Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

[Roberto]

The "scholar" is jumping to conclusions that are at odds with the indications I provided (number of victims stated down to the tens and thus suggesting a count rather than an estimate, excavations/exhumations elsewhere). And the essential credibility of the Soviet reports in question follows from their essential coincidence with evidence independent of these reports, especially the Jäger Report.

Roberto fabricates imaginary non-existent authoritative evidence and then say I am jumping on conclusions when I conclude it do not exist.

No, I consider a possibility that is not unrealistic given the indications. And I'm still waiting for arguments from AS that would rule out this possibility.

Essential credibility? Essential coincidence?

More gibberish from Roberto.

More gibberish from AS, actually. Instead of arguments.

Such "possibility" is being ruled out because it did not happened, it do not exist, there are not any indication it happened, it is a mere figment of your imagination. How many times this has to been repeated until you understand that?

There are indications that it may have happened, however often AS repeats that there are not.

So why should one rule out the possibility despite these indications?

[Roberto]

Mission accomplished by Roberto et al.

This section of the forum became unreadable, it is just piles of garbage everywhere left by Holocaust believers.

There is not any real discussion going on, nothing new coming in debate, just Holocaust believers repeating their beliefs over and over and over.

We can't all have Aryan Scholar's high level of debate.

"Jewish mass graves" are graves that Jews dug to put animal carcasses in!

Who'da thunk?

Since you take such a cynical attitude, I assume you can prove the assertion about "Jewish mass graves"? Otherwise, you are simply a contrarian trolling in the wrong thread.

His not being afflicted with the "believer" mindset, he can can hand-wavingly claim that HE interprets the phrase that way. That should be good enough for everyone. You've been done learned by Aryan Scholar! This is a real winner for Revisionism.

So your are implying it's one person's word against another with scarce evidence for both positions?

Incidentally, that is precisely the argument for revisionism.

Ingenious semantic parsing of phrases is the way to go for Revisionism. You can deny anything and everything with that way. It's such a joy to read his insightful and scholarly posts. We should all aspire to be as semantically creative as Aryan Scholar.

Semantics can't validate arguments one way or another. Nor does speculation count as evidence of a crime claimed to be on the greatest scale of recorded human history.

Also your post ought to be moved to a different thread, as it's not a moderation request.

In accordance with Blake amazing intelligence, anything which is called "Jewish" must only have Jews inside or be exclusive made of Jews: a Jewish building, a Jewish soap, a Jewish lampshade, etc.

E.g.

A Brazilian mass grave cannot possibly be made by Brazilians, right Blake?

That depends on the context. If someone reports about a "Brazilian mass grave" in an area where Brazilians are known from other evidence to have been killed and masse, and if the report's inner logic (referring to contents but not makers of individual graves elsewhere in the report) points towards a reference to contents and not to makers as concerns the "Brazilian mass grave", there is every reason to assume that the report's author is referring to a mass grave with Brazilians lying in it.

[Nessie]

Been-there has plagiarised an article on Konrad Morgan here;

https://aeon.co/essays/the-nazi-judge-w ... the-system

for a thread on him here;

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2992

This is a direct lift;

"Morgen’s first assignment in the SS judiciary in 1941 was in Kraków, the seat of German administration in the portion of occupied Poland not incorporated into the Reich. Shortly after arriving there, Morgen began investigating members of Himmler’s circle."

This is virtually identical;

Article;
"Morgen then spent the latter half of 1943 on cases of corruption at Buchenwald, Dachau and other camps, including Kraków-Płaszów, the camp made famous by the film Schindler’s List (1993)."

Been-there;
"Morgen then spent the latter half of 1943 — after the case of corruption at Buchenwald — investigating Dachau and other camps, including Kraków-Płaszów, the camp made famous by the Jewish 'Holocaust' promoter Stephen Spielberg in his film Schindler’s List (1993)."

This is a direct lift;

"In one scene from the movie, workers are unloading provisions ordered for 10,000 prisoners – non-existent prisoners invented by the commandant, Amon Göth, so that he could requisition extra provisions to sell on the black market. The narrator remarks that Göth is being audited by the SS. In fact, the investigators were working for Morgen."

This is virtually identical;

Been-there;
"When he found that prisoners in Buchenwald had disappeared — especially those who had witnessed corruption — he inferred that they had been murdered. Consequently, after corroborating investigation, he drew up charges against Karl Otto Koch of murder during his time as the commandant of Buchenwald."

