A Nessie infestation is leading to quarantine measures at the Klowns forum

[Charles Traynor]

Topics are now beginning to be locked at the Klowns forum. Nessie really is a master troll.

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic. ... 83#p759683

[Werd]

All he does is repeat the same lies that he has provided sufficient evidence in a multiple of ways. He has not done his homework and he never will.

[Huntinger]

All he does is repeat himself.

A. the holocaust is evidenced.
or
B. mass transports is evidenced.

Not B. Therefore A.

He still refuses to accept that premise A has been contested by revisionists poking hole after hole after hole in it. And this justifies skepticism and should be enough for eliminating all anti revisionist laws in the world. He just screams "there is evidence. The documents verify the witnesses and the witnesses corroborate the documents. Multiple, fast cremations. Well where did they go then?" He won't write that anti Mattogno versus Pressac's "criminal traces" and anti Rudolf versus Green/Markiewicz dissertation I've been asking about for over a year.

This is discussing the H. Not applicable in MH2

[Werd]

While I disagree and think it's a meta discussion and thus not an actual discussion, I will change my post above nonetheless.

[Huntinger]

While I disagree and think it's a meta discussion and thus not an actual discussion, I will change my post above nonetheless.

It is precisely this which enables the troll to discuss "if not B then A "nonsense over and over again. Nessie is a troll who is ruining Klowns; Balmoral could see that coming.

[Werd]

He is at the klown's forum trying to pretend his revisionist opponents don't understand basic deductive principles like modus tollens. We do understand basic deductive principles, but that is not where our problem is. Our problem is his initial first premise A and the weak inductive support it has.

[Huntinger]

He is at the klown's forum trying to pretend his revisionist opponents don't understand basic deductive principles like modus tollens. We do understand basic deductive principles, but that is not where our problem is. Our problem is his initial first premise A and the weak inductive support it has.

The thing is that many of us here have qualification in logic and critical thinking up to degree level while Nessie says it had spent a few months studying critical thinking and logic while studying for some history paper (History 101 perhaps). It
is totally out of its depth which could explain its ineptitude and elliptical reasoning.

[Werd]

He is at the klown's forum trying to pretend his revisionist opponents don't understand basic deductive principles like modus tollens. We do understand basic deductive principles, but that is not where our problem is. Our problem is his initial first premise A and the weak inductive support it has.

The thing is that many of us here have qualification in logic and critical thinking up to degree level while Nessie says it had spent a few months studying critical thinking and logic while studying for some history paper (History 101 perhaps). It
is totally out of its depth which could explain its ineptitude and elliptical reasoning.

Nessie's Education
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3687

We find out what he really means when he says history and logic were two subjects he studied at university.

[Huntinger]

This is the main feature at Klowns atm.

How can someone write like that and at the same time fail to get the basics?

Logically, the claim that A is weakly evidenced does not matter, when B is not evidenced at all. It still means A happened and B did not happen.

Fact is, A is far better evidenced than any denier will admit. Then there is a good reason why there is a lot about A that is weakly evidenced, as there was a major effort to destroy evidence for A. Add to that the impossibility of B having taken place without leaving any evidence and the only logical conclusion is that A happened.

Oh my, I bet all the Klowns are going oooh aaaaah at this stroke of genius, wishing they could reason like this and think of it first.

[Werd]

I bet all the Klowns are going oooh aaaaah at this stroke of genius, wishing they could reason like this and think of it first.

He keeps acting like we don't understand relationships between premises and a conclusion. We understand it just fine. He's beating a dead horse for no reason. He dodges the amount of holes in proposition A that Mattogno and Rudolf have found over the years, and he ignores evidence for B, transports of Jews, and also Jews that survived the war that were supposed to have been gassed and could have been, but strangely, weren't. He also likes to forget how Danuta Czech just conjured up 100,000 gassed Jews out of thin air.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3656