Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

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).
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32072
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:10 pm
Nessie just can't stop lying that I claimed there was an authentic August 13 1943 document. He can't even quote me to that effect. He just can't stop pretending that he doesn't understand what the word "if" means.
If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people...
If.
1. (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

'if you have a complaint, write to the director'

synonyms: on condition that, provided (that), providing (that), presuming (that), supposing (that), assuming (that), on the assumption that, allowing (that), as long as, given that, with/on the understanding that, if and only if, contingent on, in the event that, allowing that.

Sorry, Nessie, but "if" is not "is." :roll:
The full quote is "If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!"

Prior to that you had said "So for Pressac to point to say an August 13 1943 document with Bischoff in it mentioning special action DOESN'T MEAN THAT AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE GASSING JEWS."

Your claim that you had made it clear you had made up that date and document is not true, you were suggesting it was one of the many documents you supposedly have. Since you have also repeatedly claimed that there are 6 documents to every 1 that Pressac has, why do need a made up document? Why not show me some of those 6 documents?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32072
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:13 pm
Nessie wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:00 pm
please explain how Mattogno's methodology is correct and all historians have got it wrong.
Already done.
Plenty of examples of "special" having non homicidal contexts within Kremas.

Special basements = corpse cellars. Nothing more.
viewtopic.php?p=183693#p183693

Nessie once tried to say that erecting horse stable barracks for special treatment was code for homicide. I showed otherwise.
viewtopic.php?p=184142#p184142

The special cellars were literally corpse cellars with an air exchange/ventilation system.
viewtopic.php?p=184575#p184575

The doors and windows were meaningless and already refuted.
viewtopic.php?p=184065#p184065
viewtopic.php?p=183691#p183691

No lying eyewitness is going to overturn the documents which show the real context of the Swoboda document. Special treatment was meant for corpses, not living people.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4382
No, that is just you linking to Mattogno's methodology. There is no explanation, from you, in your own words, how that methodology is correct and historians have all got it wrong.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Werd
Posts: 11011
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:11 pm
Your claim that you had made it clear you had made up that date and document is not true, you were suggesting it was one of the many documents you supposedly have.

Link and quote please.

Werd
Posts: 11011
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:12 pm
There is no explanation, from you, in your own words, how that methodology is correct
I already explained it.
Werd wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:08 pm
If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!

[...]

If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!
TWO TIMES IN THE SAME POST FOR NESSIE THE DUMMY.
and historians have all got it wrong.
Already gave an example.
No lying eyewitness is going to overturn the documents which show the real context of the Swoboda document. Special treatment was meant for corpses, not living people.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4382

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32072
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:29 pm
Nessie wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:11 pm
Your claim that you had made it clear you had made up that date and document is not true, you were suggesting it was one of the many documents you supposedly have.

Link and quote please.
viewtopic.php?p=180697#p180697

"In other words, Pressac finds a document he claims means homicide such as "special action" or "special treatment." Mattogno then steps in and says no, there are other things that mean special treatment. So for Pressac to point to say an August 13 1943 document with Bischoff in it mentioning special action DOESN'T MEAN THAT AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE GASSING JEWS. Mattogno finds other documents within the same August timeframe and finds out that they were building simple barracks, engaging in disinfestation measures, bathing facilities, etc. In fact there is a SLEW of things that mean "special action" or "special treatment."

You are clearly suggesting the August 13 document is one of the documents Mattogno finds to prove Pressac wrong.

Yet you continually refuse to produce a list of those documents. Instead, you spend more time refusing, which is evidence you are lying.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Werd
Posts: 11011
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:11 pm
The full quote is "If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!"

Prior to that you had said "So for Pressac to point to say an August 13 1943 document with Bischoff in it mentioning special action DOESN'T MEAN THAT AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE GASSING JEWS."
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive. :roll:

Second quote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:15 pm

First quote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:08 pm

Notice the enlarged word in the second quote that came first? SAY. That's showing this is a hypothetical.
Notice the enlarged word in the first quote that came second? IF. That's showing this is a hypothetical.

Nessie made a false assumption and blames me for his mistake. He's a grown man acting like a child.

Then later at Fri Feb 26, 2021 3:03 am I explained the methodology because Nessie asked me to.
If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!

If a then b. A. Therefore b.

[...]

THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC DOCUMENT. THIS IS A SIMPLE EXERCISE IN PHILOSOPHY. NESSIE EITHER ACCEPTS THIS RULE OF PHILOSOPHY, OR HE DOESN'T.
So I already explained that it was a hypothetical and I also used SAY and IF in a context that allowed for it to be interpreted exactly as I intended. A hypothetical.
Last edited by Werd on Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32072
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:33 pm
Nessie wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:12 pm
There is no explanation, from you, in your own words, how that methodology is correct
I already explained it.
Werd wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:08 pm
If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!

[...]

If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!
TWO TIMES IN THE SAME POST FOR NESSIE THE DUMMY.
You are assuming Pressac thinks one document on its own constituted proof of homicidal gassing. Show me where he clearly states that one document can be proof.

There were numerous different buildings in A-B, so it is possible that clothes were deloused with Zyklon B in one building, as people were being gassed with Zyklon B in another building. To argue otherwise is a non sequitur.

It is still not clear how Mattogno's methodology is correct as it makes an assumption and then uses a logically flawed argument.
and historians have all got it wrong.
Already gave an example.
No lying eyewitness is going to overturn the documents which show the real context of the Swoboda document. Special treatment was meant for corpses, not living people.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4382
Are you claiming historians are wrong to use eyewitnesses and that every single eyewitness lied?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32072
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:42 pm
Nessie wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:11 pm
The full quote is "If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!"

Prior to that you had said "So for Pressac to point to say an August 13 1943 document with Bischoff in it mentioning special action DOESN'T MEAN THAT AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE GASSING JEWS."
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive. :roll:

Second quote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:15 pm

First quote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:08 pm

Notice the enlarged word in the second quote that came first? SAY. That's showing this is a hypothetical.
Notice the enlarged word in the first quote that came second? IF. That's showing this is a hypothetical.

Nessie made a false assumption and blames me for his mistake. He's a grown man acting like a child.
The context is you repeatedly claiming 6 to 1 documents, which is why it was reasonable to believe the August 13th document was an actual document. You have admitted it is not and you have refused to list the others.

You do not have 6 documents from Mattogno for every 1 document Pressac has.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Werd
Posts: 11011
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:46 pm
The context is you repeatedly claiming 6 to 1 documents, which is why it was reasonable to believe the August 13th document was an actual document.
Nope. I was explaining the methodology at your request, not stating facts.
You do not have 6 documents from Mattogno for every 1 document Pressac has.
And what if it's 5 or 7 or 8, thereby making 6 an average? Or a mean? Does that therefore mean that Mattogno NEVER WENT TO THE RGVA ARCHIVE AND FOUND EXTRA DOCUMENTS AND PUT THEM IN FOOTNOTES??? :roll:
Image
See this RODOH? Nessie actually wants you to think those are not footnotes at the bottom of the page and those are not extra documents from the RGVA archive of the Central Construction Office of Auschwitz, that surround the unique "criminal trace" of Pressac's under current discussion. Nessie actually wants you to think that what you see with your eyes actually doesn't exist.

Look at how he dodges the red text again. It seems to be a habit with this lying troll.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32072
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:48 pm
Nessie wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:46 pm
The context is you repeatedly claiming 6 to 1 documents, which is why it was reasonable to believe the August 13th document was an actual document.
Nope. I was explaining the methodology at your request, not stating facts.
You have not explained how his methodology is credible and why all historians have it wrong.
You do not have 6 documents from Mattogno for every 1 document Pressac has.
And what if it's 5 or 7 or 8, thereby making 6 an average? Or a mean? Does that therefore mean that Mattogno NEVER WENT TO THE RGVA ARCHIVE AND FOUND EXTRA DOCUMENTS AND PUT THEM IN FOOTNOTES??? :roll:
Image
See this RODOH? Nessie actually wants you to think those are not footnotes at the bottom of the page and those are not extra documents from the RGVA archive of the Central Construction Office of Auschwitz, that surround the unique "criminal trace" of Pressac's under current discussion. Nessie actually wants you to think that what you see with your eyes actually doesn't exist.

Look at how he dodges the red text again. It seems to be a habit with this lying troll.
You claimed 6 to 1 and then link to a page where Mattogno states "Two documents unknown to Pressac...." and has three footnotes, one of which is not to a specific document. One of the documents states "6 gas-tight doors....Design exactly like the doors for special t[reatment] of the J[ews]" That evidence special treatment involved gas and Jews.

Put that into the context of all of the witness claims and circumstantial evidence and there is proof of mass gassings of Jews.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests