Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

This board is open for all subject matters. Post information and discussion materials about open-debate and censorship on other boards (including this one) here. Memory Hole 2 is a RODOH subforum for alternate perspectives.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 33455
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Nessie »

Bobcat wrote: 07 Jul 2021, 20:03 Nessie:
Bobcat needs to defend his claim that I admitted there is no archaeological proof, in that thread.


I already did that Nessie:
Nessie:
Bobcat seems surprised I said that archaeology does not prove what happened at TII.

viewtopic.php?p=191737#p191737
Of course, you can clarify your above statement, and determine who won the debate, by answering this one simple question:
The MAXIMUM number of discernable / measurable extant mass graves of Treblinka II that you can conclusively prove actually exist, and in which legitimate archaeologists have, via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented methodology - conclusively proven to currently contain the remains of at least 2 people; is no less than __?__.
One would think that a person who earlier alleged that there Is no archaeological proof of mass graves at Treblinka II and that archaeology does not prove what happened at TII, and who is now alleging that he's changed his mind, would be more than happy to clarify his current position on the matter.

Nessie, failure to answer the above question is ipso facto proof that your earlier allegation that there Is no archaeological proof of mass graves at Treblinka II is correct and that I won the debate.
There is a huge difference between proving

1- "what happened at TII"
2 - proving that mass graves were dug
3 - proving how many bodies those graves contain

The different enquiry methods of archaeology and history are required to answer all of those questions. That you do not know that, makes it puzzling why you obsess about graves. Why do you obsess about one part of what happened and do you understand what archaeology and history can and cannot evidence?
Bobcat
Posts: 372
Joined: 19 May 2021, 14:56
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Bobcat »

Nessie wrote: 08 Jul 2021, 09:45
Bobcat wrote: 07 Jul 2021, 19:37 Nessie:
Bobcat is refusing to abide by rules he agreed upon
Interesting, especially since what it is that I agreed upon.
Bobcat:
Are you afraid to accept this challenge... Yes. - or - No. - ??
Nessie:
No.
Bobcat:
If I can conclusively demonstrate to the moderator that a statement of fact that can be attributed to you here in this thread or one that you make in our formal debate is a lie, then the debate is over and the moderator will declare that I am the winner.
Nessie:
I will accept that, if you accept that rule also applies to you
Bobcat:
OK, But If the rule applies to both of us, then it will be the ONLY additional rule added to these rules:
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2492
Nessie, you seem have forgotten this:
OK, But If the rule applies to both of us, then it will be the ONLY additional rule added to these rules:
viewtopic.php?p=192210#p192210
And the fact that you made it official with this:
Bobcat, as requested, to make it "official"
viewtopic.php?p=192346#p192346
My reference to "official" was not about the rule change, it was about that first question, which you had already posted and then refused to answer.

The thread was locked and the rule change made "official" before I had been given a chance to reply. I did not agree to that rule change. I only agreed to the previously agreed upon rules, with my rules 1-3 and your rule about lying.

I decided to go ahead anyway, since I knew I was going to prove you had lied with the thread title.
Nessie:
The thread was locked and the rule change made "official" before I had been given a chance to reply... I decided to go ahead anyway
Which is an admission that you knew my last word on the matter was this:
OK, But If the rule applies to both of us, then it will be the ONLY additional rule added to these rules:

Which you made official (and just re-affirmed with the above admission) with this:

viewtopic.php?p=192346#p192346

Which means that everything you said about rules in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=192438#p192438

was a lie.

So you admit that you were telling a lie while unsuccessfully trying to prove that I had told a lie.

Which, according to your "logic' would make me the winner of the debate.

Thank you for admitting that I won the debate Nessie, I didn't know you had it in you.
Bobcat
Posts: 372
Joined: 19 May 2021, 14:56
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Bobcat »

Hüntinger wrote: 08 Jul 2021, 09:51
Nessie wrote: 08 Jul 2021, 09:45 The thread was locked and the change made "official" before I had been given a chance to reply. I did not agree to that change. I only agree to the previously agreed upon rules, with my rules 1-3 and your rule about lying.
Jude face it, you obfuscated to avoid confrontation and now continuing after the event. Very very jüdische. Tis but a scratch.
He did what he always does: he lied and then ran away. If he was serious about any kind of real debate, he would answer this:
Nessie,

The MAXIMUM number of discernable / measurable extant mass graves of Treblinka II that you can conclusively prove actually exist, and in which legitimate archaeologists have, via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented methodology - conclusively proven to currently contain the remains of at least 2 people; is no less than __?__.

