ron Paul and turning into a discussion on the Euro is over the top. Where are the moderators that are supposed to keep threads on topic? Is this a purposeful avoidance of the Ron Paul issue on the part of his supporters, mainly based on the fact that Ron Paul has been outed and has been had? I think so.