|
Post by been_there on May 2, 2022 8:16:57 GMT
As I understand it, she was charged and judged for two comments she made: one four years ago and the other six years ago. So by claiming she is “persisting” shows you are demonstrating either: i.) a hateful prejudice based on ignorance or ii). one based in deception. (See the post above containing an account of the trial proceedings written by Lady Michelle Renouf.)...how you could say I am indulging I am engaged in a “hateful prejudice” is a mystery. As for the second part, I have no idea how long the statute of limitations is for something like this. But if she said it based upon the statute of limitations then when she said it wouldn’t make any difference. Yes, it is a mystery TO YOU! To others here it is clear. It therefore appears you have a blindspot. To help you, try imagining this was your own grandmother who had been a decent, upright, law-abiding citizen all her life. Imagine how you would feel if she politely, respectfully, reasonably took issue with a narrative she did not believe and which she had asked the appropriate German authority for proof of but to which request she had received no reply. Imagine if an old woman in your family, whom you loved, was then persecuted and imprisoned in her antiquity for such ’thought crimes’. Imagine once she had served her sentence, they then began persecuting her AGAIN for comments said years before. Then imagine some person saying she deserved it for ”persisting” in breaking the law. Getting it yet? 🤔
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 2, 2022 16:28:58 GMT
To help you, try imagining this was your own grandmother who had been a decent, upright, law-abiding citizen all her life. Imagine how you would feel if she politely, respectfully, reasonably took issue with a narrative she did not believe and which she had asked the appropriate German authority for proof of but to which request she had received no reply. Imagine if an old woman in your family, whom you loved, was then persecuted and imprisoned in her antiquity for such ’thought crimes’. Imagine once she had served her sentence, they then began persecuting her AGAIN for comments said years before. Then imagine some person saying she deserved it for ”persisting” in breaking the law. Getting it yet? 🤔 I look at it more like this: If my dearly departed grandmother persisted in driving without a license and kept getting caught then at some point someone really needs to take her keys away from her. In this instance maybe someone should sit down with Nazi granny and explain to her that she is breaking German law. If she wants to DeNy the Holocaust then she needs to move. Or, alternatively, if she wants to have conversations with her DEnIer friends then she should have them privately.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 2, 2022 17:22:56 GMT
To help you, try imagining this was your own grandmother who had been a decent, upright, law-abiding citizen all her life. Imagine how you would feel if she politely, respectfully, reasonably took issue with a narrative she did not believe and which she had asked the appropriate German authority for proof of but to which request she had received no reply. Imagine if an old woman in your family, whom you loved, was then persecuted and imprisoned in her antiquity for such ’thought crimes’. Imagine once she had served her sentence, they then began persecuting her AGAIN for comments said years before. Then imagine some person saying she deserved it for ” persisting” in breaking the law. Getting it yet? 🤔 I look at it more like this: If my dear... grandmother persisted in driving without a license and kept getting caught then at some point someone really needs to take her keys away from her. Yeah, as was tried to be shown to you, you have a hateful prejudice that you are not willing to admit to. Q: What sort of mindset, takes pleasure from a harmless, 93 year old lady being persecuted in the courts and imprisoned? A: Your’s Jeff. 🙁 You are now trying to alter the ’crime’ and to deny what you wrote damning her, in order to avoid acknowledging your hate motivated schadenfreude. Firstly the law she has infringed is not in any sane society equal to driving a vehicle that could be lethal if the driver is not qualified or capable. The infringed law is not protecting anyone from injury or danger or disadvantage. She is not infringing anyone else’s rights. We are talking about an unethical, tyrannous ’thought crime’ law, and one instigated effectively by an alien, occupying power. Secondly, if we take your example, where you say your “grandmother persisted in driving without a license”. That is not the case here. It would be if your grandmother drove without a license in 2015 and 2016, some years ago. She was charged, sentenced, appealed and eventually four years ago in 2018 was sent to jail for two years. Upon her release, she was again charged for the same offence ’committed’ four and six years ago. And then a hate-motivated American says it served her right for persisting in driving without a licence. And when it is pointed out she can’t fairly be damned so hatefully for ‘ persisting’, for something done BEFORE she was sent to jail, the American goes into denial. Yeah! America! Land of the free. Er... unless you pose questions exposing the flaws in a racist, slanderous, anti-German, pseudo-historical narrative.
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 2, 2022 20:16:52 GMT
Yeah, as was tried to be shown to you, you have a hateful prejudice that you are not willing to admit to. Q: What sort of mindset, takes pleasure from a harmless, 93 year old lady If it helps feed your incessant need to tell me what I am thinking when the reality is quite the opposite then I guess you be you. The reality is quite the opposite, I think these laws are a waste. I’ve been consistent about that so your thoughts on my mindset are completely irrelevant. OK but in the end it is German law. I don’t have to agree or disagree with it and the German government doesn’t care what I think about it. They will enforce the laws on their books. It’s not hidden, certainly Nazi granny is well aware of it. So if she chooses to break German law my like or dislike is irrelevant, just as your silly attempt at psychoanalysis is irrelevant. LOL Who is this scoundrel?  !!!!  ? Be careful, I think that is on the forbidden words list.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 3, 2022 4:51:30 GMT
Yeah, as was tried to be shown to you, you have a hateful prejudice that you are not willing to admit to. Q: What sort of mindset, takes pleasure from a harmless, 93 year old lady ...what I am thinking [in] reality is quite the opposite... The reality is quite the opposite... Ah-ha. So.... this proves you ARE in denial! 🙂 As I just demonstrated your insistence she is “ persisting” in breaking a law, is false. And denial would also explain your refusal to acknowledge that, PLUS to admit your false comparison about driving licences.
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 3, 2022 5:53:10 GMT
...what I am thinking [in] reality is quite the opposite... The reality is quite the opposite... Ah-ha. So.... this proves you ARE in denial! 🙂 As I just demonstrated your insistence she is “ persisting” in breaking a law, is false. And denial would also explain your refusal to acknowledge that, PLUS to admit your false comparison about driving licences.
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 3, 2022 6:14:41 GMT
Ah-ha. So.... this proves you ARE in denial! 🙂 As I just demonstrated your insistence she is “ persisting” in breaking a law, is false. And denial would also explain your refusal to acknowledge that, PLUS to admit your false comparison about driving licences. You really need to be careful with your use of the word denial. My understanding is that word usage is forbidden here. Been-there, here are the facts of Nazi granny’s case. Ready? This recent court case dealt with her appeals of the two instances you described. The court actually sentenced her but she appealed so she remained out while her appeal was heard. The court rejected her appeals so now she has to appeal again. Now she was in prison for two years for a separate incident. The reason why I made the comparison I did is she is a consistent offender based upon German law. A little history: She was found guilty and fined/sentenced in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2016, 2018 and then these two recent incidents (2022). She is a repeat offender and as one of her judges said she shows no remorse for any of these incidents. So, yeah, eventually the courts are going to come down hard on someone like this. You don’t have to like it, I don’t have to like it but that’s the reality.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 3, 2022 7:49:25 GMT