And Nessie's answer is: __?__
But he's as afraid to answer that as he is of engaging in a real open and honest debate. And his repeated refusal to answer the above question is ipso facto proof that his earlier allegation that there Is no archaeological proof of mass graves at Treblinka II is correct and that I won the debate.
Last edited by Bobcat on 08 Jul 2021, 17:14, edited 2 times in total.
Bobcat
Posts: 372
Joined: 19 May 2021, 14:56
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Bobcat »

Nessie:
Bobcat seems surprised I said that archaeology does not prove what happened at TII.... He [Bobcat] has lied that I admitted there is no archaeological proof of mass graves at TII.
So you have admitted that "archaeology does not prove what happened at TII" but are now alleging that "there is archaeological proof of mass graves at TII."

Yet you are afraid to answer this simple question:
Nessie,

The MAXIMUM number of discernable / measurable extant mass graves of Treblinka II that you can conclusively prove actually exist, and in which legitimate archaeologists have, via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented methodology - conclusively proven to currently contain the remains of at least 2 people; is no less than __?__.

And Nessie's answer is: __?__
If "there is archaeological proof of mass graves at TII" then you prove yourself a liar with your claim that "archaeology does not prove what happened at TII," and each time you refuse to answer the above question - it is further proof that you are a liar and thus, using your "logic" I won our debate.

Nessie:
Do you understand what archaeology and history can and cannot evidence?
This issue here Nessie is about proof, not about your so-called "evidence."

You can tell us what you know about the difference between the two by answering this simple question:
Nessie,

The MAXIMUM number of discernable / measurable extant mass graves of Treblinka II that you can conclusively prove actually exist, and in which legitimate archaeologists have, via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented methodology - conclusively proven to currently contain the remains of at least 2 people; is no less than __?__.

And Nessie's answer is: __?__
Go ahead and ignore it Nessie - again. As each time you refuse to answer it is further proof that you are a liar and your admission that "archaeology does not prove what happened at TII" is true because, as you know and have admitted, archaeology has not proven what is alleged to have happened at TII.
Last edited by Bobcat on 08 Jul 2021, 17:15, edited 1 time in total.
Bobcat
Posts: 372
Joined: 19 May 2021, 14:56
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Bobcat »

Nessie:
There is a huge difference between...

proving that mass graves were dug

proving how many bodies those graves contain
What graves Nessie?

If mass graves were dug at TII, then tell us:

The MAXIMUM number of discernable / measurable extant mass graves of Treblinka II that legitimate archaeologists have, via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented methodology - conclusively proven to have been dug in the camp; is no less than __?__.

And Nessie's answer is: __?__

The MAXIMUM number of discernable / measurable extant mass graves of Treblinka II that you can conclusively prove actually exist, and in which legitimate archaeologists have, via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented methodology - conclusively proven to currently contain the remains of at least 2 people; is no less than __?__.

And Nessie's answer is: __?__

Now watch Nessie prove himself a liar by refusing to answer the above questions.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 33455
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Nessie »

Fact is, you lied when you claimed that I had admitted there is no archaeological proof of mass graves at TII. When I challenged you, you failed to quote me making that claim.

Until you apologise for making that false claim, I will not answer any of your questions.

If you fail to apologise, that will be further proof you are a liar.
Bobcat
Posts: 372
Joined: 19 May 2021, 14:56
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Bobcat »

Nessie wrote: 08 Jul 2021, 17:09 Fact is, you lied when you claimed that I had admitted there is no archaeological proof of mass graves at TII. When I challenged you, you failed to quote me making that claim.

Until you apologise for making that false claim, I will not answer any of your questions.

If you fail to apologise, that will be further proof you are a liar.
Nessie:
The thread was locked and the rule change made "official" before I had been given a chance to reply... I decided to go ahead anyway,


That is proof that you knew what my last word on the issue was (it will be the ONLY additional rule) and that it was you who made it official ( viewtopic.php?p=192346#p192346 ) and that you are a liar on multiple fronts.

And I did in fact quote you admitting there is no archaeological proof of mass graves at TII:

viewtopic.php?p=192418#p192418

You keep lying in a lame attempt to try to cover up your earlier lies.

Face it Nessie, your repeated refusal to answer the following:
The MAXIMUM number of discernable / measurable extant mass graves of Treblinka II that legitimate archaeologists have, via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented methodology - conclusively proven to have been dug in the camp; is no less than __?__.

And Nessie's answer is: __?__

The MAXIMUM number of discernable / measurable extant mass graves of Treblinka II that you can conclusively prove actually exist, and in which legitimate archaeologists have, via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented methodology - conclusively proven to currently contain the remains of at least 2 people; is no less than __?__.

