The rails would have bent in the heat

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The rails would have bent in the heat

Post by Roberto » Thu Jul 04, 2013 8:10 pm

friedrichjansson wrote:
RM wrote:Well, we do have enough for FJ to try explaining why the Dresden rails obviously didn't bend on the first occasion while the Treblinka rails are supposed to have. Or did I misunderstand FJ's claim re the Treblinka rails?
Obviously you misunderstand; more precisely you are arguing in bad faith (this applies to the other points as well).
Bad faith I leave to my esteemed opponent and his coreligionists.
friedrichjansson wrote:The relevant variables have already been explained.
So, how long are the Treblinka rails supposed to have lasted considering your "relevant variables"?
friedrichjansson wrote:Not to mention the fact that there were no "Dresden rails"!
No, these grates were not made of railway rails. They were made of metal structures that look weaker than rails to me. Yet they lasted for at least as long as it took to cremate 6,865 corpses on the Altmarkt.
friedrichjansson wrote:
RM wrote:contradiction clearly shows that both accounts were provided independently of each other, which increases rather than reduces their value as evidence
RM is quite the comedian.
Why, does FJ place more reliability in accounts that match in every detail? Those I would consider suspicious.
friedrichjansson wrote:
RM wrote:what's the contradiction supposed to be?
I'm sure it will remain a mystery to RM, as he's too lazy to read books.
Apparently FJ hasn't understood that we're talking for the benefit of an audience here.
friedrichjansson wrote:I will not reply further unless (by some miracle) RM's future remarks demonstrate good faith, comprehension of the issues, and familiarity with the texts on which he comments.
The "good faith" thing must be self-projection, while the rest goes under "special pleading", if I'm not mistaken.
friedrichjansson wrote:However, some people may be interested in the role of buckling.
I might also be interested one of these days, when I have nothing better to do.
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests