william black

But you said that there were NO gas chambers...

You said 'Show me the evidence for a single gas chamber'.

I've done that, and now we'll move on to the next bit, and we can start
with Captain Bischoff's next letter when he requests a dozen gas tight doors
and a supply of Zyclon B for use in a mortuary as a sterilising agent.

Remembering, of course, that a cyanide is useless for sterilising
mortuaries...

Then we'll move on to the order for ten gas detectors made in February 1943,
and discuss what legitimate use anyone had for such a number.

After that we'll move on to another piece of evidence.

Except you're refusing to address the issues and have resorted to invective.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

paris

Excuse me. I have known all along there there was a 'gas chamber' at A/B my
syntax has been slack.
But since that chamber cannot possibly have been used to murder over a
million people, I don't usually think of it.
The Chambers that you see at the camp are actually modified air-raid
shelters, with shower heads nailed to the walls.
Air raid shelters at the time were often gas tight... The allies had them
too. And there are contemporary designs for this exact
type of shelter, that Irving produced at the trial. This explains the doors etc.


Not really... What you've done is to claim that a room that could only fit
about 5 people in it, killed over a million people.

Well for starters.. There are problems with the authenticity of most of the
letters cited by Lipstadt et al.
http://fpp.co.uk/Letters/Auschwitz/Dunkus170203.html
See above wrt doors... As for the point about the uses of Zyclon B.. I have
no answer for that, except to say that it's my understanding that it will
kill almost anything with prolonged exposure.

Maybe they wanted to know if their air raid shelters were compromised?
Assuming the letter is genuine.


invective.

Because I'm having to go over the trial transcripts with you like a child...
It's tedious and it's extremely time consuming.
Why don't you try and argue like someone who's equipped with the facts
first..
Irving has follewed the exact argument we're having in court... All we are
doing is covering old arguments...
Read Irvings answers to these questions in court, or on his site.. And then
try and move the argument on by picking faults in his answers?

Better yet.. Read any of the myriad of do***ents on FPP or Codoh about
exactly these points.. And then come back to me?

--
Paris. Not the City

thornley@visi.com (david

Lost, didn't he?

If you're going to try to convince us that almost all historians have
been wrong for the last 50+ years, and that the court arrived at an
unjust verdict in the Irving suit, I suggest you start citing some
real evidence. Repeating what Irving said is going to result in
you being judged much like Irving was: with objectivity and a
reasonable amount of fairness (which is, of course, just what you
*don't* need to win your arguments, the facts being what they are).


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

paris

No no...
The law is not about justice.. The law is about maintaining order..
I've read the trial transcripts.. And the decision was perverse...

I don't like Irving.. He's simply a racist.. But his evidence is quite
compelling...

--
Paris. Not the City

dirk bruere at neopax

news:<3f02ee26$0$629$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com> ...

It was a civil matter and judgement is rendered according to 'balance of
probability' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

william black

I've said it once and I'll say it again.

These people need to be confronted.

If they are not then their lies will spread and soon people will say 'They
must have appoint, after all, nobody says they are wrong...'

I'd rather fight them on the net than fight them on the streets...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

william black

So even with a reduced standard of proof he lost.

Don't forget he brought the case and claimed he was libelled.

All he had to prove was that 'on the balance of probability' that he was
libelled

He couldn't even do that.

In fact he was totally destroyed.

An English public schoolboy in a trial before a court where the judge and
most of the lawyers were also English public schoolboys

And the defendant was an American Jewish woman.

A result like that is a very serious condemnation of the man's ideas.

It's doubtful if any serious publisher will ever again publish one of his
books or any booksellers stock them.

He's ruined, and no longer considered a serious source for anything.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

paris

Excuse me. I have known all along there there was a 'gas chamber' at A/B my
syntax has been slack.
But since that chamber cannot possibly have been used to murder over a
million people, I don't usually think of it.
The Chambers that you see at the camp are actually modified air-raid
shelters, with shower heads nailed to the walls.
Air raid shelters at the time were often gas tight... The allies had them
too. And there are contemporary designs for this exact
type of shelter, that Irving produced at the trial. This explains the doors etc.


Not really... What you've done is to claim that a room that could only fit
about 5 people in it, killed over a million people.

Well for starters.. There are problems with the authenticity of most of the
letters cited by Lipstadt et al.
http://fpp.co.uk/Letters/Auschwitz/Dunkus170203.html
See above wrt doors... As for the point about the uses of Zyclon B.. I have
no answer for that, except to say that it's my understanding that it will
kill almost anything with prolonged exposure.

Maybe they wanted to know if their air raid shelters were compromised?
Assuming the letter is genuine.


invective.

Because I'm having to go over the trial transcripts with you like a child...
It's tedious and it's extremely time consuming.
Why don't you try and argue like someone who's equipped with the facts
first..
Irving has follewed the exact argument we're having in court... All we are
doing is covering old arguments...
Read Irvings answers to these questions in court, or on his site.. And then
try and move the argument on by picking faults in his answers?

Better yet.. Read any of the myriad of do***ents on FPP or Codoh about
exactly these points.. And then come back to me?

--
Paris. Not the City

thornley@visi.com (david

Lost, didn't he?

If you're going to try to convince us that almost all historians have
been wrong for the last 50+ years, and that the court arrived at an
unjust verdict in the Irving suit, I suggest you start citing some
real evidence. Repeating what Irving said is going to result in
you being judged much like Irving was: with objectivity and a
reasonable amount of fairness (which is, of course, just what you
*don't* need to win your arguments, the facts being what they are).


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

mansour

In the Name of Moon-god the Most passionate, the Most pityiful

Do not forget to visit these.... judge for yourselves
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-start.htm
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/incredibleteachings.shtml
http://members.tripod.com/joe_matalski/
http://members.tripod.com/joe_matalski/Pages/news.html
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/
http://answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv1.html
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/islam.html#doesis
http://www.dcregistry.com/forums/religion/messages/1293.html
http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Nov2001/Mohammed_Islam_and_Mohammedanism.ht
m

some self explanatory pictures ......
http://www.familybible.org/Articles/IssuesAndEvents/Boomers.htm
http://www.faithfreedom.org/gallery.htm
Yaa Islam is wonderful!!!