You really need to be careful with your use of the word denial. My understanding is that word usage is forbidden here. Ha ha! 😅 No. It isn’t. I wonder why you so insistently need to be in denial about that? 🤔 Hmmm? You like calling her a ’Nazi’, don’t you. Can you think about the possibility that it is a racist slur? Can you consider that? Try thinking it through. She is German. She was alive during WW2. She is drawing attention to the lies, exaggerations and hypocrisy of the currently official ’history of that global conflict. So you and others apply a hateful, anti-German, perjorative to demonise her. Do you see? No, you claimed she was “persisting” in breaking a law. Just correct your misunderstanding. Why persist in being in denial? 😉 But your initial, transparent schadenfreude and later false comparisons does rather show you DO “like it”. Why not admit it? Your attempts now at denying it just makes you look dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 3, 2022 13:00:09 GMT
JEFF: here are the facts of Nazi granny’s case. Hmmm? You like calling her a ’Nazi’, don’t you. Can you think about the possibility that it is a racist slur? Can you consider that? Try thinking it through. She is German. She was alive during WW2. She is drawing attention to the lies, exaggerations and hypocrisy of the currently official ’history of that global conflict.So you and others apply a hateful, anti-German, perjorative to demonise her. First, that whole “lies, exaggeration….” business is just you engaging in your own type of denial. You are certainly entitled to think that. It doesn’t mean I have to take it seriously. Second, you really need to get over it. That self-righteous twaddle and whining just makes you look like a giant baby. That’s what the press calls her and I find it amusing so I’ll continue to call her that. If you don’t like it I’m afraid you’ll just have suck it up, buttercup. I’ll simply ignore and delete any further whining about it. So you may as well save yourself the trouble of typing it out or copying and pasting it. I also showed why I said “persistent.” It’s not my problem if you conveniently skipped over it. I think it’s funny when you tell me how I’m thinking as if you could really know.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 3, 2022 14:35:55 GMT
Hmmm? You like calling her a ’ Nazi’, don’t you. Can you think about the possibility that it is a racist slur? Can you consider that? Try thinking it through. She is German. She was alive during WW2. She is drawing attention to the lies, exaggerations and hypocrisy of the currently official ’history of that global conflict.So you and others apply a hateful, anti-German, perjorative to demonise her. First, that whole “lies, exaggeration….” business is just you engaging in your own type of denial. You are certainly entitled to think that. It doesn’t mean I have to take it seriously. So you don’t think Elie Wiesel lied and exaggerated! How about Kitty Hart? How about Eva Moses Korr? How about Jankl Wiernek? How about the eating-and-shitting-diamonds woman? How about ALL the ’survivor’ witnesses who lied under oath by falsely asserting that Demanjuk was ’Ivan the terrible? How about... etc., etc., etc., etc.You don’t have to take all the multitude of examples ” seriously”. Its obviously a personal choice how much we each choose to try to be in alignment with truth. 🙂 Ha ha! 🤣😅 Ok. If you say so. Yeah! That’s the point that you keep denying: that you DO find the persecution of a 93 year old woman ”amusing”. Which demonstrates your denied racist, hateful attitude. Which is where we came in. 🙄 [Sheesh! Round and round and...]I didn’t skip over it. I showed how it was wrong. Er... and you are a teacher of schoolchildren aren’t you? 🙄 Your comments repeatedly reveal it. It is not mind-reading. 🙂 That you show it over and over yet can’t come out and admit, merely demonstrates you are dishonest about it. That is the great irony: so many of you H-believ-ers are clearly filled with racist hatred against people you know nothing about. You dehumnise others with these hateful perjoratives and feel good about it. You are happy to see a victim of your hatred suffering. But then deny it when you are shown the hypocrisy of your attitude.
