Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Matthew Ellard]

I have no doubt that Krege did his scan and did it in the appropriate areas because there is video of it over at CODOH. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=94929

I hope all this helps clarify issues for "dance". End of story.

I love the video as well. It is hilarious! LGR, can you explain how Krege, in the video, is obtaining soil samples from 7.5 metres down ( where the eye witnesses say the water soaked bodies were left) using a 1.5 metre long auger. (hole digger tube for soil samples). Are you saying not one person from COHOH laughed when they saw that footage?

 

[Wroclaw]

I see now that the first paragraph of the Chomsky "quote" is actually from a letter to Danny Keren. The second paragraph, however, is indeed from American Power and the New Mandarins.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

LGR is right. We're not asking for somebody to develop a Manhattan project here. Is there evidence of large soil disturbances consistent with the large mass graves at the AR camps or not? It ain't that tough.

If I move soil around which has the same resistance as the rest of the soil in the control environment what will a GPR pick up? The answer is nothing. Would a GPR pick up calcium carbonates from human ash? We need this data first.

A "control experiment" is where you set out "control data" so you know what different results you would expect to find in the test area. This requires sampling all around the test area or using existing data. Krege didn't do any of this. The GPR was a hoax (there are no scan grids in the video). Forensic Experts who deal with mass graves excavate and that's why we need an expert's opinion rather that LGR trying to mimic Krege's hoax.

 

[MG1962]

Spielberg is between a rock and a rock. Like anyone guilty of lying he doesn't want to draw attention to the lies and suffer the consequences.

And what of Schindlers List? Or that doesn't count because it is a Jew making a film about the holocaust in which some Germans are shown to have some humanity in them

 

[TSR]

.
Hey, Saggs -- I thought you wanted to prove that Jews control the media?

I agreed to do the grunt work for you, but I still don't have your name and number to put in the ad.

Care to explain why you are running from your own 'experiment'?

Then we can get to the lie you posted about that 'childrens' zoo'.

And then the lie about the showers at Dachau.

And then we'll get around to your lie that no website discussing Jewish / Israeli spies could do so without being labeled anti-semitic, and the completely unsupported idea that any site labeled anti-semitic has not earned that label.


You see, it is painfully obvious that you are called a Jew hater not because you tell the truth about the Jews (you don't) but because you simply hate Jews.
.

 

[Saggy]

Where is Chomsky quoted as saying this?

Now that you know the quotes are accurate, does it change your mind about Chomsky? Since Chomsky is the liberal Zionist's liberal Zionist, does it change you mind about liberal Zionisms. Since Chomsky is the conscience of Judaism, does it change you mind about Judaism? It should.

 

[Dogzilla]

Here, why can't you google Dogzilla?

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/19920331.htm

Why would I want to google Dogzilla?

 

[Clayton Moore]

And what of Schindlers List? Or that doesn't count because it is a Jew making a film about the holocaust in which some Germans are shown to have some humanity in them

It's a lie also. Because there was no intent of genocide. There was no Sophie's Choice either.

The accusers at the post war trials were liars. Champion liar Simon Wiesenthal claimed to have been in 13 concentration camps, including five death camps, when he had been in no more than six camps. Elie Wiesel is a notorious liar. Irene Zizblatt is a liar. Spielberg lies about the Holocaust for profit and to make sure the Holocaust can be continued to be lied about.

And then there are all the nameless liars. The ones who cheer the Wiesenthal, the Wiesels and the Spielbergs. The ones who use the accuser's lies to keep the Holocaust bosom plump. And the Zizblatts who spread the lies to those needed to protect the Holocaust bosom sans its benefit.

An entire culture supported by lies.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
Hey, DZ, you seem to have missed this one:
.

.
Must have been an oversight on your part, and I'm sure you'll detail this separate standard for us now...
.

No. It wasn't an oversight. It's one of those broad challenges that would require an entire book to answer properly. Just to recap, this is what you demanded of me:

Perhaps you'd like to offer us an example of this separate standard (remembering not to make statements like "there is no physical evidence") regarding any other mass murder in contemporary history, and I will demonstrate how that same standard applies to the Holocaust. Or we can play it the other way -- what standard can you document being used re:the Holocaust which does not apply to other historical events?

See, if I gave you an example, you would say this one example isn't applicable to holocaust scholars because the person isn't a holocaust scholar. Or you'd demand that I prove that this person applies this one standard to everything except the holocaust and the other standard only to the holocaust as opposed to applying the holocaust standard to the holocaust and, e.g., the French Revolution but applying the other standard to every other historical event. Or you'll want me to prove that the person doesn't have a different standard for EVERY historical event. Or you'd demand that I prove, not that all of the people apply the holocaust standard to the holocaust some of the time or that some of the people apply the holocaust standard to the holocaust all of the time but that all the people apply the holocaust standard to the holocaust all of the time. Or you'll say the example is irrelevant because the person is talking about science and you asked about mass murder. And then Dr. Terry will chime in about how Dogzilla proves that cross breeding prehistoric reptiles awakened by atomic explosions with modern canines results in a human who is utterly incapable of understanding the word "standard" in the context of modern historical epistomology. Yada yada yada.

So I just ignored you.

But since I'm kind of bored, here's an example of how Michael Shermer applies one standard when we're talking about the holocaust but dismisses it when we're talking about the Jews escape from Egypt in Exodus.

I'm sure we've all seen the Phil Donohue show from IIRC 1994 featuring Bradley Smith and David Cole talking about holocaust denial with Michael Shermer, a bad actress playing a holocaust survivor, the survivor's whacky sister, a hostile studio audience, and a "German" lady on the phone who single handedly proves that people will believe anything when it comes to the holocaust. If you haven't seen the whole show, you really should check it out. It's available broken up into four, five, sometimes six segments on YouTube. I'm using this segment for my example.

In this segment, between 6:30 and 6:50, Michael Shermer tells us that David Cole has asked some good questions that should have answers but that not having answers needs to be put in perspective because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

OK, so, with the holocaust, just because we don't have any evidence something happened is no reason to believe it didn't. Fine.

I'm sure everybody here has also seen Penn and Teller's BS, the Showtime series in which the two magicians debunk various sacred cows with wit, intelligence, sarcasm, hilarity, and at least one set of naked female breasts per episode. In the sixth episode of the second season, Penn and Teller are demolishing The Bible as a historical source. On one side we some professor of history defending the Bible and on the other side we have Michael Shermer debunking the Bible. Between 14:58 and 15:13, Michael Shermer and Penn Gillette are telling us how the story about the Jews enslavement in Egypt and escape through the Red Sea has no factual basis outside of the Bible. They cut to the old professor guy reminding us that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." Then they cut to Michael Shermer telling us that that is not acceptable.

Sounds like one standard of evidence is OK with the holocaust but not with the not holocaust to me.

 

[Dogzilla]

Nick Terry's above was a necessary return to reality.

Not really. Nick is telling us that he has a hard copy of the infamous Polish Treblinka report that was used in a 1947 trial. He tells us the main part of the report is floating around in various places somewhere on the internet. He also tells us that this report he has next to his laptop has twelve photographs, ten of which people who don't go to archives have never seen. The picture quality isn't very good so he's not going to show these photos to us. But if we saw these photos, oh boy, let me tell you, there's pockmarking on the landscape and skulls and you can see how deep the graves are and everything!!! There's all kinds of documents, some of which are referenced in a summary report German Crimes in Poland which is available somewhere on the internet. Some of this collection was published in Poland in the 1940s and 1950s.

Well I happen to have a report sitting next to my desk that thoroughly documents how the War Refugee Board and the Boy Scouts of America conspired to fabricate the holocaust so that studios have something to make movies about when they run out old TV shows in the 21st century. This report proves the holocaust is a hoax but I'm not going to show it to anybody because I don't spoon feed bigots who cry wah wah everytime I don't back up my claims.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Not really. Nick is telling us that he has a hard copy of the infamous Polish Treblinka report that was used in a 1947 trial. He tells us the main part of the report is floating around in various places somewhere on the internet. .

Go buy a copy. It's the first book listed. ( Hmmmm...basic research and holocaust denial don't seem to mix very well )

http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/books.html

 

[Corsair 115]

It's a lie also. Because there was no intent of genocide. There was no Sophie's Choice either.

The accusers at the post war trials were liars. Champion liar Simon Wiesenthal claimed to have been in 13 concentration camps, including five death camps, when he had been in no more than six camps. Elie Wiesel is a notorious liar. Irene Zizblatt is a liar. Spielberg lies about the Holocaust for profit and to make sure the Holocaust can be continued to be lied about.

And then there are all the nameless liars. The ones who cheer the Wiesenthal, the Wiesels and the Spielbergs. The ones who use the accuser's lies to keep the Holocaust bosom plump. And the Zizblatts who spread the lies to those needed to protect the Holocaust bosom sans its benefit.

An entire culture supported by lies.

Now all you need to do is provide irrefutable proof for all of the above. You know, actual evidence and documentation. The spittle that flies from your mouth as you make your insistent proclamations of lies and global deception does not constitute proof.

(Of course, I'm still waiting for Saggy to provide this irrefutable proof of a massive, worldwide conspiracy involving the control of all media everywhere by some cabal of Jews. I expect the wait will be a very long one.)

 

[Gwynpaine]

Premature News of Treblinka

Instead of my weekly look into Codoh, I went upmarket for a look into Incovenient History, Fall 2011 Issue. I want to see if I am allowed to reproduce an URL here.

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2011/volume_3/number_3/index.php

Good. This URL leads to an article by Thomas Kues “Premature News Report” which will be of interest to fans of NickTerry, the same of this parish.

Any troublesome document will meet either of two responses in Codoh/Rodoh polemics. Either the document is an obvious forgery or, alternatively, it does not prove very much. To hold both views at once would be to argue that someone went to the trouble of fabricating a document that would not prove very much if it were genuine. To me it seems less than plausible to argue strongly that some document was forgery without implicitly conceding that it would otherwise have evidential weight.

Nick Terry argues strongly Terry that Udo Wendy has forged the following passage.

‘...All in all 2,500 people were murdered this [23 March 1942] night, while the remaining 25,000 people were brought [from the Lublin area] to camps in Belzec and Tremblinka. In Izbica Kujawska 8,000 individuals were driven away in an unknown direction. In Belzec and Tremblinka the people are reportedly killed with poison gas.

Walendy sources this to a report in the Polish Daily of 11 July 1942, a Polish language paper for Polish in London, quoting words uttered by the Polish Interior Minister-in-exile at a press conference given on 9 July 1942.
If one examines Walendy’s facsimile ( Kues figure 1) one can see that Nick Terry was right to be suspicious. Clearer than its surroundings, the key passage looks as if it has been retyped. And in fact it has been retyped. Kues is lenient to Walendy’s offence here, which is the rather serious academic misdemeanour of passing off a retouching as a facsimile. Moreover, no other account of the July 9 press conference mentions Treblinka, and Mattogno and Graf make no use of this passage in their Treblinka book. Otherwise, says NickTerry, they “would have been all over it”.

But if Kues’ reproductions as figure 2 and 3 are authentic, then Walendy is not guilty of the seriously serious offence of fabricating evidence. The purpose of the retyping, it seems, was legibility. The most illegible string is the five-figure number, first digit 2, which Walendy guessed at 25000 and Kues guesses at 26000. The rest of the text stands, unless Kues has produced another, unbelievably subtle fabrication. The atrocity story was published two weeks before the actual atrocities at Treblinka II are supposed to have begun; the story implied that these atrocities were going on even before the camp construction is supposed to have begun. Kues also sources another report, dated 29 May 1942, indicating that Treblinka was already “known” as a death camp weeks before it actually became one.


If Nick Terry had voiced cautious doubts instead of strident accusations he would be better placed simply to say: “I grant that the text is not forged, but my suspicions were reasonable”. As it is he now bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that Mattogno and Graf would have no right “to be all over it” - ie they would have no right to count it as a good piece of evidence on the side of the argument that Treblinka the death camp was a legend, reinforced by atrocity propaganda and built on rumours born of fear.

