Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Pseudo-historians
Options
Comments
-
ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:
You cannot deal with the fact that each of my claims which you have snipped is supported, so you try to turn the tables on me with all these aggressive red-herrings. No thanks.
[ISAW]
Wrong again. This thread is about pseudo-historians about the events known as the holocaust. There is a history to be written about the plight of the Jews during the thrid reich period. That's what this is all about.YOU began this thread in which you claim the holocaust is pseudo history.
Yes, and I pointed out why you cannot separate the two, and will continue to do so.In another thread yu said Nuremberg can not be seperated from the holocaust. I disagreed.
I look forward to that.You posted something about Hoess and Nuremberg. I don't intend to go into that now but I may return later to see if you can back that up.
Is this a test? Do I have to answer?I didn't ask you about it then and I am not going of on a tangent now. so what DID I ask about?
Are you telling me you have never heard of the Zundel trial?You then posted something about a Canadian trial on Lachout. I asked you about this. I didn't ask about your first post.
Have a look at these for background:
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/falsenews.toc.html - for a rveisionist account of the trial.
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/books/annual6/chap07.html - the Wiesenthal Centre's account.
This is lame. I posted evidence about this. You came back with a rebuttal piece put out by a Jewish organisation. Now it boils down to this: which account to you believe? I prefer the revisionist account, you may prefer the other. I cannot compel you to accept the Rev account, but by the same token you cannot compel me to accept the Jewish orgs version.My point BEGAN with Lachout and that is where I will remain until you support YOUR claim witrh evidence or WITHDRAW it.
I posted some thing from the Austrian parliament which shows that the proceedings against Lachout were dropped. You seem to have a problem with that.
I tell you what we can do. Lachout is not the alpha and omega of this question so we can set him aside. There is no question of me withdrawing him, as you call it, because I have not been given any reason to beyond that piece from the jewsih organisation. I am however saying that we can carry on without him. I don't need him anyway and so I will not refer to him henceforth. There are many other things that need to be discussed. I think you are just trying to manufacture a pretext to withdraw from this discussion on the grounds of when in a hole stop digging.
I promised to get back to yu when I received affirmtion or denial of that. That has not happened so far. I have said this to you a number of times now.You also claimed Lachout was awarded damages. You promised to produce evidence for these claims.
So let's hear no more about Lachout (until such time as I receive the information I have requested). I tell you this, if I don;t receive a satisfactory answer from my original source about the compensation claim I will tell you. You may move on to the other matters raised.0 -
ISAW wrote:
You keep changing your claims and you are now making a fool of yourself. You are trying to shift the goalposts but I wont have that.Eriugena wrote:No I didn't. It was the second post in this thread that introduced Lachout.
[isaw]
I FIRST responded to your Lachout claims and NOT to you first post. That is where I came in and that is where I am staying Lachout - support it or withdraw it!
[Eri]
I have not claimed that, that is what happened. No one disputes that he appeared as a witness and read out that statement.
[ISAW]
I did not dispute whether he appeared but I will now. Where is the official record of this trial?
[Eri]
Yes I have, I posted a number of url's. Perhaps you don't accept it, fine, but dont say I didn't post evidence.
I'm not inclined to accept the word of that Ziering foundation over my original sources because that is what this comes down to, unless you have some other independent source? I would be happy to see it.
[ISAW]
I am asking you for the OFFICIAL RECORDS of the trail you claim Lachout was at. I am also asking you what evidence supports the claims made in the Lachout letter?0 -
Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:You keep changing your claims and you are now making a fool of yourself. You are trying to shift the goalposts but I wont have that.
YOU began the thread with me with a post about Lachout. I queries Lachout. YOU PROMISED to back that up. That is the essence of the first exchange I had with you in this thread. anyone can check that up.
Readers note: Look at the first post I had too this thread. Ask yourself if I questioned Lachout. Ask if it was answered.
Now simple as this : Back up your claims about Lachout as you said you would or admit that you are lying. You sadi you would back up YOUR CLAIMS!
No gaaoposts are being shifted. YOUR OWN WORDS ARE! you promised to back up your claims about Lachout. You claimed not to have a citation to hand and that you would provide one. You havent provided one. There isn't one. Is there? you are lying if you claim to have one when you don't. and you don't do you?
You posted German material from revisionist websites as backup evidence. At the same time you claim sites supported by jewish organisations are biased.
You display double standards.
You also lie if you say you will back up your claims and then not do so.
You cut and pasted unsupported material from a revisionist website and you somehow think that this is acceptable history. when pressed on the issue and when given a source to the OFFICIAL records of the orgainisation you referred to in you own post about Lachout you STILL cant find any evidence of Lachout or Muller in the official records.
You will not be left off the hook.
Now either put up or shut up! YOU made the claims about Lachout YOU post the evidence.0 -
ISAW wrote:
You're becoming hysterical.Eriugena wrote:
Now simple as this : Back up your claims about Lachout as you said you would or admit that you are lying. You sadi you would back up YOUR CLAIMS!
I thnk you are now misrepresenting the situation. Shall I start quoting from posts? I said I ahd to contact the source of the info about the compensation element in order to determine if there is a published reference for that. I said to you that when I hear something you will be told. Now if you think I am lying about this, then there is no point in discussing anything.No gaaoposts are being shifted. YOUR OWN WORDS ARE! you promised to back up your claims about Lachout. You claimed not to have a citation to hand and that you would provide one. You havent provided one. There isn't one. Is there? you are lying if you claim to have one when you don't. and you don't do you?
I also posted a report from the Austrian Parliament - maybe you think they are all evil nazis and deniers as well?You posted German material from revisionist websites as backup evidence. At the same time you claim sites supported by jewish organisations are biased.
You display double standards.
I have told you what I will do. You should calm down and stop making statements that you will regret.You also lie if you say you will back up your claims and then not do so.
You made some silly comment about Kew. I am no where near Kew. I also asked you why you thought the answer to this would be in Kew, why not Maryland, or Koblenz. You ahve not answered.You cut and pasted unsupported material from a revisionist website and you somehow think that this is acceptable history. when pressed on the issue and when given a source to the OFFICIAL records of the orgainisation you referred to in you own post about Lachout you STILL cant find any evidence of Lachout or Muller in the official records.
Your efforts to wriggle away from this discussion is becomong more and more pitiful. You are driven to calling me a liar in advance of something I may or may not say in the future!You will not be left off the hook.
Now either put up or shut up! YOU made the claims about Lachout YOU post the evidence.
I have already said we may set aside Lachout and proceed onto the substantial matters remaining. That means we can continue as if Lachout does not exist. I will not refer to anything that depends on his testimony, alright?
I will post here the information I receive when I receive it which I expect will be sooner rather than later.0 -
Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:How's your German?
Go to the end of the article. These sources show that the charges were eventually dropped. They also inform us about how in Austria, anyone who doubts the holy holocaust story is sent for psychiatric assesment. This should remind us of the Soviet Union, where anyone who doubted that it was a socialist paradise on earth was obviously and and sent to a mental hospital. I belive this was the basis of Lachout's claim.
http://www.vho.org/VffG/2003/3/Heyne422-435.html
the matter comes in a summary of Parliamentary questions
http://normative.zusammenhaenge.at/faelle/at/buergerschutz96.html
Info about the damages claim itself was given to me without citeable source, so I am asking the source for info about that. Watch this space.
I watched and nothing was forthcoming!
You produced NO evidence and NO citation!
Incidentally the site you list as a source above (vho.org) is listed to Germar, Rudolf Castle Hill Publishers. He lists himself as a professional revisionist. Hardly a non biased source? any you chave the gall to suggest Nizcor is not acceptable because it is influenced by a foundation named after a jew?
Heres something on your "evidence"
How is your German?
Neo-Nazi accused of 'racial hatred' goes on the run
By Jessica Berry and Chris Hastings
Special to the Electric Telegraph 01.16.00
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
GERMANY has issued an international arrest warrant for a Holocaust
revisionist who fled to Britain to escape a prison sentence for inciting
racial hatred.
Police here have joined the hunt for Germar Rudolf, who has been on the run
from his home in Stuttgart since 1995. If he is arrested on British soil, he
faces extradition or deportation. One source close to the case said:
"Concern about this man's presence in Britain has been raised at the very
highest level. The Home Secretary is likely to want to do all he can to help
the Germans bring this man to justice."
The warrant was issued three months after Rudolf was traced to the south
coast by The Telegraph. He has not been seen at his home for some time and
police have not ruled out the possibility that he may have left the country.
An internet site which he runs from a PO box address in Hastings was still
being updated last week. It carried the message: "Germar Rudolf is alive and
still free." The site also carries an appeal for funds and volunteers to
help with the revisionist cause.
Rudolf, a former German air force pilot, was sentenced to 14 months in
prison in 1995 for three counts of inciting racial hatred. He was found
guilty of breaching Germany's Holocaust denial legislation after he produced
a study claiming that Jews did not die in gas chambers at Auschwitz.
Rudolf escaped to Spain were he stayed with a former Nazi general who had
been a close friend of Adolf Hitler. But in 1996, fearing that the German
authorities were catching up with him, he moved to England.
David Irving, the Right-wing historian who is currently involved in a High
Court libel action against Prof Deborah Lipstadt, one of his fiercest
critics, was one of the first people Rudolf contacted when he arrived in
Britain and both men have been supportive of each other.
31 October 1999: Germany pursues Rudolf extradition 17 October 1999:
[International] German neo-Nazi fugitive is found hiding in Britain
Here are some Reference sites exposing the "chemistry analysis" work of Germar Rudolf:
Richard Green, a forensic chemist, has made it his business to expose
Rudolf. Cited here are Green's home page and two of his articles exposing
the junk science that form the basis for Rudolf's published reports.
http://world.std.com/~rjg/exposing-denial/
http://holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/
As to your second source of "evidence" :http://normative.zusammenhaenge.at/faelle/at/buergerschutz96.htm
Richter Klaus ? Whats that evidence of?
the site has maybe thousands of cases. What the site doesn't have anywhere is this Lachout case you claimed it supported. So where is it?
Maybe you also have a fire breathing dragon in your garage?0 -
Advertisement
-
ISAW foolishly believes that s/he can abuse me over the Lachout issue because an anti-free speech political partisan group in Austria, with finance from a private Jewish organisation, published an unsubstantiated "proof" that Emil Lachout "forged" a document. ISAW has placed his/her faith on a very flimsy piece of spurious "scholarship."
*******
The Austrian Resistance Archives (DOEW, Dokumentationsarchiv des österreichischen Widerstandes) is the author of the piece you offer In refutation of Emil Lachout’s claims. You clearly hjave not read it because it offers no evidence aginst Lachout, just sweeping pronouncements.
All DOEW quotes from http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/lachout-document.html
The DOEW is a political organisation:
“However, after the Archive's formation in 1963, it became apparent that the DOEW would also have to keep its collective eye on neo-Nazi and racist manifestations in Austria after 1945 as well. The continuing proliferation of neo-Nazi propaganda concentrates the majority of its activities and publications not only on trivializing or denying the unparalleled crimes of the Nazi regime, but also on defaming anti-fascists and resistance fighters as traitors and criminals.”
They make some strange claims that the documents “supposedly prove that there had never been any gassings in Mauthausen or in twelve other concentration camps. Experts were easily able to prove that this document was a forgery.” The funny thing is that exterminationists no longer claim that gassings took place in any of the camps Lachout mentions, in fact for most of the camps mentioned no one ever claimed gassings. Hardly controversial. As to the claim to have proved it to be a fraud, we will address that below.
This political organisation originated the persecution and charges for thought crimes against Lachout. The charges brought against him were not for forgery or some such but for attempting to revive National Socialism (Law Against Renewing National Socialist Activities). So the DOEW uses legal weapons against those it perceives to be its political enemies.
They go on, “To defend its case the DOEW prepared an extensive rebuttal, which not only proved the Lachout "document" to be a forgery, but that several other documents discovered in the process of DOEWs research were forgeries as well. The DOEW then filed a charge of Documentation Falsification with the Public Prosecutor's Office in Vienna.” A charge that has been discontinued as have the other charges in this malicious prosecution. N.B. If as they claimed, they had actually proved he had forged the documents, why then were charges dropped? Lachout had made an affidavit in Austria that he had signed the document - “In September 1987, Lachout was approached by representatives of the President of Austria, shown the original Müller document, and asked if he was the person who signed it. Lachout checked his own records and certified in District Court, Vienna, on October 27, 1987, that the signature on the document was his. (29-7946; Müller letter entered as Exh. 120)”
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/29lachout.html
Also, see the bottom of the document itself:(Stamp)
The authenticity of the signature
of Ing. Emil Lachout
(address) is certified.
This document consists of 1/2 sheet and was stamped with 120,
-- ATS attached to -- reported to the Internal Revenue Office --
Attached to -- at a fee of -- District Court of Favoriten
1101 Vienna, Angeligasse 35 Vienna, October 27, 1987 (Signature)
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/ld-1.html
If the document was proved to be a fraud as DOEW claim then he would have been convicted for perjury on the basis of his affadavit. Nothing of the kind has happened so what does that say for the DOEW claim to have proved the document to have been a fraud? It is obviously a boast and little more.
The DOEW declares itself to be anti-free speech and for the concept of thought crimes: “Allowing allegations about the non-existence of gas-chambers in Austrian concentration camps to be spread unchallenged is, in our opinion, intolerable. What can relatives and the descendents of persons murdered in these gas-chambers think about an Austria where such obscenities are allowed to go un-punished?”
People are not allowed to have dissenting opinions based and if they dare discuss these opinions then they should be locked up.
They lyingly conclude “The DOEW will in any case stalwarthly continue its efforts to spread awareness about the facts of contemporary history.” How can that be possible if they actively suppress any other point of view? How can the real history emerge if research that does not fit into their version of events is forcible suppressed? These people are self-professed political partisans and active persecutors of anyone who does not accept the official version of history. They are the modern descendants of Torquemada and Beria. According to the DOEW, anyone who disagrees with the official version of WWII is a “nazi” or “neonazi” judging from their free use of these adjectives in their document.
So what of the proofs the DOEW offer, for example:
“D. The Missing "Document" Heading
It is impossible that the Allied authorities' official stationery would not carry a letterhead showing the name of the responsible command. This letterhead and, more importantly, the name of the occupation authority in question, are missing on Lachout's "document." “
It is impossible they state. No evidence, no examples of known documents of this kind just a flat declaration.
Or this:
“B. The "Document's" Language
The official Allied languages were English, French and Russian. Also the above mentioned Allied gazette appeared with a trilingual title. Its forward read
"The 'Gazette' will appear monthly in four languages: English, French, Russian and German. The English, Russian, and French languages are official languages, and only text in these languages are authentic."[25]
Even if the Lachout "document" were only a translation into German, one can be certain that the Allies would never have used an abbreviation as "F.d.R.dA." (Für die Richtigkeit der Ausfertigung, Responsible for the correctness of the content) or "RS" (Rundschreiben, circular), which are only found in Austrian civil servant usage.[26] “
No evidence offered again, just pronouncements.
And on it goes. On the basis of this DOEW document, ISAW gets up on their high horse and starts screaming “liar” at me. I really don’t think this piece of smear and usubstantiated pronouncement justifies your attitude towards me. I can only conclude that your are attempting to withdraw from this discussion under a pretext.
But as I said, I am prepared to leave aside Lachout if only to call your bluff. Now, get onto the substantive business of this thread, if you would.0 -
Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:You're becoming hysterical.
YOU made the claims about Lachout didnt you? Back them up or withdraw tham!
I thnk you are now misrepresenting the situation. Shall I start quoting from posts? I said I ahd to contact the source of the info about the compensation element in order to determine if there is a published reference for that.
[ISAW]
You stated you would support it when you got the evidence. You didnt get the evidence. so why don't you withdraw your unsupported claim?
I said to you that when I hear something you will be told. Now if you think I am lying about this, then there is no point in discussing anything.
[ISAW]
You made a claim you can not back up. If you claim you have evidence for it you are lying since you DONT have evidence! Do you?
[Eri]
I also posted a report from the Austrian Parliament - maybe you think they are all evil nazis and deniers as well?
where did you post that? Post it again! I think certainly some of them have that leaning and I have met Jorg Heider. A parliamentary question is NOT supporting evidence about ANY court judgement on Lachout. where is the judgement? Back it up or withdraw it!
[Eri]
I have told you what I will do. You should calm down and stop making statements that you will regret.
[ISAW]
And how will I regret YOU not being able to back up YOUR claims? YOU claimed about Lachout. You said you would provide back up. You didnt provide it! so why wont you withdraw your unsupported claims?
[Eri]
You made some silly comment about Kew. I am no where near Kew. I also asked you why you thought the answer to this would be in Kew, why not Maryland, or Koblenz. You ahve not answered.
I dont recollect you asking that. I pointed you to the OFFICIAL record of the group Lachout claimed to be a part of in your Lachout document which I believe you paster from a revisionist site. didnt you? the document is riddled with problems. I only need to get to the first few lines before I encountered several. You have not explained them. What Austrian Military police for example?
[Eri]
Your efforts to wriggle away from this discussion is becomong more and more pitiful.
[ISAW]
YOU raised Lachout. I my first reply to you I questioned the validity of Lachout. You said you would provide backup. YOU didnt!
[Eri]
You are driven to calling me a liar in advance of something I may or may not say in the future!
[ISAW]
Another lie! You cant support what you claimed can you? But you still keep claiming it! You claim something without evidence to support it. If you claim something you claim to have evidence for it. If you claim the evidence then where is it? If you havent got the evidence and still claim tyhe evidence exists then you are a liar.
[Eri]
I have already said we may set aside Lachout and proceed onto the substantial matters remaining.
[ISAW]
I began with Lachout and I will stay with your unsupported claim and NOT leave it aside until YOU withdraw it or support it! Put up or shutup!
[Eri]
That means we can continue as if Lachout does not exist. I will not refer to anything that depends on his testimony, alright?
[ISAW]
Did you not claim that revisionism does not neglects anything? You are contradicting your whole philosophy now!
[Eri]
I will post here the information I receive when I receive it which I expect will be sooner rather than later.
I will accept that if YOU WITHDRAW YOUR CLAIMS about Lachout until such time as you can provide evidence about the Lachout letter. I mean the thing is bizzare! Do you really believe the rubbish in it? Can't you see the whole letter is a hoax? You claim that a revisionist should look into whether a claim about history is true. So what evidence supports the claims in the Lachout document?0 -
Eriugena wrote:
I rather think it is up top you to show that it is a fraud.I will accept that if YOU WITHDRAW YOUR CLAIMS about Lachout until such time as you can provide evidence about the Lachout letter.
What is biazzare about it? That gassings did not happen in the camps mentioned? Holocaust historians do not believe those camps had gassings anymore, except for one or two die hards.I mean the thing is bizzare!
You don't think the British and Americans are capable of torture? Where have you been the last few years? Do the names Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib mean anything to you? Or Castreagh Interogation Centre. In the book Beating the Terrorists it was reported that the British had more charges on human rights violations against them than all other western European countries combined at the time (I think it was published in the late 1970's early 80's)Do you really believe the rubbish in it?
No, can you show me how it is a hoax?Can't you see the whole letter is a hoax?
Read my post above. There is more evidence about torture you know. That's why I said I don't need Lachout.You claim that a revisionist should look into whether a claim about history is true. So what evidence supports the claims in the Lachout document?0 -
Eriugena wrote:ISAW foolishly believes that s/he can abuse me over the Lachout issue because an anti-free speech political partisan group in Austria, with finance from a private Jewish organisation, published an unsubstantiated "proof" that Emil Lachout "forged" a document. ISAW has placed his/her faith on a very flimsy piece of spurious "scholarship."
[ISAW]
I diod no such thing. I looked at the document you provided. where DID you get it anyway? You pasted it from a revisionist site didnt you?
It begins by stating Lachout was in the Austrian Military Poloce in 1948. I asked you what Military Police. It lists Lt Lachout and a Major Muller. I asked where in the OFFICIAL record are they listed. You have not shown that. I mwan thats only a few lines in. we can more on further but I will wait for your evidence first.
*******
The Austrian Resistance Archives (DOEW, Dokumentationsarchiv des österreichischen Widerstandes) is the author of the piece you offer In refutation of Emil Lachout’s claims.
[Isaw] I am asking YOU to show who were the Military Police were in the first line of the document. that requires nobody to refute anything. Just YOU to support the doccument you claim is true.
[snip]
. N.B. If as they claimed, they had actually proved he had forged the documents, why then were charges dropped? Lachout had made an affidavit in Austria that he had signed the document -
[ISAW]
So what? an affidavit is only him saying he signed his document. It is not a court decision that the document is true. where is the original document? and what police force was Lachout in?
“In September 1987, Lachout was approached by representatives of the President of Austria, shown the original Müller document, and asked if he was the person who signed it. Lachout checked his own records and certified in District Court, Vienna, on October 27, 1987, that the signature on the document was his. (29-7946; Müller letter entered as Exh. 120)”
[ISAW]
Where is the court record of the Muller document? What are the contents of this Muller document? What Police force was major Muller in?
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/29lachout.html
[ISAW]
that is a revisionist website! Where are the official records? Not the makey uppy ones ? the OFFICIAL records that state Muller and Lachout were in a Military Police force in Austria in 1948?
Also, see the bottom of the document itself:
If the document was proved to be a fraud as DOEW claim then he would have been convicted for perjury on the basis of his affadavit. Nothing of the kind has happened so what does that say for the DOEW claim to have proved the document to have been a fraud? It is obviously a boast and little more.
[ISAW] where is the court record of this affidavit?
Wher does Lachout live today?
If indeed he did sing the affidavit and does live in austria I am surprised he is not arested for lying.
[snip more invevtive against DOEW which I didnt bring into the issue]
But as I said, I am prepared to leave aside Lachout if only to call your bluff. Now, get onto the substantive business of this thread, if you would.
I prefer to wait until you answer the questions you were asked.
Did you promise to support you claims about Lachout?
What damages did he get in his favour as you claimed?
What Military Police force was he in?
What police force was Muller in?
How did they conduct patrols?0 -
Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Read my post above. There is more evidence about torture you know. That's why I said I don't need Lachout.
Lachout begins with himself and Muller in the Austrian Military Police in 1948. What military police? Who did they represent? What zone did he operate in? where is the record of his employment?0 -
Advertisement
-
You will never address these issues. You are juts stalling. I said we could put Lachout aside. Now let us do that and you can deal with the issues. I will not mention anything that relies on his document. Now you have no excuse.ISAW wrote:I prefer to wait until you answer the questions you were asked.
No, I promised to get back to you when I found out more about that specific claim. The claim is that he won a case at the European Court of Human Rights in 1998 [edit]. The Austrians were ordered to pay damages which they still have not done. If my informant cannot give me the case details from ECHR then we can leave that claim aside. I will write to them myself next week to see fo they can suply the necessary details. Until then let us leave him aside.Did you promise to support you claims about Lachout?
Now get on with the business of this thread.0 -
Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:[snip]
Are you telling me you have never heard of the Zundel trial?
I hadnt. I dont go in for holocaust deniers much. I am only interested because it was posted on a skeptic site.
[snip]
This is lame. I posted evidence about this. You came back with a rebuttal piece put out by a Jewish organisation. Now it boils down to this: which account to you believe?
[ISAW]
No it doesnt. I didnt come back with any jewish rebuttal. I asked what Military Police Lachout was in. Well? YOU claimed it YOU support it!
I prefer the revisionist account, you may prefer the other. I cannot compel you to accept the Rev account, but by the same token you cannot compel me to accept the Jewish orgs version.
[ISAW] this is bollix! You CLAIMED the Lachout document is true. Either it is true or it is not. Now surely you can post the Military Ploice organisation Lachout was a member of. Cant you? YOUR claim YOU support it! Dont try the mine is as valid as yours ruse. The burden is on you.
Next you will claim there is a US government report from the department of alien affairs abou a secret UFO base on the far side of the Moon. I will ask you something like "where is the office for Alien Affairs" and when you dont supply it you will no doubt claim you belief in the alien base is as valid as mine and i have to prove the base doesnt exist. Oddly whether or not other skeptics happen to believe my version and have websites on it there still will be no alien base on the Moon.
[Eri]
I posted some thing from the Austrian parliament which shows that the proceedings against Lachout were dropped. You seem to have a problem with that.
[ISAW]
I do. I can post you something from the Irish parliament which shows that the IRA are freedom fighters. Or from the US parliament which claims that people should have the right to life. Court decisions on these matters happened to differ and IRA members were locked up and people allowed to die. In short political opinion is not legally binding. you stated you would provide the evidence Lachout got a judgement in his favour in relation to the doccument. You have not done so. So why do you still claim Lachout is true in spite of NO evidence?
[Eri]
I tell you what we can do. Lachout is not the alpha and omega of this question so we can set him aside. There is no question of me withdrawing him, as you call it, because I have not been given any reason to beyond that piece from the jewsih organisation.
[ISAW]
the reason is this: YOU made a claim you can NOT support. You hold up Lachout as evidence. I hadnt even got to what Lachout claimed about the Holocaust. I asked WHAT Military Police Force Lachout and Muller were in. You didn't answer that. But you still claim they were in some fantasy force.
The reason for withdrawal is because you can not support evin the simplest of claims related to Lachout.
[Eri]
I am however saying that we can carry on without him. I don't need him anyway and so I will not refer to him henceforth. There are many other things that need to be discussed. I think you are just trying to manufacture a pretext to withdraw from this discussion on the grounds of when in a hole stop digging.
[ISAW] You thing wrong. I came in here and here I wil lstay until you withdraw it! If you withdraw the unsupported claim then we can move on to another point. I will probably then go back to the start and skip Lachout and look into another of your claims. But I will not neglect this as you want to.
[Eri]
I promised to get back to yu when I received affirmtion or denial of that. That has not happened so far. I have said this to you a number of times now.
[ISAW]
Not good enough! If you claimed there were aliens on the Moon or WMD in Iraq I would ask you for evidence before we continue. Otherwise I would ask you to withdraw the claim before we continue.
[Eri]
So let's hear no more about Lachout (until such time as I receive the information I have requested). I tell you this, if I don;t receive a satisfactory answer from my original source about the compensation claim I will tell you. You may move on to the other matters raised.
[ISAW]
Withdraw the claim that Lachout is true and we can move on. withdraw also the claim that he was compensated or won damages in relation to the document in his favour!0 -
Why should I? Because some Austrian anti-free speech self-appointed thought police types say so? I have told you I will set it aside until further information arrives. I will not use any information that depends on Lachout.[ISAW]
Withdraw the claim that Lachout is true and we can move on. withdraw also the claim that he was compensated or won damages in relation to the document in his favour!
You are just looking for a pretext to avoid dealing with the issues because you have had your fingers burnt. Now get on with the topic of this thread - without Lachout.0 -
Eriugena wrote:You will never address these issues. You are juts stalling. I said we could put Lachout aside. Now let us do that and you can deal with the issues. I will not mention anything that relies on his document. Now you have no excuse.
[ISAW]
Not good enough. You might also say you will not mention the secret UFO document or the report on WMD in Iraq. I would then ask you to withdraw claims about UFO's or WMD if you can not provide the evidence. I wont let yu bald assertions stand unsupported.
[Eri]
No, I promised to get back to you when I found out more about that specific claim. The claim is that he won a case at the European Court of Human Rights in 1998 [edit].
[ISAW]
As far as I can see the site you referred to /normative.zusammenhaenge.at does not contain any such case.
The Austrians were ordered to pay damages which they still have not done. If my informant cannot give me the case details from ECHR then we can leave that claim aside. I will write to them myself next week to see fo they can suply the necessary details. Until then let us leave him aside.
Now get on with the business of this thread.
Withdraw the claim if you cant support it! If and when you have evidence that Lachout won damages related to his document being true you can claim it then. But not now. Otherwise anyone can claim little green men on the Moon or fire breathing dragons in their garage. I will have evidence for them soon but believe me that are there. we all know they are there but lets leave it at that until the evidnece arrives. sorry no can do. Nor can you claim astrolocy works or homeopathy cures cancer and suggest you will have evidence next week.0 -
ISAW wrote:Are you telling me you have never heard of the Zundel trial?
Its in the stuff I posted up. If you don;t accept it then leave it alone and move on.[snip]
This is lame. I posted evidence about this. You came back with a rebuttal piece put out by a Jewish organisation. Now it boils down to this: which account to you believe?
[ISAW]
No it doesnt. I didnt come back with any jewish rebuttal. I asked what Military Police Lachout was in. Well? YOU claimed it YOU support it!
I prefer the revisionist account, you may prefer the other. I cannot compel you to accept the Rev account, but by the same token you cannot compel me to accept the Jewish orgs version.
Your face is slipping - "bollix". You are becoming more and more obvious. If you don't like it move on to the next item. I don;t need Lachout if you object to him so much.[ISAW] this is bollix! You CLAIMED the Lachout document is true. Either it is true or it is not. Now surely you can post the Military Ploice organisation Lachout was a member of. Cant you? YOUR claim YOU support it! Dont try the mine is as valid as yours ruse. The burden is on you.
You are becoing idiotic. I will never make such insane claims.Next you will claim there is a US government report from the department of alien affairs abou a secret UFO base on the far side of the Moon. I will ask you something like "where is the office for Alien Affairs" and when you dont supply it you will no doubt claim you belief in the alien base is as valid as mine and i have to prove the base doesnt exist. Oddly whether or not other skeptics happen to believe my version and have websites on it there still will be no alien base on the Moon.
[Eri]
I posted some thing from the Austrian parliament which shows that the proceedings against Lachout were dropped. You seem to have a problem with that.
I have said we should put Lachout to one side. If I said he is not true I would be betraying my beliefs to keep you happy. I will not do that, got it? What I will do is set him aside as a compromise or do you believe I should make a liar of myself to please you?[ISAW]
I do. I can post you something from the Irish parliament which shows that the IRA are freedom fighters. Or from the US parliament which claims that people should have the right to life. Court decisions on these matters happened to differ and IRA members were locked up and people allowed to die. In short political opinion is not legally binding. you stated you would provide the evidence Lachout got a judgement in his favour in relation to the doccument. You have not done so. So why do you still claim Lachout is true in spite of NO evidence?
You are stalling now. I accept his statement and I will not renounce it until such time as someone gives me damn good reason not to. I don't expect you to believe him, which is why I will set him aside, but I do believe him.[Eri]
I tell you what we can do. Lachout is not the alpha and omega of this question so we can set him aside. There is no question of me withdrawing him, as you call it, because I have not been given any reason to beyond that piece from the jewsih organisation.
[ISAW]
the reason is this: YOU made a claim you can NOT support. You hold up Lachout as evidence. I hadnt even got to what Lachout claimed about the Holocaust. I asked WHAT Military Police Force Lachout and Muller were in. You didn't answer that. But you still claim they were in some fantasy force.
The reason for withdrawal is because you can not support evin the simplest of claims related to Lachout.
I have offered a way out of this which will allow both of us to honour our respective principles. If you don't accept that then you are being quite unreasonable and I will conclude finally that you are a flake and you have no intention of ever addressing the issues[Eri]
I am however saying that we can carry on without him. I don't need him anyway and so I will not refer to him henceforth. There are many other things that need to be discussed. I think you are just trying to manufacture a pretext to withdraw from this discussion on the grounds of when in a hole stop digging.
[ISAW] You thing wrong. I came in here and here I wil lstay until you withdraw it! If you withdraw the unsupported claim then we can move on to another point. I will probably then go back to the start and skip Lachout and look into another of your claims. But I will not neglect this as you want to.
[Eri]
So let's hear no more about Lachout (until such time as I receive the information I have requested). I tell you this, if I don;t receive a satisfactory answer from my original source about the compensation claim I will tell you. You may move on to the other matters raised.0 -
Eriugena wrote:Why should I? Because some Austrian anti-free speech self-appointed thought police types say so? I have told you I will set it aside until further information arrives. I will not use any information that depends on Lachout.
[ISAW]
No because it is standard practice in skeptic circles. You just cant claim things you wont support. the onus is on you to support your claims. If you cant support them you withdraw them. They cant be left hanging there. Otherwise all sorts of unsupported claims can be made without evidence.
But probably most galling of all is that you claim to be a revisionist! Yet you make unsupported claims and want others to leave them lie. The whole idea of that runs counter to the whole philosophy you claim to adhere to!
You are just looking for a pretext to avoid dealing with the issues because you have had your fingers burnt. Now get on with the topic of this thread - without Lachout.
when you withdraw the unsupported claims!Until then lets stick with what is standard skeptic practice.Or are you a pseudo skeptic?0 -
Why should I? Because some Austrian anti-free speech self-appointed thought police types say so? I have told you I will set it aside until further information arrives. I will not use any information that depends on Lachout.
I don';t know this. What is your evdience for this clami? Withdraw until you can prove it.[ISAW]
No because it is standard practice in skeptic circles.
I believe in Lachout and so I am not going to make myself a liar to please you. I have said that I will leave him out of the discussion. You want me to renounce him. Sorry, no can do.You just cant claim things you wont support. the onus is on you to support your claims. If you cant support them you withdraw them. They cant be left hanging there. Otherwise all sorts of unsupported claims can be made without evidence.
You have made all sorts of unsupported claims, many of which I have let you quietly drop for the sake of advancing the discussion.But probably most galling of all is that you claim to be a revisionist! Yet you make unsupported claims and want others to leave them lie.
You are just looking for a pretext to avoid dealing with the issues because you have had your fingers burnt. Now get on with the topic of this thread - without Lachout.
Show me evidence that that is standard practice for skeptics or withdraw it. I haven't seen anyone else here behaving in this fashion.ISAW wrote:when you withdraw the unsupported claims!Until then lets stick with what is standard skeptic practice.Or are you a pseudo skeptic?
You are just trying to avoid the topic because you know you are on shaky ground with it.0 -
Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Are you telling me you have never heard of the Zundel trial?
Its in the stuff I posted up. If you don;t accept it then leave it alone and move on.
[ISAW]
Where is the Proof in anything you posted that there was an Austrian Military Police in 1948?
[Eri]
Your face is slipping - "bollix". You are becoming more and more obvious. If you don't like it move on to the next item. I don;t need Lachout if you object to him so much.
You are not adhering to skeptic rules.
If you make an unsupported claim you can not get aou of it by suggesting the bollicks you just did i.e. that you unsupported claim is as reasonable as a counter argument by some group who did NOT make YOUR claim. It is not for me tham or anyone to produce the evidence for your claim or even to disprove it! It is for you to support your own claims. It is called the burden of evidence. You made tha claim. It is on you. You can not shift any of it onto others.
[eri]
You are becoing idiotic. I will never make such insane claims. [i.e.UFO's WMD]
[ISAW]
what you are doing is tantamount to the same thing in skeptic circles. You are supporting a document about which you can not answer even the feeblest of enquiries.
[Eri]
I posted some thing from the Austrian parliament which shows that the proceedings against Lachout were dropped. You seem to have a problem with that.
[eri]
I have said we should put Lachout to one side. If I said he is not true I would be betraying my beliefs to keep you happy. I will not do that, got it?
Yet you extoll a philosophy which asks people to question atheir belief in the holocaust. You ask them if they have no evidence for the holocaust yet still believe it then they should cease to believe it. When this is applied to you you exhibit hypocracy! You do not practice what you preach. You believe Lachout is true but you have no evidence even to show what Military Police Force he was in in 1948?
[ISAW]
What I will do is set him aside as a compromise or do you believe I should make a liar of myself to please you?
I believe that the standard burden of evidnece rule applies. You are making the claim it is for you to provide the evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What is the difference between no measurable evidence for a fire breathing dragon in your garage and no actual dragon?
[Eri]
You are stalling now. I accept his statement and I will not renounce it until such time as someone gives me damn good reason not to. I don't expect you to believe him, which is why I will set him aside, but I do believe him.
[ISAW]
Not good enough and you have been shown why:
1 It is against standard skeptic and logical rules for debate
2 It is displaying hypocracy and or double standards on your part
[Eri]
I have offered a way out of this which will allow both of us to honour our respective principles. If you don't accept that then you are being quite unreasonable and I will conclude finally that you are a flake and you have no intention of ever addressing the issues
[ISAW]
You would conclude in error which is no wonder since you don't seem to be able to grasp what is a very basic standard of debate and what fallacy you are entertaining by denying the burden of evidence on the claimant.
[Eri]
So let's hear no more about Lachout (until such time as I receive the information I have requested). I tell you this, if I don;t receive a satisfactory answer from my original source about the compensation claim I will tell you. You may move on to the other matters raised.
[ISAW]
I don't believe you will withdraw it even when you do not get the evidence but not good enough in any case. YOU claimed it so support it or withdraw it! Ill tell you what I will give you a reasonable way out. You withdraw it. You can then if you like say you believe Lachout. You can also say grass is blue; Little green men ore on the Moon which is made of cheese; Astrology works. You can believe in whatever you want. But dont come to a skeptic site and proport to be a skeptic and make claims you can't support and then refuse to withdraw them.0 -
Its really very simple:
This is not a game.
The evidence has been posted on both sides of this question. I come down on the Lachout side, you do not. I have shown that it is a reasonable position to hold on the basis of the evidence, that is, an informed belief. Is it belief you have a problem with? If so then you really are in trouble because historical knowledge does not have the character of being apodictic like geometry or arithmetic. It would also be rank hypocrisy on your part for you have expressed a strong beliefe in soemthing that you cannot show at all, Natural Law. When challenged you directed me to some ridiculous commercial site claiming a false etymology. I have not pressed you on this matter as I am interested in advancing the discussion rather than adding further to your embarassing predicament. However, if you contnue being unreasonable I will trawl back through your posts and call you on ever single claim you have made. You will never extracate yourself from that mire.
So the only thing we are missing now is details about the alleged 1998 case.
While you are at it, do you know the etymology of the word skeptic?
btw, do not presume to speak on behalf of skepticism or debating protocols or whatever other sweeping claims you were arrogating to yourself, and do not presume to tell me how I may or may not post. You always have the option of not responding at all.0 -
Eriugena wrote:Why should I? Because some Austrian anti-free speech self-appointed thought police types say so? I have told you I will set it aside until further information arrives. I will not use any information that depends on Lachout.
I don';t know this. What is your evdience for this clami? Withdraw until you can prove it.
{isaw]http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#burden
I dont have to prove you wrong!
Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
that last one was from Nizcor
http://www.skepticreport.com/print/logicfallacies-p.htm
This fallacy is related to the "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy. It takes place when someone makes a claim from ignorance, and then urges his/her opponent to explain it.
Example:
""The object I saw in the sky was not a plane, nor a globe, nor an helicopter, therefore it should have been an alien ship. If you don't believe me, then,… explain me what it was!""
This reasoning is erroneous, because the person who makes the claim is the one who must provide the evidence in his/her favor. The person who doubts it has no obligation to explain anything, and furthermore, is unable to give any explanation since he/she did not witness the phenomenon.
When it comes to the Holocaust you might consider the following:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/overview.html
[Eri]
I believe in Lachout and so I am not going to make myself a liar to please you. I have said that I will leave him out of the discussion. You want me to renounce him. Sorry, no can do.
[ISAW]
Believe it as you please. I am only asking you to admit you argue from ignorance. You are wholly unaware of evidence to support you claims. Any critical thinker would see the fallacy in this.
[eri]
You have made all sorts of unsupported claims, many of which I have let you quietly drop for the sake of advancing the discussion.
[ISAW]
No I havent! If I make an unsupported claim and it is pointed out to me I withdraw it! But I won't have you try to shift the burden. I didnt make the claim about Lachout. YOU did that! YOU support it!
[Eri]
You are just looking for a pretext to avoid dealing with the issues because you have had your fingers burnt. Now get on with the topic of this thread - without Lachout.
Show me evidence that that is standard practice for skeptics or withdraw it.
[ISAW]
Havent you enough above maybe no?
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/skeptic-faq/
* Don't try argument by assertion. A statement such as "The evidence
for psi is overwhelming" will generate lots of queries asking where
this evidence may be found. Conversely the "extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence" line should only be used when
someone tries to shift the burden of proof.
[eri]
I haven't seen anyone else here behaving in this fashion.
You are just trying to avoid the topic because you know you are on shaky ground with it.
You are the one on shakey ground with you argument from ignorance. Furthermore your "I havent seen anyone else..." argument smaks of the one true scotsman. And you continually use "seen" and "said". Now you dont raeally "say" things or "see" people in this forum. I am just adding that in because of you pedantry in correcting German words and asking me for evidence for logical fallasies which are to a sceptic as obvious as the reality of the holocaust.0 -
Advertisement
-
ISAW wrote:You are the one on shakey ground with you argument from ignorance. Furthermore your "I havent seen anyone else..." argument smaks of the one true scotsman. And you continually use "seen" and "said". Now you dont raeally "say" things or "see" people in this forum. I am just adding that in because of you pedantry in correcting German words and asking me for evidence for logical fallasies which are to a sceptic as obvious as the reality of the holocaust.
If you are going to try and charge me with logcal fallacies you can start analysing them or else it is just rhetoric.
btw, what in that faq in particular do you think is relevant to your claims, my request and this discussion?0 -
Eriugena wrote:Its really very simple:
This is not a game.
The evidence has been posted on both sides of this question. I come down on the Lachout side, you do not.
[ISAW]
this is rubbish! complete and utter bollix and UI have already shown you why. It is not a balance of evidence of sharing the burden issue. YOU made claims about Lachout and his document. YOU said you would provide support for YOUR claims. You are now suggesting that UNSUPPORTED claims can be left there to lie until you have evidence. you dont see the hypocracy in this?
Let me argue from your side
Person A: THe Holocaust Happened.
Person B: Do you have any evidence to support that?
Person A: No But I will have next week.
Person B: Well thats not good enough either withdraw you statement until next week or support it now.
Person A: No it stands because I believe it. I wont be deterred from claims based on my belief.
Is person a a "revisionist" or a sceptic by any definition?
[Eri]
I have shown that it is a reasonable position to hold on the basis of the evidence, that is, an informed belief.
[ISAW}
What evidence and what information supports Lachout. what Police Force was he in for example? do you even have that information?
[Eri]
Is it belief you have a problem with?
[ISAW]
Nope. Believe whatever you want. The problem I have is that you come to a public forum and make claims based on this belief which are WHOLLY UNSUPPORTEE by evidence. Then you promise to support them but you dont do so! Can you see the problem I have with unsupported faith based claims in a sceptics forum?
[ISAW}
If so then [SNIP it is not so so the false premise negates the argument]
It would also be rank hypocrisy on your part for you have expressed a strong beliefe in soemthing that you cannot show at all, Natural Law.
[ISAW]
Different thread i believe. But I will reply to it here. Natural is an accepted entity in Jurisprudence. To argue that is isnt is a stupid as denying the holocaust.
[Eri]
When challenged you directed me to some ridiculous commercial site claiming a false etymology. I have not pressed you on this matter as I am interested in advancing the discussion rather than adding further to your embarassing predicament. However, if you contnue being unreasonable I will trawl back through your posts and call you on ever single claim you have made. You will never extracate yourself from that mire.
[ISAW]
Do that start with the first post I made. You see I am a sceptic. I am also not perfect. It is possible I made a mistake or an unsupported claim. I freely admit when I do and I withdraw any unsupported claims when they are pointed out. Unlike you it seems. Natural Law IS established. It is I freely admit that there are positivists who would argue that Natural Law does not exist. Ironically one can argue the Nazis were anti positivist but I wont go int that particular one either.
Here you are claiming that my claims that Natural Law exists in jurisprudence is wrong. Care to falsify my claim? I dont think you will. I am not withdrawing it because it is valid!
[Eri]
So the only thing we are missing now is details about the alleged 1998 case.
[ISAW]
Nope we are missing the information in reply to questions I asked you like WHAT Austrian Military Police were Muller and Lachout in in 1948? Where are the records of such a force?
[Eri]
While you are at it, do you know the etymology of the word skeptic?
[ISAW]
Nope. I somehow think you think it is relevant. I believe a skeptic will withdraw an unsupported claim. you haven't! What does that make you?
[Eri]
btw, do not presume to speak on behalf of skepticism or debating protocols or whatever other sweeping claims you were arrogating to yourself, and do not presume to tell me how I may or may not post. You always have the option of not responding at all.
[ISAW]
If you are going to advocate departing from standard sceptic practice in debate then I am quite happy to ignore you. But I warn you, if you continue to depart from standard skeptic practices and adopt nutcase reasoning you will also be banned from the forum.0 -
Its really very simple:
This is not a game.
The evidence has been posted on both sides of this question. I come down on the Lachout side, you do not.
The only outstanding claim is that concering the 1998 action. I have put up various documents to support the other claims. if you have a problem wiht any aspect of the research in those articles then you should point it out, in detail.[ISAW]
this is rubbish! complete and utter bollix and UI have already shown you why. It is not a balance of evidence of sharing the burden issue. YOU made claims about Lachout and his document. YOU said you would provide support for YOUR claims. You are now suggesting that UNSUPPORTED claims can be left there to lie until you have evidence. you dont see the hypocracy in this?
I ahve already said we can set aside Lachout. You want something more. I don't understand that demand. I am prepared to leave Lachout out of the discussion completely because of your objections. I am not prepared to say that "he is not true" as you have demanded because I would be lying if I said that, for I believe him.
Q: Do you still expect me to say that Lachout is "not true" as you have demanded earlier?
Perhaps its our choice of terminology. If I say "set aside" it means that Lachout is out of the discussion. I don't see the difference in practise between that and your notion of "withdrawl."Let me argue from your side
Person A: THe Holocaust Happened.
Person B: Do you have any evidence to support that?
Person A: No But I will have next week.
Person B: Well thats not good enough either withdraw you statement until next week or support it now.
Person A: No it stands because I believe it. I wont be deterred from claims based on my belief.
Is person a a "revisionist" or a sceptic by any definition?
Also, you have not presented any supported argument that his document is faked as alleged by the Austrian political group. It comes with a sworn affadavit and as Lachout has not been convicted of perjury - or anythign else - I see no valid reason for disputing that document.
Despite all that I am still prepared to leave him out only because I am calling your bluff. You do not want to have this discussion, you want to play procedural games instead.
I am not asserting that this document is genuine. I have not carried out a forensic examination or an archival research project on this document. I am pointing out that the attempts to discredit it have failed and that it is not unreasonable to accept it barring new evidence of the kind I have just mentioned. By the same token I do not expect you or anyone else to share my belief in it. Fair enough, register your disagreement and we move on. I don't grant you the right to dictate the rules of discourse whcih change as it suits you, or for you to keep changing your demands. At the outset you should have stated the conditions under which you are prepared to debate things with people instead of springing this stuff when things get hot.[Eri]
I have shown that it is a reasonable position to hold on the basis of the evidence, that is, an informed belief.
[ISAW}
What evidence and what information supports Lachout. what Police Force was he in for example? do you even have that information?
[
This is false. I have posted the evdience, you cannot claim that I ahve not presented evdience. That is evdience and stop SHOUTING.Eri]
Is it belief you have a problem with?
[ISAW]
Nope. Believe whatever you want. The problem I have is that you come to a public forum and make claims based on this belief which are WHOLLY UNSUPPORTEE by evidence.
I have already told you what I promised many times so you are now misrepresenting me.Then you promise to support them but you dont do so!
I have a problem with peple who misrepresent the words of another.Can you see the problem I have with unsupported faith based claims in a sceptics forum?
Based on a ridiculous url to some group of charalatans selling law tutorials and claiming a false etymology for the word 'jurisprudence.' Does that not embarass you?[ISAW}
If so then [SNIP it is not so so the false premise negates the argument]
It would also be rank hypocrisy on your part for you have expressed a strong beliefe in soemthing that you cannot show at all, Natural Law.
[ISAW]
Different thread i believe. But I will reply to it here. Natural is an accepted entity in Jurisprudence. To argue that is isnt is a stupid as denying the holocaust.
[Eri]
When challenged you directed me to some ridiculous commercial site claiming a false etymology. I have not pressed you on this matter as I am interested in advancing the discussion rather than adding further to your embarassing predicament. However, if you contnue being unreasonable I will trawl back through your posts and call you on ever single claim you have made. You will never extracate yourself from that mire.
I just did. Your url supports nothing.[ISAW]
Do that start with the first post I made. You see I am a sceptic. I am also not perfect. It is possible I made a mistake or an unsupported claim. I freely admit when I do and I withdraw any unsupported claims when they are pointed out.
No its not. Its an opinion.Unlike you it seems. Natural Law IS established.
Not just positivists.It is I freely admit that there are positivists who would argue that Natural Law does not exist.
Wherein lies the irony?Ironically one can argue the Nazis were anti positivist but I wont go int that particular one either.
You proclaimed it is valid but have done nothing to show that it is, bar that silly url. Pot and Kettle, black and all that!Here you are claiming that my claims that Natural Law exists in jurisprudence is wrong. Care to falsify my claim? I dont think you will. I am not withdrawing it because it is valid!
That is in the articles cited. The information is there. If you don't accept it, please show me what causes you a problem and why.[Eri]
So the only thing we are missing now is details about the alleged 1998 case.
[ISAW]
Nope we are missing the information in reply to questions I asked you like WHAT Austrian Military Police were Muller and Lachout in in 1948? Where are the records of such a force?
It comes from the Greek verb to 'inquire', it is a method of inquiry not a tactic for obstructing debate.[Eri]
While you are at it, do you know the etymology of the word skeptic?
[ISAW]
Nope. I somehow think you think it is relevant. I believe a skeptic will withdraw an unsupported claim. you haven't! What does that make you?
[Eri]
btw, do not presume to speak on behalf of skepticism or debating protocols or whatever other sweeping claims you were arrogating to yourself, and do not presume to tell me how I may or may not post. You always have the option of not responding at all.
This is bollox. Standard nothign, this is your attempt to fllibuster and sabotage the discussion[ISAW]
If you are going to advocate departing from standard sceptic practice in debate then I am quite happy to ignore you.
Don't threaten me. You are not the moderator/Admin here.But I warn you, if you continue to depart from standard skeptic practices and adopt nutcase reasoning you will also be banned from the forum.0 -
Eriugena wrote:You will never address these issues. You are juts stalling. I said we could put Lachout aside. Now let us do that and you can deal with the issues. I will not mention anything that relies on his document. Now you have no excuse.
No, I promised to get back to you when I found out more about that specific claim. The claim is that he won a case at the European Court of Human Rights in 1998 [edit]. The Austrians were ordered to pay damages which they still have not done. If my informant cannot give me the case details from ECHR then we can leave that claim aside. I will write to them myself next week to see fo they can suply the necessary details. Until then let us leave him aside.
Now get on with the business of this thread.
You claimed
Lachout won damages against the commission in the early 90's after proceedings against him were dropped.
when did he win a case in the ECHR in 1998?
You can find a list of all ECHR judgements and decisions here:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm
there are only two judgements I can find concerning the Holocaust
CASE OF LEHIDEUX AND ISORNI v. FRANCE
(55/1997/839/1045)
though from 1998 and relates to a FRENCH not Austrian case and there is no Lachout mentioned.
The court did mention the following in its judgment:
para 47...
The Court considers that it is not its task to settle this point, which is part of an ongoing debate among historians about the events in question and their interpretation. As such, it does not belong to the category of clearly established historical facts – such as the Holocaust – whose negation or revision would be removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17. In the present case, it does not appear that the applicants attempted to deny or revise what they themselves referred to in their publication as “Nazi atrocities and persecutions” or “German omnipotence and barbarism”.
[end quote]
in other words this is a court judgement making it clear that the court judges the holocaust to be a historical fact. Not alone that Article 17 removes the Article 10 protection of free speech.
It continues later
54. As to the omissions for which the authors of the text were criticised, the Court does not intend to rule on them in the abstract. These were not omissions about facts of no consequence but about events directly linked with the Holocaust. Admittedly, the authors of the text did refer to “Nazi barbarism”, but without indicating that Philippe Pétain had knowingly contributed to it, particularly through his responsibility for the persecution and deportation to the death camps of tens of thousands of Jews in France. The gravity of these facts, which constitute crimes against
humanity, increases the gravity of any attempt to draw a veil over them. Although it is morally reprehensible, however, the fact that the text made no mention of them must be assessed in the light of a number of other circumstances of the case.
[end quote]
Anyway Lachout is not anywhere in this judgement.0 -
Eriugena wrote:Its really very simple:
This is not a game.
The evidence has been posted on both sides of this question. I come down on the Lachout side, you do not.
The only outstanding claim is that concering the 1998 action. I have put up various documents to support the other claims.
[ISAW] No you havent!
Where is you support for the existance of an Austrian Military Police in 1948?
Where is you support for Lachout and a major Muller being in any force in 1948?
[Eri]
if you have a problem wiht any aspect of the research in those articles then you should point it out, in detail.
[ISAW]
I just asked you two questions about your so called supporting documentation. Where is there evidence for Muller and Lachout in an Austrian Military Police Force?
[Eri]
I ahve already said we can set aside Lachout. You want something more. I don't understand that demand. I am prepared to leave Lachout out of the discussion completely because of your objections. I am not prepared to say that "he is not true" as you have demanded because I would be lying if I said that, for I believe him.
[ISAW]
Exactly! You are making a wholly unsupported claim! So admit your belief is unsupported by any evidence! are you goiong to do that?
[Eri]
Q: Do you still expect me to say that Lachout is "not true" as you have demanded earlier?
[ISAW]
I didnt ask that. I asked you to withdraw an unsupported claim. However, I dont see any difference between no EVIDENCE for a fire breathing Dragon and just no Dragon.
[Eri]
Perhaps its our choice of terminology. If I say "set aside" it means that Lachout is out of the discussion. I don't see the difference in practise between that and your notion of "withdrawl."
[ISAW]
The difference is you are making a bald assertion. continue to believe Lachout if you wish but admit there is no evidence to support Lachout was in an Austrian Military Police, That a Major Muller was also in it and that Lachout won damages in court.
[Eri]
Also, you have not presented any supported argument that his document is faked as alleged by the Austrian political group. It comes with a sworn affadavit and as Lachout has not been convicted of perjury - or anythign else - I see no valid reason for disputing that document
[ISAW]
Shifting the burden.
I am not making the claim it is real. YOU are. I asked you a couple of simple questions about it which you have failed to support. The document begins mentioning Lachout and Muller were part of a Military Police Force. I asked WHAT force. where are the records of the membership of such a force or of its existance?
[Eri]
Despite all that I am still prepared to leave him out only because I am calling your bluff. You do not want to have this discussion, you want to play procedural games instead.
[ISAW]
Asking for people to produce evidence to support their claims is not a game. If you do not have the evidence you should withdraw the claim until such time as you DO have it.
[Eri]
I am not asserting that this document is genuine.
You are! You claim it is true. If you follow the logical conclusion that you really mean you do NOT claim it to be true then how can you ask others to deny the holocaust happened? Using your reasoning they could also claim they just happen to believe in a history and they are not asserting it is genuine.
I have not carried out a forensic examination or an archival research project on this document.
[ISAW] You do not have to! One only has to ask about the CONTENTS of the document. What Military Police Force does it refer to?
[Eri]
I am pointing out that the attempts to discredit it have failed and that it is not unreasonable to accept it barring new evidence of the kind I have just mentioned.
[ISAW] Considering nobody objective who CAN test it has been given the original? But one does not need to prove the paper it is printed on to ask about the contents does one? What Austrian Military Police force? Where are its records?
[Eri]
By the same token I do not expect you or anyone else to share my belief in it.
[ISAW]
Not good enough. I did NOT raise this document as evidence. YOU did! There is no mutual burden of proving the contents imposed on ME. YOU raised it YOU have to support it!
[Eri]
Fair enough, register your disagreement and we move on. I don't grant you the right to dictate the rules of discourse whcih change as it suits you, or for you to keep changing your demands.
[Isaw]
Nope. I will not just say I disagree and move on. YOU began a thread on pseudo history. You produced a document you can not stand by with ANY evidence. You still stand by it. If you cant produce evidence to support your document then admit that. withdraw the whole document and make you claims elsewhere and NOT from the Lachout document which you can NOT support. Then we can move on. The claims made may be the same as in the Lachout document e.g. the holocaust didnt happen but they can not be sited from it since it is an unsupported document with no authority.
[Eri]
At the outset you should have stated the conditions under which you are prepared to debate things with people instead of springing this stuff when things get hot.
[ISAW] You came to a skeptics forum. You should know the rules. Claims require evidence.
[This is false. I have posted the evdience, you cannot claim that I ahve not presented evdience. That is evdience and stop SHOUTING. I have already told you what I promised many times so you are now misrepresenting me. I have a problem with peple who misrepresent the words of another.
Based on a ridiculous url to some group of charalatans selling law tutorials and claiming a false etymology for the word 'jurisprudence.' Does that not embarass you?
[ISAW]
You have posted NO EVIDENCE to show Lachout or Muller were in an Austrian Military Police force. Have you? Noe about Lachout winning damages. Have you?
[snip]
This is bollox. Standard nothign, this is your attempt to fllibuster and sabotage the discussion Don't threaten me. You are not the moderator/Admin here.
Here is my assertion on that. If Eri continues to avoid standard skeptic practice his threads (all of which seem to be related to holocaust denial which is fine in itself some poople might only post to spoondbending fire walking or UFO's. But I do question Eri's claim to be a scientific skeptic.)...
are he will first end up having threads frozen and eventually he will be banned.