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 4, 2022 20:34:59 GMT
First, that whole “lies, exaggeration….” business is just you engaging in your own type of denial. You are certainly entitled to think that. It doesn’t mean I have to take it seriously. So you don’t think Elie Wiesel lied and exaggerated! How about Kitty Hart? How about Eva Moses Korr? How about Jankl Wiernek? How about the eating-and-[excrement]ting-diamonds woman? How about ALL the ’survivor’ witnesses who lied under oath by falsely asserting that Demanjuk was ’Ivan the terrible? How about... etc., etc., etc., etc.You don’t have to take all the multitude of examples ” seriously”. Its obviously a personal choice how much we each choose to try to be in alignment with truth. 🙂 Oh, it’s so cute you think I don’t consider issues with witnesses when I read history. You know how I counterbalance that? By seeing not only what people like Eli Wiesel said but what people like Rudolf Hoess said. Or what people like Perry Broad said. Or what Oscar Groening said (who consistently said deniers were full of it) or what Kremer wrote in his diary. I look at documents so I can square how they relate to witness statements and not the weird guessing that Holocaust deniers engage in (it was an air raid shelter, no…it was a “gassifier” (whatever that is) etc. with no known connection to any reality. Ha ha! 🤣😅 Ok. If you say so. [/quote] I do. Yeah! That’s the point that you keep denying: that you DO find the persecution of a 93 year old woman ”amusing”. [/quote] No, I find calling her Nazi granny amusing. I think charging and convicting her over her beliefs a waste of time. The next bit is you trying that pointless psychoanalysis and attempt to read my mind. So it’s gone. You can type that stuff if you like. When I reply it will simply be deleted and ignored. Last warning on that, it will not be addressed by me again. You can waste your time on that bibble babble but any sentence I see from you that includes it will be deleted and ignored. If you actually say something pertinent then I may selectively delete the stupid bits. Or I’ll simply ignore the whole thing. I didn’t skip over it. I showed how it was wrong. [/quote] If she’s been dragged into court multiple times over the same reason over the last 15 years, then yes, it’s persistent. Nope. And the rest of this is irrelevant attempts to tell me what I am thinking and the usual whining about “believers.” Tossed into the scrap heap and ignored. As it will be going forward.
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 4, 2022 20:35:34 GMT
First, that whole “lies, exaggeration….” business is just you engaging in your own type of denial. You are certainly entitled to think that. It doesn’t mean I have to take it seriously. So you don’t think Elie Wiesel lied and exaggerated! How about Kitty Hart? How about Eva Moses Korr? How about Jankl Wiernek? How about the eating-and-[excrement]ting-diamonds woman? How about ALL the ’survivor’ witnesses who lied under oath by falsely asserting that Demanjuk was ’Ivan the terrible? How about... etc., etc., etc., etc.You don’t have to take all the multitude of examples ” seriously”. Its obviously a personal choice how much we each choose to try to be in alignment with truth. 🙂 Oh, it’s so cute you think I don’t consider issues with witnesses when I read history. You know how I counterbalance that? By seeing not only what people like Eli Wiesel said but what people like Rudolf Hoess said. Or what people like Perry Broad said. Or what Oscar Groening said (who consistently said deniers were full of it) or what Kremer wrote in his diary. I look at documents so I can square how they relate to witness statements and not the weird guessing that Holocaust deniers engage in (it was an air raid shelter, no…it was a “gassifier” (whatever that is) etc. with no known connection to any reality. I do. No, I find calling her Nazi granny amusing. I think charging and convicting her over her beliefs a waste of time. The next bit is you trying that pointless psychoanalysis and attempt to read my mind. So it’s gone. You can type that stuff if you like. When I reply it will simply be deleted and ignored. Last warning on that, it will not be addressed by me again. You can waste your time on that bibble babble but any sentence I see from you that includes it will be deleted and ignored. If you actually say something pertinent then I may selectively delete the stupid bits. Or I’ll simply ignore the whole thing. If she’s been dragged into court multiple times over the same reason over the last 15 years, then yes, it’s persistent. Nope. And the rest of this is irrelevant attempts to tell me what I am thinking and the usual whining about “believers.” Tossed into the scrap heap and ignored. As it will be going forward.
|
|
|
Post by Turnagain on May 5, 2022 4:03:03 GMT
Jeff (numbers) wrote:
Rudolf Hoess who was tortured for at leas three days before he signed a confession. Curious how he signed a confession supposedly written by him in English. Curious how he confessed to being responsible for the deaths of 3.5 million people even though the current number of "victims" has been reduced to 1.5 million. Even though his guards bragged about how they "prodded" (read beat the sh!t out him) with axe handles as part of a sleep deprivation program.