And Nessie's answer is: __?__
Is not only further proof that you are a liar and your admission that "archaeology does not prove what happened at TII" is true, but according to your "logic" you lost the debate.

Thank you for admitting that I won the debate Nessie, I didn't know you had it in you.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 33455
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Nessie »

As this exchange proves

viewtopic.php?p=192345#p192345

I was merely responding to your request to make the first question official. I had not officially agreed to the rule change that you unilaterally made after we had agreed on the rules.

You will also note that it is only in your opinion you won the debate. Others disagree

viewtopic.php?p=192626#p192626

"As far as I am concerned Nessie won the debate"

I proved you lied, the debate shows that and you can whine all you want, that is the end of the matter. Rather than clutter this thread, you can answer the question you have so far dodged

viewtopic.php?p=192889#p192889
Bobcat
Posts: 372
Joined: 19 May 2021, 14:56
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Bobcat »

Nessie wrote: 08 Jul 2021, 17:44 As this exchange proves

viewtopic.php?p=192345#p192345

I was merely responding to your request to make the first question official. I had not officially agreed to the rule change that you unilaterally made after we had agreed on the rules.

You will also note that it is only in your opinion you won the debate. Others disagree

viewtopic.php?p=192626#p192626

"As far as I am concerned Nessie won the debate"

I proved you lied, the debate shows that and you can whine all you want, that is the end of the matter. Rather than clutter this thread, you can answer the question you have so far dodged

viewtopic.php?p=192889#p192889
Nessie:
The thread was locked and the rule change made "official" before I had been given a chance to reply... I decided to go ahead anyway


That is proof that you knew what my last word on the issue was and that you agreed that there would only be one additional rule, and that you made that agreement official: viewtopic.php?p=192346#p192346

You knew what I agreed to and you made it official - you can't change that reality with your magical thinking.

Nessie:
Bobcat seems surprised I said that archaeology does not prove what happened at TII .... He [Bobcat] has lied that I admitted there is no archaeological proof of mass graves at TII.
If you didn't lie about the alleged "archaeological proof of mass graves at TII" - then what are your answers to these simple questions:
The MAXIMUM number of discernable / measurable extant mass graves of Treblinka II that legitimate archaeologists have, via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented methodology - conclusively proven to have been dug in the camp; is no less than __?__.

And Nessie's answer is: __?__

The MAXIMUM number of discernable / measurable extant mass graves of Treblinka II that you can conclusively prove actually exist, and in which legitimate archaeologists have, via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented methodology - conclusively proven to currently contain the remains of at least 2 people; is no less than __?__.

And Nessie's answer is: __?__
Refusing to answer Is further proof that you are the liar and that I won the debate.
Bobcat
Posts: 372
Joined: 19 May 2021, 14:56
Contact:

Re: Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum

Post by Bobcat »

Nessie wrote: 08 Jul 2021, 09:45
Bobcat wrote: 07 Jul 2021, 19:37 Nessie:
Bobcat is refusing to abide by rules he agreed upon
Interesting, especially since what it is that I agreed upon.
Bobcat:
Are you afraid to accept this challenge... Yes. - or - No. - ??
Nessie:
No.
Bobcat:
If I can conclusively demonstrate to the moderator that a statement of fact that can be attributed to you here in this thread or one that you make in our formal debate is a lie, then the debate is over and the moderator will declare that I am the winner.
Nessie:
I will accept that, if you accept that rule also applies to you
Bobcat:
OK, But If the rule applies to both of us, then it will be the ONLY additional rule added to these rules:
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2492
Nessie, you seem have forgotten this:
OK, But If the rule applies to both of us, then it will be the ONLY additional rule added to these rules:
viewtopic.php?p=192210#p192210
And the fact that you made it official with this:
Bobcat, as requested, to make it "official"
viewtopic.php?p=192346#p192346
My reference to "official" was not about the rule change, it was about that first question, which you had already posted and then refused to answer.

The thread was locked and the rule change made "official" before I had been given a chance to reply. I did not agree to that rule change. I only agreed to the previously agreed upon rules, with my rules 1-3 and your rule about lying.

I decided to go ahead anyway, since I knew I was going to prove you had lied with the thread title.
"I decided to go ahead anyway" - with the full knowledge of what my final word on the matter was.

And, "to make it "official"" you started the debate with the full knowledge of what it was I agreed to.

This was blatant and malicious deception because you were planning on bailing the first chance you got - which was almost immediately.

What a coward.
Last edited by Bobcat on 21 Jul 2021, 22:55, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply