View Single Post
Old July 30th, 2008 #903
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

"I couldn’t care less... if you don’t want to see me around here anymore, just tell Gerdes to shut up and I’ll be gone. Next time you hear from me will then be when I got my article published by the only publisher that goal-post-shifting coward Gerdes now accepts, Shermer’s SKEPTIC magazine."

LOL!!! Sounds like some kind of an 8 year old, doesn't she?
No, I’m being very reasonable. My reason to come to this place was Gerdes’ howling, and when that howling stops I’ll be gone. Simple as that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta is really looking for an out, isn't she?
Not at all, but thanks for again displaying your amazing capacity for wishful thinking. I know you’re anxious to get rid of me, but that’s not about to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And now she's stopped answering any questions about the alleged "huge mass graves" of Sobibor.

What a pathetic coward.
Actually the pathetic coward here is Gerdes, who keeps running away from my pertinent question about the relevance of his demands. For the purpose of historically proving the mass murder at Sobibor (which is historically proven already anyway), they have no relevance whatsoever. And insofar as they are relevant within the context of the NAFCASH challenge (which Gerdes has been requested to demonstrate) they shall be answered in the form required on the NAFCASH site, that is, in an article published in SKEPTIC magazine. Unless, of course, Gerdes changes the NAFCASH challenge requirements and also allows for publication of evidence meeting the challenge requirements on this forum instead of in SKEPTIC magazine).

And that’s not the only demonstration of the pathetic cowardice that Gerdes self-projectingly accuses me of.

Readers who have followed this discussion will surely remember how little of the evidence I have shown (last recap see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777) Gerdes even dared to address.

Readers who have followed this discussion will also remember how many questions (regarding evidence I have shown, regarding the relevance of his infantile "show me" – demands and regarding the rules and standards of evidence – if any – that these demands are based on, among other things) I have asked the fellow, and how few of these – if any at all – he has not run away from.

Readers will further remember Gerdes’ persistent refusal to define more precisely the requirements of the NAFCASH challenge and to state what exactly he would accept as proof meeting those requirements, even though I made it real easy for him by providing a draft of such specification and asking him to modify it as he considered necessary (see my posts # 506 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=506 , # 528 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=528 , # 536 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=536 , # 540 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=540, # 545 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=545 , # 566 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=566 , among others) . The staple reply to my suggestion was the idiotic "what part of proof do you not understand?" – rhetoric. Asked if this meant submission to reasonable standards of proof such as applied in criminal investigation and historical research, Gerdes ignored the question.

Readers will further remember my suggestion that Gerdes make the NAFCASH challenge more transparent by clearly describing the procedure for selecting eligible applicants, submittal of evidence by such applicants, assessment of evidence submitted by NAFCASH and their decision about entitlement to the reward. The NAFCASH site is rather vague in this respect. Yet all requests that a potential applicant be informed more precisely about the procedures were met with the hysterical derision and Simian howling that is the hallmark of Gerdes’ "argumentation".

Another thing that I’m sure our readers recall is Gerdes’ refusal to introduce an escrow account provision (as is usually done in challenges of this nature, I’ve been told) or at least make it clear to a potential applicant that he may well have to run after x different challenge supporters (the number is 21 including Gerdes, according to the same) at y different places for z part of the reward amount to which each supporter has committed – a fact that would probably make a potential applicant whose first and foremost interest is the money think twice. Gerdes’ response to this reasonable suggestion was a most imbecile "why don’t you get the money from those filthy stinking-rich Jews" – rant.

As if these examples of Gerdian cowardice were not enough, Gerdes also excluded Belzec and Chelmno extermination camps from the challenge, obviously in order to limit a potential applicant’s opportunities to meet the challenge requirements. Asked why he had done so, the best he could come up with was some notoriously lame babbling about "simplification" and "focus", IIRC. Bullshit.

But that’s not yet all, folks. Apparently for no reason other than my apparent preference for ARCHAEOLOGY magazine over SKEPTIC magazine as the publisher of my future article containing evidence that meets the NAFCASH challenge requirements, miserable coward Gerdes excluded ARCHAEOLOGY magazine from the already limited list of accepted publishers (if he had balls, as I said before, he would at least have accepted any pertinent scientific magazine for publication of evidence meeting the challenge requirements) and limited a potential applicant’s choice of publishers to SKEPTIC magazine alone (to be sure, it was stated on the NAFCASH site that an applicant rejected by SKEPTIC "MAY" be given the chance to publish in ARCHAEOLOGY magazine instead, but Gerdes wouldn’t be Gerdes if that "MAY" did not mean "WILL NOT").

And what is more, Gerdes started making a fuss about an unfavorable opinion I had uttered on Topix about Shermer’s qualities as a researcher, obviously in order to make sure that Shermer’s resentment over such statement would hinder his publishing an article of mine in SKEPTIC magazine.

Shall I also mention Gerdes’ persistent failure, after mouthing off about my fellow HC bloggers and my subsequent request that he address them directly, to do so by posting a comment below the HC article Update on Gerdes & NAFCASH under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...s-nafcash.html , despite my several reminders in this sense?

Or Gerdes having opened a thread on the CODOH Revisionist Forum, a place he knows I am banned from, to mouth off about me there together with the fellow coward (Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis) who was so scared of me that he banned me from that place?

To cut a long story short, the fellow who calls me a "pathetic coward", and that just because I don’t respond here to questions that

a) have obviously been asked just because Gerdes knows that I cannot yet provide answers;

b) are of no relevance except perhaps within the context of the NAFCASH challenge, in which case the place to respond to them is an article in SKEPTIC magazine and not this forum,

is himself one of the most pathetic and miserable cowards in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, a buffoon who tries to mask his fear, and his inability to cope with that fear, between bigmouthed howling, foul invective and infantile "show me, show me, right here and now" – demands reminiscent of a spoilt brat’s yelling for a lollipop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
This folks, is all the "proof" that the retarded jewbitch has for said "huge mass graves:"

"Because Prof. Kola said so."
And because Prof. Kola is an archaeologist of note, and because other archaeologists seem to know quite precisely what he did, and because Prof. Kola’s description of his findings is in line with what becomes apparent from all other known evidence, Mr. Gerdes. An altogether reasonable conclusion that you can offer nothing against, which is why you misrepresent my argument like the stinking liar you are, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
LOL!!!

Have I ever told you that you were priceless Roberta? (Remember when your dad used to tell you all the time that you were useless Roberta? Well, send him these posts just to remind him that, even though you're a Hysterical and Cowardly HIV Contagious Homosexual Creep espousing Holocaust Claptrap and other Historical Canards, you still have some value to this world.

Thank you Roberta.
My father died nine years ago. And thanks for again showing what a self-projecting, worthless piece of garbage you are. The more often you spout your foul invective, the more often you will remind our readers of what you’re all about. So please keep the manure coming, Mr. Gerdes. It’s about the only thing your manure-filled brain can produce anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Goddess:

"Holocaustianity does not stand up to any challenge... The dogma of the holocaust fails when looked at from a scientific and logical view as well as legal."

Are you trying to say Goddess, that "Because Prof. Kola said so" isn't a scientific or legal argument?
For purposes of historical research, Prof. Kola’s press statement may well be an argument, considering the context of the evidence it is in line with.

For legal purposes of judicial enquiry it may not be sufficient – a court would probably require an archaeological report such as was published about Prof. Kola’s investigations at Belzec, or that Prof. Kola testify in person about his findings before the court.

But I’m surprised to learn that Gerdes is all of a sudden interested in legal arguments. Documentary evidence and eyewitness testimonies are definitely arguments for legal purposes of judicial enquiry.

Does this mean you have found the courage to address the evidence listed in my post 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777. that you have so far mostly ignored, Mr. Gerdes?

Let’s get on with it, then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Bwaaaaahaahahahahahahahaha. Can't you just picture that in "SKEPTIC" magazine? Of course, it's basically the same argument Shammer has used to date - because the "eyewitnesses" said so. Shermer and Muehlenkamp are cut out of the same piece of used toilet paper, aren't they?
Toilet paper is what Gerdes is obviously made of, as he keeps showing with his hysterical, mendacious and cowardly behavior. I don’t think Shermer’s argument is "because the eyewitnesses said so" (not that there would be anything particularly wrong with such argument – after all eyewitness testimony is the main or only source of what we know about many a historical event, including such events that I’m sure Gerdes has not the slightest doubt about), and it also is not mine. Conclusions about historical events are reached on the basis of converging evidence from several sources independent of each other and preferably also of different categories – like eyewitness testimonies corroborated by documentary evidence and/or by expert assessments of the physical evidence, such as an archeologist’s assessments of mass graves and other traces left at the site of a crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Goddess:

"I do not tell Herr Gerdes to "shut up" - there is no reason to; especially since he is winning this debate and you seem to be losing it."

Thank you Goddess, and you're making the retard look like the utter piece of shit she is also.
Actually what the lady is showing is that, as I once told her, she’s an excellent cheerleader – so good that she can make my opponent believe he is winning while he’s having his ass kicked all over the place. Bravo, EG!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
BTW, I think watching the others here rip poor Retardo to shreds is as much fun as doing it myself.
Actually the others here are competing with Gerdes in who makes a bigger fool of himself/herself and contributes more to discrediting the "Revisionist" cause. Gerdes is winning the contest so far, but EG is close behind (her bloodthirsty "kill the kikes" – stance may even give her a lead in the eyes of some observers). And CS is also scoring points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
On behalf of all the people here making you look like the retarded, lying, piece of greasy dogshit jewbitch that you are Roberta, I would like to say -

THANK YOU!
Wishful thinking is also thinking, and usually the only thinking that self-projecting Gerdes – who is certainly enough of a retarded, lying piece of greasy dogshit to qualify as a "jewbitch" by his own standards – is capable of.

And his playing to his buddies again clearly shows the reason why Gerdes chose to debate me in this lovely place instead of the RODOH forum: miserable cowards like Gerdes only feel safe and brave when in company. Alone they are zero.

I, on the other hand, need no company to confront this trash. As my opponents' beloved Führer used to say:

The strong is strongest when alone.