You betcha', Jeff, Hoess's confession is the cornerstone of the entire holyhoax fable. Especially the four million victims at Auschwitz...oh wait a minute...he really meant the 1 to 1.5 million victims. Maybe you should try one of Nessie's excuses. Three and a half million was just a minor mistake. Perhaps he was just using "emotive language" because he was so traumatized by the enormity of his crime. Perhaps he was just exaggerating; bragging on his murderous feats. At any rate, Hoess is no doubt the most honest and credible witness of the entire holyhoax...or something.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 5, 2022 7:56:14 GMT
So you don’t think Elie Wiesel lied and exaggerated?How about Kitty Hart? How about Eva Moses Korr? How about Jankl Wiernek? How about the swallowing-and-pooping-diamonds woman? How about ALL the ’survivor’ witnesses who lied under oath by falsely asserting that Demanjuk was ’Ivan the terrible? How about... etc., etc., etc., etc.You don’t have to take all the multitude of examples ” seriously”. Its obviously a personal choice how much we each choose to try to be in alignment with truth. 🙂 ...you think I don’t consider issues with witnesses when I read history? What a fascinating dodge! 😮 And to such a simple question. Q: What sort of a mindset would need to dodge such a simple ’yes’ or ’no’ question? A: One that needs to deny that the holocaust narrative includes a great many testimonies from people who lied and exaggerated? Hmmmm? So now the argument is that H skeptics don’t look at documents, or if they do they make guesses that have no connection to reality? Wow! 😮 SUMMARY SO FAR: Jeff feels a hateful schadenfreude towards persecuted Germans who were alive during WW2 if they doubt the flawed, protected H narrative. But Jeff denies he feels that. He is amused by the persistent persecution of a harmless old lady and thinks she deserve it. But he denies that too. He thinks being persecuted by the judiciary for comments made 4 and 6 hears ago is evidence a person is themself persisting in breaking the law. He thinks repeating his own words back at him is an “ attempt to read my mind” and gives a “ Last warning on that”. 😮🤣😂🤪 Yeah, persistent persecution. Not persistent law-breaking. 🙄🤦♂️ Sheesh! The hateful mind-set and persistent, stubborn denial on such a simple, insignificant point. Its like Nessie refusing correction on the dictionary and legal definition of ’ anecdotal evidence’. It is psychotic denial. Oh, the irony. 🙂 Further sign of how damaging to society this irrational belief in a deeply flawed, racist, anti-German out-dated, atrocity-propaganda has become. 😕
|
|
|
Post by jeff8675309 on May 5, 2022 15:26:54 GMT
Rudolf Hoess who was tortured for at leas three days before he signed a confession. Curious how he freely gave testimony at the IMT as a witness for Kaltenbrunner in an attempt to exonerate him. During that time Hoess directly contradicted that concentration camp SS were allowed to freely abuse prisoners. He also blamed Allied bombing for the miserable conditions the prisoners were in at the end of the war and he also disputed Soviet numbers (albeit with numbers he corrected in his memoirs). Curious that you didn’t know that Hoess taught himself English while imprisoned in the 1920’s for a political murder. Curious that you didn’t pick up that Hoess said the number came from Eichmann (conveniently missing at the time and for all anyone knew dead in a ditch somewhere). Curious that you didn’t know that in his memoirs he gave some rather specific numbers that actually totaled up to about the number we have today. OK, well, you’ve only read one book about this so it’s not curious. You can’t see me but I laughed so hard at this statement I woke my dog up. No, Turnagain, not only do we have Hoess’s confession but testimony from Auschwitz personnel, documents, reports from the Polish Underground, etc., etc., etc. I forget how ignorant you are, Turnagain. It’s always fun when you remind me. No, derp boy, that number came from the Soviets based upon their calculations of cremation capability. Hoess disputed those numbers…twice.
|
|