Being True To Yourself...

[WordInterrupted]

what difference does it make what I think?

Whenever I criticize TQ's Holocaust denial, you always pop up and defend him. I want to know why. Is it because you're a Holocaust denier just like he is? Or do you disagree with his holocaust denial, but lack the moral backbone to stand up against his Nazi apologetics?

You always posture yourself as "moderate" and "independent," and claim to be critical of both crazy left and crazy right, but when faced with holocaust denial--the craziest extreme of the crazy right in the U.S.--you defend and excuse it. Is it because you agree with it, or because you're too weak and pathetic to stand up against it?

 

[Peter Octavian]

You're usually eager to post looooooong disquisitions on any given topic

....oh...the irony

but on this issue you refuse to answer my question? Why? Are you afraid of me?

I'm more afraid of my eight year old than I would ever be of you.

That aside, even if I had an opinion that I'd wish to share, I wouldn't discuss it with you because you've proven, time and time again, that there is no discussing: There's Wordin's truth, and then there's foolish speculation.

That you spin and twist arguments(not only TQ's, but those of any other you deem inferior), just like a child hammering a square peg into a round hole, cutting, pasting, ignoring relevant passages and altering context, until you get the result which best suits you is proof positive that you're not worth the energy of engaging in any kind of serious discussion.

 

[WordInterrupted]

Just don't pretend to be a moderate in future. If you want to defend the craziest right wing conspiracy theorist at TK, then you've joined the extremist right.

 

[Peter Octavian]

Whenever I criticize TQ's Holocaust denial, you always pop up and defend him. I want to know why. Is it because you're a Holocaust denier just like he is? Or do you disagree with his holocaust denial, but lack the moral backbone to stand up against his Nazi apologetics?

You always posture yourself as "moderate" and "independent," and claim to be critical of both crazy left and crazy right, but when faced with holocaust denial--the craziest extreme of the crazy right in the U.S.--you defend and excuse it. Is it because you agree with it, or because you're too weak and pathetic to stand up against it?

Never an ad hominem argument from you. Nope. How could anyone ever think that?

 

[WordInterrupted]

Never an ad hominem argument from you. Nope. How could anyone ever think that?

I don't think you know what an ad hominem argument is, because you're always accusing me of making them when I clearly have not. You just use it as an excuse not to respond to the substance of my post.

 

[The Question]

Oh really? Then why did you say this:

I didn't say that. What I said was:

Or you could just ignore all the evidence that demonstrates the "six million were exterminated" claim to be a fat, money-grabbing, power-grabbing fucking fraud, and demonstrate that you're exactly the ignorant HUAS-inflicted suckers for the popular opinion that you're more and more clearly demonstrating yourselves to be.

Which, by the way, you still are demonstrating.

What's the matter, nimrod, can't quote in-context?

As usual, ol' Danny Kaden lies and flip-flops when backed up against a wall.

As usual, Fauntleroy here can't take on what I really said, and has to put words in my mouth in order to create an illusion of having rebutted them.

At least he's backing off his more absurd claims.

I'm not backing off of any claim. I'm simply refusing to let you redefine what my claims were.

My efforts over the last few weeks have had an effect.

And that effect is to make you look utterly ridiculous, not to mention disreputable.

 

[Peter Octavian]

Just don't pretend to be a moderate in future. If you want to defend the craziest right wing conspiracy theorist at TK, then you've joined the extremist right.

I love this.

Again, I've not taken a stand on this, and you've stated that I'm extremist, and a defender of crazy right-wing conspiracies.

Please. Go on.

It's always better when the opponent keeps kicking them into your goal.

 

[The Question]

 

[WordInterrupted]

Again, I've not taken a stand on this, and you've stated that I'm extremist, and a defender of crazy right-wing conspiracies.

You've taken a stand in defence of TQ and his crazy conspiracy theories. You must take responsibility for what and whom you choose to defend. If you don't agree with TQ, then please, tell us. Nobody is forcing you to remain silent.

What's the matter, nimrod, can't quote in-context?

I quoted the relevant portion, and provided a link so that anyone who wanted context could get it.

