I perfectly willing to cut somebody some slack, especially since conversations here meander from one topic to another.
That conversation didn't meander. It was a direct response to points you raised. As explained above. For you to try wriggling out of your misrepresentation this way, after we engaged in debate about open-air shootings, explicitly, and you later mischaracterized the discussion, is craven and pathetic.
It's easy to get side tracked and sometimes difficult to follow a conversation back in time.
No, as Nick wrote, you grossly misrepresented the discussion. You mischaracterized it to cast doubt on my reply and on the state of the evidence about the Holocaust.
But your fixation on this gas chamber/Jaeger Report fiasco is really a bit much. I guess I struck a nerve.
I guess you mean I don't like it when people misrepresent what I've written. I guess you also mean that I do like pointing out when deniers fail epically. I guess you don't like it when I give a factual, speciifc reply to a question you asked.
See? Your problem is that you don't listen. When you do that you end up not understanding what we're talking about and lying about what another person has said.
Your writing gibberish that even you can't sort out is not an example of my not listening.
The challenge was for Nick to nominate ONE credible Jewish eyewitness to the holocaust. Nick wouldn't play that game so you jumped in right here:
Since Saggy refuses to pick and discuss a name on Nick's list, like Oscar Strawczynski, I will offer him another one: Pesye Schloss. This is not as difficult as Saggy wants to make it. Saggy claimed that all Jewish witnesses to events making up the Holocaust were pathological and degenerate liars. It is now a simple matter, it being down to Saggy to prove his claim in the case of Pesye Schloss.
You and the others tried to get Saggy to pick a name which he refused to do. So you jumped in with one name. You even showed understanding of the challenge when you declared that Saggy much now prove his claim in the case of Pesye Schloss. Not Pesye Schloss and the others. Pesye Schloss.
Except I didn't "jump in right here." I'd previously written about this quite a bit and given at the outset three names, just as I wrote above
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7571462&postcount=5853 and
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7572449&postcount=5858.
My view of the challenge had already been expressed in this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7575125&postcount=5874, saying I was probing to see how Saggy reasoned and what he'd offer as proof of lack of credibility. Which I expanded on in subsequent posts . . .
To say you were always talking about Pesye Schloss as one of several witnesses which must be contended with is a.....what's the word for it? When somebody intentionally conveys incorrect information knowing it to be incorrect with the intent to deceive? Darn it! I can't remember the word right now.
Except that this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7586416&postcount=5984, over a month before the one you quoted, shows that I always was talking about multiple witnesses for Ponar. Meaning that from the beginning of the discussion I'd already stated that we should
move on to another three witnesses to an event, Ponar. In this case, the witness account of a non-Jewish Pole, Kazimierz Sakowicz, could well be added to the accounts of the Jewish Ponar survivors, Yudis Trojak and Pesye Schloss. As Nick indicates, in fact, so soon as a denier chooses one witness, other witnesses will be introduced willy-nilly to corroborate or challenge the first witness. And in some cases, there will also be documents and other evidence.
And this post, analogizing to the multiple witnesses at the Auschwitz trial, expanded on and underscored the point:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7589179&postcount=5996. And this one
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7597834&postcount=6056, in which I explained my interest in the discussion about credibility of witnesses in these terms,
to explain the degree to which they match and whether significant convergence comes from Moscow Forgery Factories or other coordination - or characterizes independently given accounts. If independent accounts match significantly, that is a far more interesting point than minor discrepancies between the accounts, which, in fact, are to be expected, judging from other contexts in which witness testimony is used.
(Until looking just now, I'd forgotten that in addition to the three witnesses I'd recalled, I also tried to get Saggy to discuss the Auschwitz trial.)
When Saggy finally replied to the example of Oscar Strawczynski, my answer to him
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7612092&postcount=6222 was that
I'd been hoping for an analysis of the book and comparison to other accounts, written independently from this one, to see how similar and different they were.
And right after the post you quoted, here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7714733&postcount=7000 is what I wrote:
in point of fact what will inevitably happen should Saggy ever fix on his "one eyewitness" and start and keep at discussion concerning this "one witness" is that other witnesses and other forms of evidence will be drawn in, compared, sifted, evaluated, put together, etc. Unless, of course, like Clayton Moore, Saggy intends as the only yardstick his limited, parochial, and hopelessly biased experience of the world.
And you are trying to make out that my explanation is some kind of retrospective recasting of my intent or something I pulled out of . . . thin air . . . after the fact?
Good grief, despite your attempt to say otherwise, my point of "playing along" was something I described from the very start, and many times, as looking at any one witness in terms of multiple witnesses, documents, and evidence. In fact, my plan was announced and clear before we ever got to settle on one example, Ponar via Pesye Schloss. Which was an illuminating discussion, trashing your three claims about the extermination actions in Lithuania.
In fact, to say I was always talking about Pesye Schloss as one of several witnesses which must be contended with is a.....what's the phrase for it.....statement of the obvious.
And, tedious as this back and forth is, the lesson here is important and has to do with how witnesses and evidence are best evaluated and with the failure of deniers, with their snapshots of incredulity, to do the multiplicity of accounts, documents, etc. justice.
If that's the best example of have of me lying I'm going to need to change my name to Truthzilla.
Call yourself whatever you like: fact remains you intentionally misrepresented my views and use of the Jaeger report. That you can read a discussion about EG actions and declare, a number of times, that I was discussing gas chambers, and then excuse yourself on account of meandering, speaks volumes about your credibility.