Article;
"He found that prisoners in Buchenwald were disappearing – especially those who had witnessed corruption – and he inferred that they had been murdered. Exceeding his brief, he drew up charges of murder against the commandant of Buchenwald, Karl Otto Koch."

That plagiarism is why, contrary to the sub forum rules, no information offered was cited with verifiable references.

[Nessie]

More plagiarism from been-there. This time from the Wikipedia entry on Morgen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Konrad_Morgen

"Georg Konrad Morgen (8 June 1909 – 4 February 1982) was an SS judge and lawyer who"

From been-there;
"Georg Konrad Morgen (8 June 1909 – 4 February 1982) was an SS judge and lawyer who"

From Wikipedia;
"Born to a railwayman in Frankfurt, Morgen graduated from the University of Frankfurt and the Hague Academy of International Law, before becoming a judge in Stettin."

From been-there;
Born in Frankfurt, Morgen graduated from the University of Frankfurt and the Hague Academy of International Law, before becoming a judge in Stettin."

From Wikipedia;
"At the outbreak of the war, he was drafted into the Waffen-SS and sent for basic military training."

From been-there;
"At the outbreak of the war, he was drafted into the Waffen-SS and sent for basic military training."

From Wikipedia;
"However, in mid-1943, Himmler recalled Morgen to investigate and prosecute corruption in the concentration camp system, which had become rampant, as reflected in Himmler's notorious Posen speeches."

From been-there;
"Most histories claim that Himmler sent him there as a punishment for investigating the SS too successfully. Which is a self-contradicting, delusional deceit, as in mid-1943, Himmler recalled him to investigate and prosecute corruption in the concentration camp system."

I will leave determination of who is being delusional and deceitful to the reader.

[Aryan Scholar]

Been-there has plagiarised an article on Konrad Morgan here;

https://aeon.co/essays/the-nazi-judge-w ... the-system

for a thread on him here;

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2992

That plagiarism is why, contrary to the sub forum rules, no information offered was cited with verifiable references.

More plagiarism from been-there. This time from the Wikipedia entry on Morgen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Konrad_Morgen

I will leave determination of who is being delusional and deceitful to the reader.

How exactly been-there was deceitful to the reader for merely post a copy and paste of secondary source without a URL? What deceit you are talking about?

[Nessie]

Been-there has plagiarised an article on Konrad Morgan here;

https://aeon.co/essays/the-nazi-judge-w ... the-system

for a thread on him here;

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2992

That plagiarism is why, contrary to the sub forum rules, no information offered was cited with verifiable references.

More plagiarism from been-there. This time from the Wikipedia entry on Morgen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Konrad_Morgen

I will leave determination of who is being delusional and deceitful to the reader.

How exactly been-there was deceitful to the reader for merely post a copy and paste of secondary source without a URL? What deceit you are talking about?

Plagiarism is a deception, passing off others work as your own. He has not just copied and pasted, he has also altered some sentences. He has also acted against the sub forum rules, that he polices very strictly, by not showing sources.

[Aryan Scholar]

Plagiarism is a deception, passing off others work as your own. He has not just copied and pasted, he has also altered some sentences. He has also acted against the sub forum rules, that he polices very strictly, by not showing sources.

Where did he explicit presented the text in his post as his own work? That is right, exactly nowhere.

[been-there]

Plagiarism is a deception, passing off others work as your own. He has not just copied and pasted, he has also altered some sentences. He has also acted against the sub forum rules, that he polices very strictly, by not showing sources.

Where did he explicit presented the text in his post as his own work? That is right, exactly nowhere.

Thanks AS. I appreciate your support. Nessie is correct in that I wrote a brief account of Konrad Morgen by cobbling together details from three different sources. Call it 'lifting', call it 'plagiarism', call it a summary of the basic accepted details. Whatever. I could provide a link to the three sources. But this is just a brief intro before posting a comparison of his developing court testimony given between 1946 in Nuremburg and Frankfurt in 1965. So who cares which secondary sources I took this from. Few of the biographical details are contested. (Except whether he left Krakow for the Eastern front as a result of his own request for a transfer or as a punishment from Himmler for being too good at his job as an investigator of SS corruption.)

My interest in posting here at RODOH initially was to explore through debate, my delvings into aspects of the holocaust pseudo-historical belief-system, to have them online for future reference, and also initially to test my conclusions for accuracy by peer review amongst others interested, whether revisionist or orthodox believer.
No H-believer has convinced me over a period of a couple of years now that they are capable of discussing anything in a genuinely open, intellectually honest way. Nessie least of all, so I ignore his replies unless its a submission to the moderated sub-forum. I used to reply to these explaining how they infringed the rules. But lately I haven't even bothered to do that anymore as his recent submissions don't even begin to attempt to follow the few very simple rules. So I don't accept them as genuinely serious submissions. I regard them instead as time-wasting, juvenile snipings and gripings.

