Your first post at Tue Mar 17, 2020 8:06 pm was to basically ask if we have an answer to your question, which was the topic title "Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?" I had a response to you here, lower down on page one at Tue Mar 17, 2020 10:34 pm whereby I mentioned holocaust denial laws and pointed out that one could argue that it is therefore THE OTHER SIDE that needs protection. You then replied a little lower on page one here at Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:49 am, the next day, and you said that "Denial has been made illegal is [sic] "some countries, because of...lack of evidence." Then on page 2 here at Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:31 pm I stated that the actual motive was to prevent the spread of any view that is coupled with a whitewashing of Hitler and National Socialism as a form of government and Jews as world controllers for practical reasons. To prevent another holocaust.
Now here is where the trouble comes in. In your same post of Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:49 am, you also stated that "The "big dogs" of "revisionism" have accessed archives and original sources and they have found no evidence as to what did happen." Now while I NEVER DENIED THAT EXPLICITLY AND WHILE I NEVER CLAIMED THAT NO REVISIONIST HAS EVER GOTTEN INTO ANY ARCHIVE AT ALL, what I DID want to remind you of is that it has NOT BEEN ALL ROSES for revisionists. On page two here at Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:31 pm I had to remind you of a topic I made where Rudolf made a video explaining how many revisionists have been denied access to archives. I also had to remind you of where I mentioned a Mattogno article once posted on the now defunct (and illegal now in Italy) olodogma blogspot website whereby holocaust mongers were outright lying about the location of certain papers in order to flummox revisionists and frustrate their activities. I also had to remind you of a Jurgen Graf video whereby at 24 minutes 56 seconds he talks about how many papers that revisionists learn about, but want to come back to see later at a subsequent trip to the archive end up being moved or "disappearing."
My point was NOT to say that no revisionist has gotten into any archive anywhere at any time. Just that AT KEY POINTS, their efforts have been FRUSTRATED. In other words, the powers that be are trying to protect something FROM the revisionists. This piece of evidence proves that it is NOT revisionism or revisionists that need protecting. You can't claim someone needs protection and is creating roadblocks, when THEY are the ones that unfortunately have others standing right in their way blocking them. This was my simple point in the long Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:31 pm post that you felt totally free in INTENTIONALLY IGNORING by only responding to one irrelevant tiny little bit of my 1:31pm post at the bottom of page two at Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:57 pm.
On page 3 here at Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:10 pm, you felt free in ONCE AGAIN ignoring my point about the frustrations and roadblocks that revisionists DID have to deal with FROM TIME TO TIME, and simply repeat your question as if nothing happened and as if I didn't fully give you proof that revisionists have been meddled with by their enemies at times. "Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?"
Then a little lower here on page 3 at Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:21 pm, I took notice that you were simply repeating yourself and ignoring the evidence I posted about the Rudolf video, the Mattogno article and the Graf video of revisionists being meddled with and the other side clearly doing it because THEY are trying to protect something; meaning it's NOT the revisionists sneakily trying to protect something like you falsely insinuate. You accuse the revisionists of doing something and then hypocritically ignore THE OTHER SIDE WHEN THEY DO IT. Hence why when I re-presented you with the evidence you dodged the first time on page 1, I used some enlarged text to draw your attention to those three things:
Now while I apologize for the bad link to the Mattogno article, here it actually is.Actually many of them have not only been refused access (as shown here), but they have found that others have been lying about the locations of certain documents in an effort to frustrate revisionists (as shown here). In an old Jurgen Graf video at 24 minutes 56 seconds, we find that documents that revisionists want to come back to later when they later return to an archive suddenly end up disappearing. So you're wrong again, jackass.The "big dogs" of "revisionism" have accessed archives and original sources and they have found no evidence as to what did happen.
But the fact that you didn't complain the link I gave was bad, tells me you didn't even click on those links at all. So no surprise you are a dodging, lying troll.
At this point we are on to page four. Now I would figure that after me showing you TWO TIMES where evidence is of SOME EXAMPLES OF SOME TIMES where revisionists have been meddled with on purpose by the other side, that you would acknowledge that I was right that some difficulty had been encountered by revisionists. I figured you would be honest and admit those things happened. On page four here at Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:30 pm, I told been-there I would give you one last chance to explain your dodging of the evidence I presented of revisionists being given a rough time on certain occasions. You then decided to ONCE AGAIN, ignore my evidence of THE OTHER SIDE trying to protect something and NOT the revisionists. You ignored my evidence showing that if anything, YOU HAD IT BACKWARDS. All you had to say in response to me at Wed Mar 18, 2020 3:20 pm was this:
The first statement was a dirty lie because the examples I accumulated showed that YOU HAD IT BACKWARDS AND THAT THE OPPOSITE WAS IN FACT TRUE! You didn't even have the decency to say, "Oh my, that is a good point. You are correct, the other side is in fact playing games with revisionists as if THEY are the real ones trying to protect something." That is something you wanted to deny, ignore and dodge. That you couldn't acknowledge something so simple shows what a dishonest troll, and a dirty liar that you are who ignores reality on a whim.Your post ignores my question. Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?
Then here, a little lower on page four at Wed Mar 18, 2020 3:35 pm, you made a logically fallacious pivot to either construct a red herring or strawman and claim that revisionists have been to archives before and never been blocked or meddled with.
The reason this is a fallacious argument is that it IGNORES MY ARGUMENT THAT REVISIONISTS HAVE BEEN FRUSTRATED AT TIMES! In other words, you want to use the good times as a red herring fallacy to distract from the bad times they have. Your attempt to point at the good times IN ORDER TO PRETEND NO BAD TIMES HAPPENED TO REVISIONISTS makes a dishonest lying troll.In your link to a claim about access to an archive, I responded to say;
"Nice admission that a lot of time was spent in the archives by deniers. No mention they found nothing to evidence denier beliefs.
All that has happened is that uncredited people cannot go to the archives any more. But there are others prepared to assist who are accredited."
Fact is, deniers have had access and can arrange access and they have not found anything. BRoI is a classic example. He has kept anonymous and has accessed archives.
You ignore what is in front of you again and again. You lie and dodge all the time. Your misbehaviour is why you get kicked to the rodoh basement and your topic locked. Your refusal to apologize for ignoring what is in front of you and admitting that yes, revisionists have been meddled with at times, is why you get punished. You do this to yourself. You are not a victim. You are not innocent.
If you admit that you dodged the Rudolf video, the mattogno article and the Graf video and you apologize for it, maybe we'll take you a tiny bit more seriously. But if you continue to use good times revisionists had as red herrings to distract from the bad times revisionists had - WHICH IS THE MAIN ISSUE SINCE IT TURNS YOUR ACCUSATION ABOUT THEM NEEDING PROTECTION ON ITS HEAD - then you can expect to continue to be punished and have your topics locked. When you intentionally make bad faith mistakes, you convict yourself.