As usual, you whine about a trivial issue and ignore the main point: you think the Holocaust is a fraud.

 

[The Question]

I quoted the relevant portion, and provided a link so that anyone who wanted context could get it.

Thanks (I quoted the 'relevant portion') for admitting that you quoted out of context. Quoting in-context, for the record, means quoting at least the entire sentence. It certainly does NOT mean excluding the word "you", which denotes a specific subject of what follows, and the active 'ignore', which affects the word 'evidence' by making it selective, rather than all-inclusive.

As usual, you whine about a trivial issue and ignore the main point: you think the Holocaust is a fraud.

Here's what I think, very clearly, from the same thread -- you'll note that this quote will be in context:

I'm not saying there isn't a nugget of truth somewhere in the lie -- I'm saying there's a whole lot of lie that's been piled on a little truth.

 

[WordInterrupted]

You said that the holocaust was a "fat, money-grabbing, power-grabbing fucking fraud." Quit trying to weasle out of your own words.

Let's get some specifics. Do you think the the U.S. government is controled by a Zionist conspiracy?

 

[Blindgroping]

Just change Wordin's name to Ad Hominem.

 

[The Question]

You said that the holocaust was a "fat, money-grabbing, power-grabbing fucking fraud."

No, I said there's evidence that that's what it is (currently), and that people (yourself included) choose to ignore that evidence.

Let's get some specifics. Do you think the the U.S. government is controled by a Zionist conspiracy?

I think that our foreign policy toward the middle east strongly indicates influence by Zionist interests which is grossly disproportionate to influence exerted by any other interests. I also think that foreign policy based on that influence has caused America to experience little if anything positive, while exposing America and its citizens to serious jeopardy at home and abroad.

 

[WordInterrupted]

No, I said there's evidence that that's what it is (currently), and that people (yourself included) choose to ignore that evidence.

So you don't think the holocaust is a fraud, but you DO think the evidence demonstrates that the holocaust is a fraud? What exactly is the difference?

This is why it's impossible to have an argument with you. Your posts always degenerate into mindless, incoherent hair-splitting.

I think that our foreign policy toward the middle east strongly indicates influence by Zionist interests which is grossly disproportionate to influence exerted by any other interests. I also think that foreign policy based on that influence has caused America to experience little if anything positive, while exposing America and its citizens to serious jeopardy at home and abroad.

Or, in other words:

We have a government of the Zionists, by the Zionists and for the Zionists.

http://www.trollkingdom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34230

So, Octavian, do you also subscribe to these paranoid conspiracy theories?

 

[The Question]

So you don't think the holocaust is a fraud, but you DO think the evidence demonstrates that the holocaust is a fraud? What exactly is the difference?

What I think is precisely what I said -- an element of truth was embellished beyond reason, then the entire yellow snowball was pressed into service for financial and political gain. What I find particularly loathsome is that people can be thrown in prison for "defaming the dead", while those who howl for their imprisonment use the dead to turn a buck.

This is why it's impossible to have an argument with you. Your posts always degenerate into mindless, incoherent hair-splitting.

You're just sore 'cause I won't let you get away with misrepresenting my position. Get over it.

So, Octavian, do you also subscribe to these paranoid conspiracy theories?

And that's exactly why everyone is pointing out that you resort to ad hominems, nimrod. You can call them "paranoid conspiracy theories" all you like, but the evidence of Zionist influence over our foreign policy in the middle east (ever hear of AIPAC, numbnuts? Oh, wait -- in your mind, they probably don't exist, do they?) is so blatant that ignoring it only makes you look the fool.

 

[WordInterrupted]

What I think is precisely what I said -- an element of truth was embellished beyond reason, then the entire yellow snowball was pressed into service for financial and political gain. What I find particularly loathsome is that people can be thrown in prison for "defaming the dead", while those who howl for their imprisonment use the dead to turn a buck.

Of course. The Jews are lying and cheating and taking our money. This is classic anti-semitism.

And that's exactly why everyone is pointing out that you resort to ad hominems, nimrod. You can call them "paranoid conspiracy theories" all you like, but the evidence of Zionist influence over our foreign policy in the middle east (ever hear of AIPAC, numbnuts? Oh, wait -- in your mind, they probably don't exist, do they?) is so blatant that ignoring it only makes you look the fool.

I don't agree with U.S. foriegn policy in the mid east, but I approach the issue rationally. The U.S./Israel alliance grew up not because of some spoooooooky conspiracy, but because the U.S. wanted a strategic ally in the Mid-East during the Cold War. Fundamentalist Christians, not Jews, have been the most numerous and influential proponents of the relationship. I don't think current Israel policy serves the interests of peace and stability, but, as an educated, well-informed person, I don't resort to paranoid conspiracy theories to explain it.

 

[The Question]

Of course. The Jews are lying and cheating and taking our money. This is classic anti-semitism.

It is also not what I said. I'm starting to wonder if you even know, yourself, what I actually said.

I don't agree with U.S. foriegn policy in the mid east, but I approach the issue rationally. The U.S./Israel alliance grew up not because of some spoooooooky conspiracy, but because the U.S. wanted a strategic ally in the Mid-East during the Cold War. Fundamentalist Christians, not Jews, have been the most numerous and influential propoenents of the relationship. I don't think current Israel policy serves the interests of peace and stability, but, as an educated, well-informed person, I don't resort to paranoid conspiracy theories to explain it.

Explain for us, then, what AIPAC is and what it does.

 

[WordInterrupted]

It is also not what I said. I'm starting to wonder if you even know, yourself, what I actually said.

All of your nutty theories rely on the assumption that there's some vast Jewish conspiracy controling world politics. That's the same nonsense Hitler and the Nazis spewed while clawing their way to power. Given the similarity of your views to Nazi propoganda, it's not surprising that you'd try to explain away the holocaust. You're defending your own.

Explain for us, then, what AIPAC is and what it does.

I have absolutely no interest in your crazy theories. I live in what we call the "real world."

 

[The Question]

All of your nutty theories rely on the assumption that there's some vast Jewish conspiracy controling world politics.

Actually, no. My not-at-all-nutty position relies on two things: 1. Proposed evidence for the official holocaust narrative and the validity (or lack thereof) of the reasoning applied to that proposed evidence, as exposed through reanalysis, and 2. Evidence that the official holocaust narrative is a conglomeration of exaggerations, misinterpretations and complete lies, in combination with the typical response to the second kind of evidence, which is to ignore it on the grounds of any number of excuses, the foremost one being to cry "anti-semitism".

That's the same nonsense Hitler and the Nazis spewed while clawing their way to power.

Actually, it's not even close.

Given the similarity of your views to Nazi propoganda, it's not surprising that you'd try to explain away the holocaust. You're defending your own.

That would have been so much more effective a means to attack my views if it had been relevant to my views.

I have absolutely no interest in your crazy theories. I live in what we call the "real world."

In other words, you're entirely unwilling to engage in a point by point discussion, once again taking the low road to resort to ad hominems. Like I said previously, nimrod, your broaching the subject only to refuse to discuss it only makes you look the fool. And a liar. If you had "absolutely no interest", you wouldn't persist in bringing it up.

 

[WordInterrupted]

1. Proposed evidence for the official holocaust narrative and the validity (or lack thereof) of the reasoning applied to that proposed evidence, as exposed through reanalysis, and 2. Evidence that the official holocaust narrative is a conglomeration of exaggerations, misinterpretations and complete lies, in combination with the typical response to the second kind of evidence, which is to ignore it on the grounds of any number of excuses, the foremost one being to cry "anti-semitism".

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. You never present "evidence." You just talk about it a lot. :roll:

In other words, you're entirely unwilling to engage in a point by point discussion, once again taking the low road to resort to ad hominems.

You haven't made any points. You asked me to explain AIPAC, but didn't even attempt to do it yourself. Do you think I'm obligated to make your arguments for you? I've already explained MY position on Israel in detail; it's YOUR job to explain your own position.

This is your typical MO: make lots of noise, but never make an argument.