Nessie strikes me as a person of low intelligence yet who doesn't have an appreciation of how much less they understand than their fellows. Its never easy to convince a stupid person that they are stupid. That appears to be a thankless and impossible task. So I think its best to just stop feeding his trolling.
I write 'trolling' because his activity here seems to me to be to obscure, irritate, provoke and disrupt genuine discussion and analysis of the historical facts of WW2 and its present-day ramifications. Onetruth seems to me to be another with a similar motive. Jeffk a third. Das Prussian less so, but still does not seem to me to be genuinely interested in reaching a better nor more accurate understanding.
I have them all on ignore now. Quite frankly, there seems to be enough disagreement amongst revisionists, that it would be more productive to just ignore these trolls and discuss amongst ourselves.

[Nessie]

Plagiarism is a deception, passing off others work as your own. He has not just copied and pasted, he has also altered some sentences. He has also acted against the sub forum rules, that he polices very strictly, by not showing sources.

Where did he explicit presented the text in his post as his own work? That is right, exactly nowhere.

Thanks AS. I appreciate your support. Nessie is correct in that I wrote a brief account of Konrad Morgen by cobbling together details from three different sources. Call it 'lifting', call it 'plagiarism', call it a summary of the basic accepted details. Whatever. I could provide a link to the three sources. But this is just a brief intro before posting a comparison of his developing court testimony given between 1946 in Nuremburg and Frankfurt in 1965. So who cares which secondary sources I took this from. Few of the biographical details are contested. (Except whether he left Krakow for the Eastern front as a result of his own request for a transfer or as a punishment from Himmler for being too good at his job as an investigator of SS corruption.)

It is plagiarism and in breach of the sub forum rules for failing to cite sources.

My interest in posting here at RODOH initially was to explore through debate, my delvings into aspects of the holocaust pseudo-historical belief-system, to have them online for future reference, and also initially to test my conclusions for accuracy by peer review amongst others interested, whether revisionist or orthodox believer.

Instead you plagiarise others and block quote without proper references. I have also caught you doing that in the militarisation thread. Your idea of testing your conclusions is to ignore those who disagree with you, as shown below.

No H-believer has convinced me over a period of a couple of years now that they are capable of discussing anything in a genuinely open, intellectually honest way. Nessie least of all, so I ignore his replies unless its a submission to the moderated sub-forum. I used to reply to these explaining how they infringed the rules. But lately I haven't even bothered to do that anymore as his recent submissions don't even begin to attempt to follow the few very simple rules. So I don't accept them as genuinely serious submissions. I regard them instead as time-wasting, juvenile snipings and gripings.

Meaning, if someone disagrees with you, you slag them off, rather than understand why they have a different conclusion from you. My recent submissions were to make sure you were aware your post breaches sub-forum rules and you have been caught plagiarising. You will be monitored form now on.

Nessie strikes me as a person of low intelligence yet who doesn't have an appreciation of how much less they understand than their fellows. Its never easy to convince a stupid person that they are stupid. That appears to be a thankless and impossible task. So I think its best to just stop feeding his trolling.
I write 'trolling' because his activity here seems to me to be to obscure, irritate, provoke and disrupt genuine discussion and analysis of the historical facts of WW2 and its present-day ramifications. Onetruth seems to me to be another with a similar motive. Jeffk a third. Das Prussian less so, but still does not seem to me to be genuinely interested in reaching a better nor more accurate understanding.

DP, onetruth, JeffK and myself have something in common. We all follow the evidence using the historical method and have reached a conclusion, independent of any opinion, of what took place to the Jews under Nazi captivity during WWII.

I have them all on ignore now. Quite frankly, there seems to be enough disagreement amongst revisionists, that it would be more productive to just ignore these trolls and discuss amongst ourselves.

You have to have us on ignore because you cannot sustain your beliefs in the face of the evidence and appropriate means of investigating what took place.

[Aryan Scholar]

DP, onetruth, JeffK and myself have something in common. We all follow the evidence using the historical method and have reached a conclusion, independent of any opinion, of what took place to the Jews under Nazi captivity during WWII.

You are all a bunch of armchair conspiracy theorists which had barely seen any primary source in your whole life.