That is not a threat. Deny the holocaust if you wish. that in itself is not against Irish Law nor is it a reason to ban you. But if you should refuse to back up personal claims and leave them stand; post reams of OT disjoint revisionist material and disregard standard debating practices then I have no doubt you will first be ignored and ultimately banned. thats not a threat. Even if I was a moderator I would not ban someone just because I disagreed with them.0 -
You will be banned long before me if anyone is. That there in bold: prove I have made that claim.ISAW wrote:Here is my assertion on that. If Eri continues to avoid standard skeptic practice his threads (all of which seem to be related to holocaust denial which is fine in itself some poople might only post to spoondbending fire walking or UFO's. But I do question Eri's claim to be a scientific skeptic.)...
are he will first end up having threads frozen and eventually he will be banned.
That most certainly is a threat. You are saying that if I don't play by your arbitrarily declared rules I will be banned. Are you insane? You are not even a mod never mind an admin. Shall I start collecting all the dogmatic assertions you have made in these threads? Shall I gather up all the claims you have fled from? Not to mention the abuse. If you are so confident of your charges against me, then you should complain. Then the whole thing would have to be reviewed and you will not emerge in good shape. So stop trying to make this into a personal attack and get on with the substantive issues.That is not a threat
I don't "deny the holocaust." I have told you a number of times, that is a polemical smear term and, I should add, it is also literaly meaningless.Deny the holocaust if you wish. that in itself is not against Irish Law nor is it a reason to ban you.
Don't threaten me with your misrepresentations of what I have written.But if you should refuse to back up personal claims and leave them stand; post reams of OT disjoint revisionist material and disregard standard debating practices then I have no doubt you will first be ignored and ultimately banned.
Its huff and puff. Its a threat alrightthats not a threat.
Well your not so we'll never find out.Even if I was a moderator I would not ban someone just because I disagreed with them.0 -
-
There is ample evidence the holocaust happened.
There are court decisions acknowledging it did.
There are NONE that it didnt.
Deniers will not post items critical of their views.
Those opposed to the deniers will post the deniers source documentation.
Deniers attempts at looking academic usually reveal a few websites and journals which are not objective and which can be traced to the same people who run those websites.
Sites like nizcor however will refer to the deniers material and will post other independent references.
Eriugenia has made unsupported claims that there was ground radar used at Babi Yar. He never supported that. He has posted material with odd reference numbers but when pressed did not state the numbers were. It can easily be determined they were cut and pasted from a revisionist website.
He posted material about a Lachout and a Muller being in the Austrian Military Police in 1948 but when pressed could not supply ANY source which even verified the existance of such a force in 1948 nor where records of members of it might be. He claimed that damages were awarded to Lachout in 1998 in the European Court of Human Rights but cant support that either in spite of saying he would do so.
So called revisionists are usually holocaust deniers. I state "so called" because I am a revisionist. Though I do not deny the holocaust I have written about revising Irish history in the early twentieth century for example or about revising the popular view of Galileo as being an enemy of the Pope/Church. So called revisionists only post about the period in and around WWII where it relates to holocaust denial and not about other events in history.
Anyone who claims there is no evidence for the holocaust and then cant tell you the police force where some of their so called evidence comes from, but refuses to deny it is unsupported, is operating double standards.
Because of this I fear eriugenia will soon be banned for trolling and it wont be me who does it.
If not he will in any case soon go away probably because nobody is going to reply to his holocaust denial stuff and his holocaust denial threads will soon be closed. Though he calls himself a skeptic I doubt he has anything to contribute to any other threads which he is welcome to do as long as he accepts basic skeptic protocols.0 -
This is how it goies. A Holocaust realted case reaches a court. The court duly takes judicial notice that the holocaust happened as the official history has it then that's it. Judicial notice means it is regarded as a fact. This began with Nuremberg where no attempt was ever made to prove that any of the alleged events took place. All they were concerned about was guilt. As I said befor eand will continue to say and will demonstrate in detail if this discussion is alllowed to become productive again: the Nuremberg trials were an abomination, a "high grade lynching party" as a member of the USSC decsribed them as indeed did many distinguished figures from all walks of life at the time, including JFK.ISAW wrote:QUOTE=ISAW]There is ample evidence the holocaust happened.
There are court decisions acknowledging it did.
I have done so. I have posted links to Dr. Green's rebuttals of Germar Rudolf's chemical analyses and the counter rebuttals. I have also on a number of ocassions said that anyone approaching this issue should look at the primary sources and the seciodary material both revisionist and exterinationist. A look back through the thread will confim that.Deniers will not post items critical of them.
"Denier" is a polemical smear term devised by the same people who support the criminalisation of any questioning of their holy lie.Those opposed to the deniers will post the deniers source documentation.
Nizkor are demonstrable liars on three scores. Misrepresentation of primary sources (e.g. Kurt Gerstein's statement), misrepretsentation of revisionists, and, lies about their sources of funding which prima facie, conflict with Canadian tax law as well as thei connections with Jewish masonic-style organisations like B'nai Brith.Sites like nizcor however will refer to the deniers and will post other independent references.
No I have not. I said ground radar was used at the scene of alleged mass graves at Treblinka. I said that the alleged site at Babi Yar has been built over. Do try and get it right for once.Eriugenia has made claims that there was ground radar used at Babi Yar. He never supported that.
The material posted quite obviously came from a Revisionist site as it was sourced as such. The numbers are references to the court transcript from the 1985 Zundel trial in Toronto as anyone who actually read the piece at source could have ascertained for themselves. You are trying to make something out of nothing.He has posted material with odd reference numbers but when pressed did not state the numbers were from a revisionist website.
I posted the articles in which that material is contained and which also contains the references to the sources. You seem to think I should wander around European archives validating everything for you. God only knows how one would then provide proof of such perigrinations! All a bit rich coming from someone who makes wild claims none of which can be supported.He posted material about Lachout and Muller being in the Austrian Military Police in 1948 but when pressed could not supply ANY source which even verified the existance of such a force in 1948 nor where records of members of it might be.
As I said, I have information on that but I am not going to post it until you demonstrate the existence of natural law or adopt a more reasonable attitude towards this discussion. I ahev demanded that you make this demoinstration because you yourself will not allow anyone to say anythign without some elaborate proof being provided first. Yu are being served your own medicine on this one.He claimed that damages were awarded to Lachout in 1998 in the European Court of Human Rights but cant support that either.
But offer absolutely no poof ofthis. You are resorting to smear again and authoritarian dogmatic gestures.So called revisionists are usually holocaust deniers. I state "so called" because I am a revisionist.
No-one "denies the holocaust" the very expression is utterly meaningless.Though I do not deny the holocaust
So you think there is something suspcioous about histiorians specialising in some particular area or period? In that case all modern academic historians should arouise your suspicion! That is one of the more foolish criticisms of holocaust revisionism I have seen, I must add it to my collection.I have written about revising Irish history in the early twentieth century for example or about revising the popular view of Galileo. So called revisionists only post about the period in and around WWII where it relates to holocaust denial and not about other events in history.
The on with double standards is the on who makes claim after claim about a range of topics but never suports them with evdience or argument, but instead resorts to offensive distraction tactics and pettyfogging pedantry.Anyone who claims there is no evidence for the holocaust and then cant tell you the police force their so called evidence comes from, but refuses to deny it, is unsupported and is operating double standards.
*************
I see you are still trying to make trouble for me? How dare you casually accuse me of trolling. Would you like me to trawl back through your posts and show the unsupported claims, the misrepresentations as well as the abusive remarks you have made?Because of this I fear eriugenia will soon be banned for trolling and it wont be me who does it.
You would like that wouldn't you? The you can wriggle out of your claims about natural law and evade all the questions that have been piling up. You will be safe then.If not he will in any case soon go away probably because nobody is going to reply to his holocaust denial stuff and his holocaust denial threads will soon be closed.
Another misrepresentation. I have already asked you to show where I make that claim?Though he calls himself a skeptic
Translation: "as long as he complies with my arbitrarily proclaimed conditions of discussion which are never spelled out in advance."I doubt he has anything to contribute to any other threads which he is welcome to do as long as he accepts basic skeptic protocols.
************
Now, would you like to support your claim for the existence of natural law?0 -
Advertisement
-
OK, I think we're done here. Nine hours without a post too - pretty much an eternity.
Let's give the holocaust a rest for a while.0
Advertisement