 

[LemmyCaution]

No. It wasn't an oversight. It's one of those broad challenges that would require an entire book to answer properly. Just to recap, this is what you demanded of me:



See, if I gave you an example, you would say this one example isn't applicable to holocaust scholars because the person isn't a holocaust scholar. Or you'd demand that I prove that this person applies this one standard to everything except the holocaust and the other standard only to the holocaust as opposed to applying the holocaust standard to the holocaust and, e.g., the French Revolution but applying the other standard to every other historical event. Or you'll want me to prove that the person doesn't have a different standard for EVERY historical event. Or you'd demand that I prove, not that all of the people apply the holocaust standard to the holocaust some of the time or that some of the people apply the holocaust standard to the holocaust all of the time but that all the people apply the holocaust standard to the holocaust all of the time. Or you'll say the example is irrelevant because the person is talking about science and you asked about mass murder. And then Dr. Terry will chime in about how Dogzilla proves that cross breeding prehistoric reptiles awakened by atomic explosions with modern canines results in a human who is utterly incapable of understanding the word "standard" in the context of modern historical epistomology. Yada yada yada.

So I just ignored you.

But since I'm kind of bored, here's an example of how Michael Shermer applies one standard when we're talking about the holocaust but dismisses it when we're talking about the Jews escape from Egypt in Exodus.

I'm sure we've all seen the Phil Donohue show from IIRC 1994 featuring Bradley Smith and David Cole talking about holocaust denial with Michael Shermer, a bad actress playing a holocaust survivor, the survivor's whacky sister, a hostile studio audience, and a "German" lady on the phone who single handedly proves that people will believe anything when it comes to the holocaust. If you haven't seen the whole show, you really should check it out. It's available broken up into four, five, sometimes six segments on YouTube. I'm using this segment for my example.

In this segment, between 6:30 and 6:50, Michael Shermer tells us that David Cole has asked some good questions that should have answers but that not having answers needs to be put in perspective because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

OK, so, with the holocaust, just because we don't have any evidence something happened is no reason to believe it didn't. Fine.

I'm sure everybody here has also seen Penn and Teller's BS, the Showtime series in which the two magicians debunk various sacred cows with wit, intelligence, sarcasm, hilarity, and at least one set of naked female breasts per episode. In the sixth episode of the second season, Penn and Teller are demolishing The Bible as a historical source. On one side we some professor of history defending the Bible and on the other side we have Michael Shermer debunking the Bible. Between 14:58 and 15:13, Michael Shermer and Penn Gillette are telling us how the story about the Jews enslavement in Egypt and escape through the Red Sea has no factual basis outside of the Bible. They cut to the old professor guy reminding us that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." Then they cut to Michael Shermer telling us that that is not acceptable.

Sounds like one standard of evidence is OK with the holocaust but not with the not holocaust to me.

An almost popular TV show of the tabloid variety is your idea of a source of evidence for what happened in history?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Instead of my weekly look into Codoh, I went upmarket for a look into Incovenient History, Fall 2011 Issue. I want to see if I am allowed to reproduce an URL here.

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2011/volume_3/number_3/index.php

Good. This URL leads to an article by Thomas Kues “Premature News Report” which will be of interest to fans of NickTerry, the same of this parish.

Any troublesome document will meet either of two responses in Codoh/Rodoh polemics. Either the document is an obvious forgery or, alternatively, it does not prove very much. To hold both views at once would be to argue that someone went to the trouble of fabricating a document that would not prove very much if it were genuine. To me it seems less than plausible to argue strongly that some document was forgery without implicitly conceding that it would otherwise have evidential weight.

Nick Terry argues strongly Terry that Udo Wendy has forged the following passage.



Walendy sources this to a report in the Polish Daily of 11 July 1942, a Polish language paper for Polish in London, quoting words uttered by the Polish Interior Minister-in-exile at a press conference given on 9 July 1942.
If one examines Walendy’s facsimile ( Kues figure 1) one can see that Nick Terry was right to be suspicious. Clearer than its surroundings, the key passage looks as if it has been retyped. And in fact it has been retyped. Kues is lenient to Walendy’s offence here, which is the rather serious academic misdemeanour of passing off a retouching as a facsimile. Moreover, no other account of the July 9 press conference mentions Treblinka, and Mattogno and Graf make no use of this passage in their Treblinka book. Otherwise, says NickTerry, they “would have been all over it”.

But if Kues’ reproductions as figure 2 and 3 are authentic, then Walendy is not guilty of the seriously serious offence of fabricating evidence. The purpose of the retyping, it seems, was legibility. The most illegible string is the five-figure number, first digit 2, which Walendy guessed at 25000 and Kues guesses at 26000. The rest of the text stands, unless Kues has produced another, unbelievably subtle fabrication. The atrocity story was published two weeks before the actual atrocities at Treblinka II are supposed to have begun; the story implied that these atrocities were going on even before the camp construction is supposed to have begun. Kues also sources another report, dated 29 May 1942, indicating that Treblinka was already “known” as a death camp weeks before it actually became one.


If Nick Terry had voiced cautious doubts instead of strident accusations he would be better placed simply to say: “I grant that the text is not forged, but my suspicions were reasonable”. As it is he now bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that Mattogno and Graf would have no right “to be all over it” - ie they would have no right to count it as a good piece of evidence on the side of the argument that Treblinka the death camp was a legend, reinforced by atrocity propaganda and built on rumours born of fear.

1. I don't think retyping an illegible facisimile (remember Walendy's budget and 80's reprographic technology) is a serious misdemeanour. Since it was obvious it had been retyped, only a complete prat would cry fraud. Walendy if he wished was perfectly entitled to have just given the quote and a reference.

2. This is not the only pre July Treblinka references - which for whatever reason Mr Kues does not discuss. I suspect he is probably a closet Hasbara activist.

Also in fairness to Dr Terry two mitigating circumstances should be pointed out

3a. The press release did appear in the English press as "Trawniki" and not Treblince. However, since this newspaper was the official organ of the Polish Govt in Exile and the existence of other pre-Treblinka Treblinka reports we can assume the English papers were in error. Nevertheless, assuming Dr Terry had looked up the other reports of that week he would have seen gassing camps as being Belzec and Trawniki.

3b. Dr Terry was under a lot of psychological stress after years of living in terror. This all was due to me offering him an expenses paid trip to perform soil scans of the Treblinka memorial site. An offer that he secretly was very anxious to take up but was forced to decline after threats of violence from various ZOG agents.

 

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

I'm sure everybody here has also seen Penn and Teller's BS, the Showtime series in which the two magicians debunk various sacred cows with wit, intelligence, sarcasm, hilarity, and at least one set of naked female breasts per episode. In the sixth episode of the second season, Penn and Teller are demolishing The Bible as a historical source.

It's episode 11 of the second season.

The series is entertaining as hell, but when it comes to skepticism it often isn't much more than an endless appeal to authority. And when they are trying to "debunk" facts about global warming, they are even failing at that. The fact alone, that two "skeptics" wouldn't accept the fact, that AGW is happening, speaks for itself about the quality of their skepticism. Shermer is also kind of a crappy skeptic, at least from what I have seen in his "debates" with holocaust deniers like David Cole.

Apart from that, Penn and Teller have negative views on holocaust denial:

During a Q&A session at The Amaz!ng Meeting of 2005, as Penn described the upcoming season, he said that the episode about conspiracy theories did not cover Holocaust denial, since it should have its own episode.

And btw. there is a difference between "not believe the stuff in the bible" and "know, that the stuff in the bible didn't happen". That's why the argument from ignorance doesn't fit here. You guys are telling us it didn't happen, you are not just don't believe the historic narrative.

On one side we some professor of history defending the Bible and on the other side we have Michael Shermer debunking the Bible. Between 14:58 and 15:13, Michael Shermer and Penn Gillette are telling us how the story about the Jews enslavement in Egypt and escape through the Red Sea has no factual basis outside of the Bible. They cut to the old professor guy reminding us that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." Then they cut to Michael Shermer telling us that that is not acceptable.

Sounds like one standard of evidence is OK with the holocaust but not with the not holocaust to me.

Lets make a quick comparison, since you are not even trying:

evidence for the stuff in the bible:
- none, not even the bible in itself is free of contradictions, which is a quite poor quality for "the word of god"

evidence for the stuff holocaust survivors told us about the extermination at for example Treblinka:
1. a convergence of evidence between the eyewitness testimonies itself the ARC presented such an example for the old and new gas chamber at Treblinka, since the descriptions match each other, there is simply no way, that these are made up, but you keep ignoring this
2. perpetrator testimonies like that of Franz Suchomel
3. eyewitness testimonies, that are niether from perpetrators, nor from survivors, like this guy
4. physical evidence in form of the masses of ash and bones at the former side found by the investigations of Lukaszkiewicz
5. documents like the "Höfle Telegramm" in combination with the Korherr Report and a letter from Himmler, that show, that til 31.12.42 713555 jews were "sonderbehandelt" (=killed) in Treblinka.
6. photos, that show at least parts of the eyewitness testimonies to be true
7. apart from Treblinka alone, there are also tapes of Himmler he made in Sonthofen or Posen, but of course this is just a jew speaking, who sounds exactly like Himmler on all the other tapes.

So what you are doing is again a false analogy. To bad no sane person falls for such BS.

 

[TSR]

.
First of all, the question was a mass murder in contemporary history nor your (in)ability to accurately predict the future, but I'll let those slide to make the point.
.

< ... >

In this segment, between 6:30 and 6:50, Michael Shermer tells us that David Cole has asked some good questions that should have answers but that not having answers needs to be put in perspective because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

OK, so, with the holocaust, just because we don't have any evidence something happened is no reason to believe it didn't. Fine.

.
Except that we do have other evidence something happened, just not the specific details Cole brings up.
.

< ... >

Between 14:58 and 15:13, Michael Shermer and Penn Gillette are telling us how the story about the Jews enslavement in Egypt and escape through the Red Sea has no factual basis outside of the Bible. They cut to the old professor guy reminding us that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." Then they cut to Michael Shermer telling us that that is not acceptable.

.
And here, there is *no* evidence outside of the bible, not just, for example, a question of how many beasts of burden Moses' group brought along for the trip or how, over 40 years, all of the increasing population would have had the wherewithall to make the clothes they wore -- but whether such a trip even happened.

Find the kind of physical evidence we have for the Holocaust -- the bits of the first set of Commandments, the remains of the Golden Calf. Find the kind of documentary evidence we have for the Holocaust -- a list of names of who all went along. Find the kind of documentary evidence we have for the Holocaust -- any Egyptian at any time discussing a large group of workers having up and left, and what are we going to do to replace them ...


*Then* if Shermer says what you distorted him as saying, you've proven your point.


As it stands, you've proven mine since your best shot here compares *your* disparate standards of evidence, drawing an equivalence between not knowing every last detail about a series of events and having only a single unreliable source for even the general outlines of what happened.


.

Sounds like one standard of evidence is OK with the holocaust but not with the not holocaust to me.

.
To you, one standard for the one and another for the other apparently *is* okay.

We already knew that.

Care to try again, with any other (here, I'll type it slow for you)

c o n t e m p o r a r y .
m a s s .
m u r d e r .
f o r .
w h i c h .
s i m i l a r .
e v i d e n c e .
e x i s t s .
a n d .
s h o w .
h o w .
t h a t .
e v i d e n c e .
i s .
u s e d .
o n e .
w a y .
f o r .
t h e .
H o l o c a u s t .
a n d .
a n o t h e r .
f o r .
t h e .
m u r d e r s .
o f .
y o u r .
c h o i c e , .
o r .
h o w .
e v i d e n c e .
f o r .
t h e .
H o l o c a u s t .
i s .
a c c e p t e d .
b y .
a .
c o u r t .
o r .
h i s t o r i a n .
w h i c h .
i s .
n o t .
a c c e p t e d .
f o r .
y o u r .
m u r d e r s .
o r .
v i c e .
v e r s a ..
.
.
We'll wait right here...
.

 

[Wroclaw]

As my post was moved to AAH, presumably on the basis of a complaint by Saggy, I'm repeating here that the "quotation" from Noam Chomsky was, in fact, two quotations pasted together. The first was from a letter to Danny Keren, while the second was from Chomsky's book on Vietnam, American Power and the New Mandarins.

Chomsky is neither a Zionist nor in favor of censorship in any instance, including Holocaust denial.

 

[uke2se]

I would be interested in the results of Saggy's proposed experiment, and anxiously awaits him producing his name and phone-number privately to TSR for use in the ad.

Are you going to get on with it, Saggs?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Now all you need to do is provide irrefutable proof for all of the above. You know, actual evidence and documentation. The spittle that flies from your mouth as you make your insistent proclamations of lies and global deception does not constitute proof.

Disputing and ignoring common knowledge. So what's new?