|
June 2nd, 2009 | #2041 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Isn't it fun watching retardo squirm like the cowardly spineless jellyfish that she is and try to weasel her way out of her pledge to win TFSFC? Let's show some of retardo's own statements that prove what a pathetic whimpering coward she is:
Retardo's question: "1. "Excavation": does it have to be excavation? How about core drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology?" If it's accepted as proof by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. Retardo's question: "2. "Physical quantification": what documentation of physical quantification is required? Will an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging be sufficient? If not, what documentation would be sufficient?" If it's accepted as documentation by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. 3. "Physical finds": I understand this means any type of human remains that can be used to establish that remains corresponding to a certain minimum number of persons are buried in a certain grave. Is this correct? If not, what qualifies as "physical finds"? Let's let retardo's own statements prove what a liar she is: Quote:
Just what part of: The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location Do you not understand stupid? Just what part of the word EXACT do you not understand stupid? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; June 3rd, 2009 at 03:08 PM. |
|
June 2nd, 2009 | #2042 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Isn't it fun watching retardo squirm like the cowardly spineless jellyfish that she is and try to weasel her way out of her pledge to win TFSFC? Let's show some of retardo's own statements that prove what a pathetic whimpering coward she is:
Retardo: 1 - "Will you accept location of physical finds by core-drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology rather than excavation if Shermer accepts it?" LOL! Here's a previous retardo post: Retardo: "But at least Gerdes seems to have understood that electromagnetics, magnetometry and ground-penetrating radar equipment are not exactly suitable to detect human cremation remains." Retardo: 2 - "Will you accept as sufficient an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging if Shermer accepts it as sufficient?" LOL! Here's a previous retardo post: "What quantities of a specific type of human remains lie under ground cannot be established by core drilling alone, but requires excavation of remains, their physical extraction and their separation from the soil and wood ash they are surrounded by." 1 - We will consider any method that is accepted by shermer and published in "skeptic" magazine. 2 - We will accept as proof any method that proves what we are asking to be proven. We will consider the use of a dowsing rod and a ouiji board if it's published in "skeptic" magazine. However, no determination of what will be accepted as proof can be made unless and until we see what is actually published in "skeptic" magazine. If what is published in "skeptic" magazine proves that a specific grave contains the required specific kind and amount of remains specified, then it will be accepted. If it doesn't, then it won't. Just what part of the words proof / prove / proven dont' you understand stupid? Retardo: "In other words, one may for example find 4,000 dead bodies in a state of wax-fat transformation on the bottom of grave # 4 at Sobibor (which is way more than "one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder") and yet not qualify for the reward because whole bodies in wax-fat transformation are neither bone fragments nor teeth. Is this understanding correct, Mr. Gerdes?" Just what part of: The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location Do you not understand dull one? Just what part of the word EXACT do you not understand stupid? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; June 3rd, 2009 at 03:09 PM. |
June 3rd, 2009 | #2043 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Posts nos: 2040, 2041 and 2042: Thanks for another three hysterical copy-and-paste posts to display your fathomless cowardice, Mr. Gerdes. I like it when you do as predicted.
I would like it even more if you answered at least the latest of my simple and straightforward "yes or no" - questions, however. Read my posts nos. 2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, 2021, 2025, 2029, 2033 and 2038. Unlike you whimpering coward, I'm not trying to "weasel out" of anything. I just want to know what standards you will apply to determine whether or not evidence submitted via an article in SKEPTIC magazine proves what you require to be proven. Hence my latest question: 4. I understand that you would accept findings of core-drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging as proof of a certain minimum number of human remains in a specific mass grave at Sobibor or Treblinka a) if such findings leave no room for reasonable doubt about the presence of a certain minimum number of human remains in a specific mass grave at Sobibor or Treblinka and/or b) if a US court of justice would accept such findings as proof of the presence of a certain minimum number of human remains in a specific mass grave at Sobibor or Treblinka. Is this understanding correct? Yes or No? No cowardly evasives, Mr. Gerdes. A "Yes" or a "No" is all I want to see. Come on, Mr. Gerdes. Try to be a man for once in your miserable life. That's a piece of well-meaning advice. Meanwhile, I continue enjoying your squirming, miserable worm. Let's have another three of your cowardly copy-and-paste posts. |
June 3rd, 2009 | #2044 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
What happened? Got cold feet again after a rare moment of less cowardice? |
||
June 3rd, 2009 | #2045 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 46
|
Quote:
So, hop to it and stop whining. |
|
June 3rd, 2009 | #2046 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Isn't it fun watching retardo squirm like the cowardly spineless jellyfish that she is and try to weasel her way out of her pledge to win TFSFC? Let's show some of retardo's own statements that prove what a pathetic whimpering coward she is:
Now we've been through all this before: Quote:
Why the charade retardo? You've known this for months. All determinations of "what proof we will accept" will be based on what is published in "skeptic" magazine. Any questions a potential applicant has as to what constitutes "proof" should be directed to shermer and / or "skeptic" magazine. Last edited by Greg Gerdes; June 4th, 2009 at 01:08 PM. |
|
June 3rd, 2009 | #2047 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Isn't it fun watching retardo squirm like the cowardly spineless jellyfish that she is and try to weasel her way out of her pledge to win TFSFC? Let's show some of retardo's own statements that prove what a pathetic whimpering coward she is:
Retardo's question: "1. "Excavation": does it have to be excavation? How about core drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology?" If it's accepted as proof by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. Retardo's question: "2. "Physical quantification": what documentation of physical quantification is required? Will an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging be sufficient? If not, what documentation would be sufficient?" If it's accepted as documentation by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. 3. "Physical finds": I understand this means any type of human remains that can be used to establish that remains corresponding to a certain minimum number of persons are buried in a certain grave. Is this correct? If not, what qualifies as "physical finds"? Let's let retardo's own statements prove what a liar she is: Quote:
Just what part of: The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location Do you not understand stupid? Just what part of the word EXACT do you not understand stupid? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; June 5th, 2009 at 12:14 PM. |
|
June 3rd, 2009 | #2048 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Isn't it fun watching retardo squirm like the cowardly spineless jellyfish that she is and try to weasel her way out of her pledge to win TFSFC? Let's show some of retardo's own statements that prove what a pathetic whimpering coward she is:
Retardo: 1 - "Will you accept location of physical finds by core-drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology rather than excavation if Shermer accepts it?" LOL! Here's a previous retardo post: Retardo: "But at least Gerdes seems to have understood that electromagnetics, magnetometry and ground-penetrating radar equipment are not exactly suitable to detect human cremation remains." Retardo: 2 - "Will you accept as sufficient an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging if Shermer accepts it as sufficient?" LOL! Here's a previous retardo post: "What quantities of a specific type of human remains lie under ground cannot be established by core drilling alone, but requires excavation of remains, their physical extraction and their separation from the soil and wood ash they are surrounded by." 1 - We will consider any method that is accepted by shermer and published in "skeptic" magazine. 2 - We will accept as proof any method that proves what we are asking to be proven. We will consider the use of a dowsing rod and a ouiji board if it's published in "skeptic" magazine. However, no determination of what will be accepted as proof can be made unless and until we see what is actually published in "skeptic" magazine. If what is published in "skeptic" magazine proves that a specific grave contains the required specific kind and amount of remains specified, then it will be accepted. If it doesn't, then it won't. Just what part of the words proof / prove / proven dont' you understand stupid? Retardo: "In other words, one may for example find 4,000 dead bodies in a state of wax-fat transformation on the bottom of grave # 4 at Sobibor (which is way more than "one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder") and yet not qualify for the reward because whole bodies in wax-fat transformation are neither bone fragments nor teeth. Is this understanding correct, Mr. Gerdes?" Just what part of: The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location Do you not understand dull one? Just what part of the word EXACT do you not understand stupid? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; June 4th, 2009 at 01:10 PM. |
June 4th, 2009 | #2049 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Who do you expect to be stupid enough not to realize that "T.F.Sheb" and compulsive liar & spineless coward Gerdes are the same person?
|
June 4th, 2009 | #2050 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Posts nos. 2046, 2047 and 2048: Thanks for another three hysterical copy-and-paste posts to display your fathomless cowardice, Mr. Gerdes. I like it when you do as predicted.
I would like it even more if you answered at least the latest of my simple and straightforward "yes or no" - questions, however. Read my posts nos. 2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, 2021, 2025, 2029, 2033, 2038 and 2044. Unlike you whimpering coward, I'm not trying to "weasel out" of anything. I just want to know what standards you will apply to determine whether or not evidence submitted via an article in SKEPTIC magazine proves what you require to be proven. Hence my latest question: 4. I understand that you would accept findings of core-drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging as proof of a certain minimum number of human remains in a specific mass grave at Sobibor or Treblinka a) if such findings leave no room for reasonable doubt about the presence of a certain minimum number of human remains in a specific mass grave at Sobibor or Treblinka and/or b) if a US court of justice would accept such findings as proof of the presence of a certain minimum number of human remains in a specific mass grave at Sobibor or Treblinka. Is this understanding correct? Yes or No? No cowardly evasives, Mr. Gerdes. A "Yes" or a "No" is all I want to see. Come on, Mr. Gerdes. Try to be a man for once in your miserable life. That's a piece of well-meaning advice. Meanwhile, I continue enjoying your squirming, miserable worm. Let's have another three of your cowardly copy-and-paste posts. |
June 4th, 2009 | #2051 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Isn't it fun watching retardo squirm like the cowardly spineless jellyfish that she is and try to weasel her way out of her pledge to win TFSFC? Let's show some of retardo's own statements that prove what a pathetic whimpering coward she is:
Now we've been through all this before: Quote:
Why the charade retardo? You've known this for months. All determinations of "what proof we will accept" will be based on what is published in "skeptic" magazine. Any questions a potential applicant has as to what constitutes "proof" should be directed to shermer and / or "skeptic" magazine. Last edited by Greg Gerdes; June 5th, 2009 at 12:12 PM. |
|
June 4th, 2009 | #2052 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Isn't it fun watching retardo squirm like the cowardly spineless jellyfish that she is and try to weasel her way out of her pledge to win TFSFC? Let's show some of retardo's own statements that prove what a pathetic whimpering coward she is:
Retardo's question: "1. "Excavation": does it have to be excavation? How about core drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology?" %0 Last edited by Greg Gerdes; June 5th, 2009 at 12:13 PM. |
June 4th, 2009 | #2053 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Isn't it fun watching retardo squirm like the cowardly spineless jellyfish that she is and try to weasel her way out of her pledge to win TFSFC? Let's show some of retardo's own statements that prove what a pathetic whimpering coward she is:
Retardo: 1 - "Will you accept location of physical finds by core-drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology rather than excavation if Shermer accepts it?" LOL! Here's a previous retardo post: Retardo: "But at least Gerdes seems to have understood that electromagnetics, magnetometry and ground-penetrating radar equipment are not exactly suitable to detect human cremation remains." Retardo: 2 - "Will you accept as sufficient an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging if Shermer accepts it as sufficient?" LOL! Here's a previous retardo post: "What quantities of a specific type of human remains lie under ground cannot be established by core drilling alone, but requires excavation of remains, their physical extraction and their separation from the soil and wood ash they are surrounded by." 1 - We will consider any method that is accepted by shermer and published in "skeptic" magazine. 2 - We will accept as proof any method that proves what we are asking to be proven. We will consider the use of a dowsing rod and a ouiji board if it's published in "skeptic" magazine. However, no determination of what will be accepted as proof can be made unless and until we see what is actually published in "skeptic" magazine. If what is published in "skeptic" magazine proves that a specific grave contains the required specific kind and amount of remains specified, then it will be accepted. If it doesn't, then it won't. Just what part of the words proof / prove / proven dont' you understand stupid? Retardo: "In other words, one may for example find 4,000 dead bodies in a state of wax-fat transformation on the bottom of grave # 4 at Sobibor (which is way more than "one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder") and yet not qualify for the reward because whole bodies in wax-fat transformation are neither bone fragments nor teeth. Is this understanding correct, Mr. Gerdes?" Just what part of: The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location Do you not understand dull one? Just what part of the word EXACT do you not understand stupid? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; June 5th, 2009 at 12:15 PM. |
June 5th, 2009 | #2054 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Posts nos. 2051, 2052 and 2053: Thanks for another three hysterical copy-and-paste posts to display your fathomless cowardice, Mr. Gerdes. I like it when you do as predicted.
I would like it even more if you answered at least the latest of my simple and straightforward "yes or no" - questions, however. Read my posts nos. 2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, 2021, 2025, 2029, 2033, 2038, 2044 and 2050. Unlike you whimpering coward, I'm not trying to "weasel out" of anything. I just want to know what standards you will apply to determine whether or not evidence submitted via an article in SKEPTIC magazine proves what you require to be proven. Hence my latest question: 4. I understand that you would accept findings of core-drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging as proof of a certain minimum number of human remains in a specific mass grave at Sobibor or Treblinka a) if such findings leave no room for reasonable doubt about the presence of a certain minimum number of human remains in a specific mass grave at Sobibor or Treblinka and/or b) if a US court of justice would accept such findings as proof of the presence of a certain minimum number of human remains in a specific mass grave at Sobibor or Treblinka. Is this understanding correct? Yes or No? No cowardly evasives, Mr. Gerdes. A "Yes" or a "No" is all I want to see. Come on, Mr. Gerdes. Try to be a man for once in your miserable life. That's a piece of well-meaning advice. Meanwhile, I continue enjoying your squirming, miserable worm. Let's have another three of your cowardly copy-and-paste posts. |
June 5th, 2009 | #2055 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Isn't it fun watching retardo squirm like the cowardly spineless jellyfish that she is and try to weasel her way out of her pledge to win TFSFC? Let's show some of retardo's own statements that prove what a pathetic whimpering coward she is:
Now we've been through all this before: Quote:
Why the charade retardo? You've known this for months. All determinations of "what proof we will accept" will be based on what is published in "skeptic" magazine. Any questions a potential applicant has as to what constitutes "proof" should be directed to shermer and / or "skeptic" magazine. Last edited by Greg Gerdes; June 8th, 2009 at 02:54 PM. |
|
June 5th, 2009 | #2056 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Isn't it fun watching retardo squirm like the cowardly spineless jellyfish that she is and try to weasel her way out of her pledge to win TFSFC? Let's show some of retardo's own statements that prove what a pathetic whimpering coward she is:
Retardo's question: "1. "Excavation": does it have to be excavation? How about core drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology?" If it's accepted as proof by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. Retardo's question: "2. "Physical quantification": what documentation of physical quantification is required? Will an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging be sufficient? If not, what documentation would be sufficient?" If it's accepted as documentation by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. 3. "Physical finds": I understand this means any type of human remains that can be used to establish that remains corresponding to a certain minimum number of persons are buried in a certain grave. Is this correct? If not, what qualifies as "physical finds"? Let's let retardo's own statements prove what a liar she is: Quote:
Just what part of: The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location Do you not understand stupid? Just what part of the word EXACT do you not understand stupid? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; June 8th, 2009 at 02:55 PM. |
|
June 5th, 2009 | #2057 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Isn't it fun watching retardo squirm like the cowardly spineless jellyfish that she is and try to weasel her way out of her pledge to win TFSFC? Let's show some of retardo's own statements that prove what a pathetic whimpering coward she is:
Retardo: 1 - "Will you accept location of physical finds by core-drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology rather than excavation if Shermer accepts it?" LOL! Here's a previous retardo post: Retardo: "But at least Gerdes seems to have understood that electromagnetics, magnetometry and ground-penetrating radar equipment are not exactly suitable to detect human cremation remains." Retardo: 2 - "Will you accept as sufficient an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging if Shermer accepts it as sufficient?" LOL! Here's a previous retardo post: "What quantities of a specific type of human remains lie under ground cannot be established by core drilling alone, but requires excavation of remains, their physical extraction and their separation from the soil and wood ash they are surrounded by." The answer to your questions retardo, are: 1 - We will consider any method that is accepted by shermer and published in "skeptic" magazine. 2 - We will accept as proof any method that proves what we are asking to be proven. We will consider the use of a dowsing rod and a ouiji board if it's published in "skeptic" magazine. However, no determination of what will be accepted as proof can be made unless and until we see what is actually published in "skeptic" magazine. If what is published in "skeptic" magazine proves that a specific grave contains the required specific kind and amount of remains specified, then it will be accepted. If it doesn't, then it won't. Just what part of the words proof / prove / proven dont' you understand stupid? Retardo: "In other words, one may for example find 4,000 dead bodies in a state of wax-fat transformation on the bottom of grave # 4 at Sobibor (which is way more than "one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder") and yet not qualify for the reward because whole bodies in wax-fat transformation are neither bone fragments nor teeth. Is this understanding correct, Mr. Gerdes?" Just what part of: The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location Do you not understand dull one? Just what part of the word EXACT do you not understand stupid? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; June 8th, 2009 at 02:56 PM. |
June 8th, 2009 | #2058 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Posts nos. 2055, 2056 and 2057: Thanks for another three hysterical copy-and-paste posts to display your fathomless cowardice, Mr. Gerdes. I like it when you do as predicted.
I would like it even more if you answered at least the latest of my simple and straightforward "yes or no" - questions, however. Read my posts nos. 2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, 2021, 2025, 2029, 2033, 2038, 2044, 2050 and 2054. Unlike you whimpering coward, I'm not trying to "weasel out" of anything. I just want to know what standards you will apply to determine whether or not evidence submitted via an article in SKEPTIC magazine proves what you require to be proven. Hence my latest question: 4. I understand that you would accept findings of core-drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging as proof of a certain minimum number of human remains in a specific mass grave at Sobibor or Treblinka a) if such findings leave no room for reasonable doubt about the presence of a certain minimum number of human remains in a specific mass grave at Sobibor or Treblinka and/or b) if a US court of justice would accept such findings as proof of the presence of a certain minimum number of human remains in a specific mass grave at Sobibor or Treblinka. Is this understanding correct? Yes or No? No cowardly evasives, Mr. Gerdes. A "Yes" or a "No" is all I want to see. Come on, Mr. Gerdes. Try to be a man for once in your miserable life. That's a piece of well-meaning advice. Meanwhile, I continue enjoying your squirming, miserable worm. Let's have another three of your cowardly copy-and-paste posts. |
June 8th, 2009 | #2059 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Isn't it fun watching retardo squirm like the cowardly spineless jellyfish that she is and try to weasel her way out of her pledge to win TFSFC? Let's show some of retardo's own statements that prove what a pathetic whimpering coward she is:
Now we've been through all this before: Quote:
Why the charade retardo? You've known this for months. All determinations of "what proof we will accept" will be based on what is published in "skeptic" magazine. Any questions a potential applicant has as to what constitutes "proof" should be directed to shermer and / or "skeptic" magazine. Last edited by Greg Gerdes; June 10th, 2009 at 12:01 PM. |
|
June 8th, 2009 | #2060 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Isn't it fun watching retardo squirm like the cowardly spineless jellyfish that she is and try to weasel her way out of her pledge to win TFSFC? Let's show some of retardo's own statements that prove what a pathetic whimpering coward she is:
Retardo's question: "1. "Excavation": does it have to be excavation? How about core drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology?" If it's accepted as proof by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. Retardo's question: "2. "Physical quantification": what documentation of physical quantification is required? Will an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging be sufficient? If not, what documentation would be sufficient?" If it's accepted as documentation by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. 3. "Physical finds": I understand this means any type of human remains that can be used to establish that remains corresponding to a certain minimum number of persons are buried in a certain grave. Is this correct? If not, what qualifies as "physical finds"? Let's let retardo's own statements prove what a liar she is: Quote:
Just what part of: The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location Do you not understand stupid? Just what part of the word EXACT do you not understand stupid? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; June 10th, 2009 at 12:03 PM. |
|
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|