First sentence, post #887
.
"Why have neither you nor any other denier here actually *cited* any of these articles", which show a "slew" of articles, which is what you posted in support of.
Which remains true, and therefore not a lie.
.
The strawman that says that I said anything except do a search and see how many hits you get. The thing about Jewish whining isn't a strawman but that didn't come until later.
.
But since you *hadn't* done that search, your assertion that it would be fruitful *was* a lie, since you stated your point was regarding such whining, and you hadn't (and still don't) the slightest idea of the content for which you wanted everyone else to search.
And just to put it in context, that search was supposed to be in support of Saggy's lies about
a whole slew of articles published in the NYT from 1915-22 with holohoax lies. Tell us, just how many of those 15 articles do you believe demonstrate "holohoax lies"?
What's that?
Exactly none?
Then other than providing me with few moments' diversion, why did you even suggest it?
.
OK, so you're saying that no such articles were published in the NYT during the years 1851 and 1933 and you're supporting it by showing us that slightly more than one article during a ten year period did in fact appear? Which "ten year period" did you choose and couldn't you find any ten year period in which no such articles appeared? They're really that pervasive? And can you quantify "slightly more than one" with any less precision?
.
No, I'm not. I baldly stating, based on your posts here, that *you* have never supplied citations to any such articles.
And *still* haven't.
Because you apparently couldn't care less if what you said was true in your mindless support of Saggs "slew of articles" lie.
The date range was suggested by you, in case you forgot. The ten year average (get your mommy to explain the concept) was simply a result of doing the search *you* suggested during the range that *you* suggested, none of which articles support your now admitted point that the Jews were whining and the implied point that Saggy was right in asserting a "slew of articles".
Could you please make a clear point (other than "I hate Jews") and offer support for it about these 15 articles for which you suggested I look? Do they constitute a "slew"? Which of them are whining?
.
I didn't do the work because I trust everybody here is able to figure out how to search the New York Times archives themselves. I also didn't want to do a search that could potentially give a bunch of hits that are premium content.
.
Can you offer even *one* hit from the war years or prior which is "premium content"?
.
(That's not so much of a problem with this time period but as we get closer to the war, the NYT wants you to pay for the articles)
.
No, in fact, they don't.
Seriously, check your sources so you don't get caught is such blatant lies.
Or tell you what: Find a war time article they charge for, and I will take six month hiatus from pointing out your idiocy.
.
I don't want to hear the whining of people saying "those articles all have dollar signs next to them and I don't want to pay to read them so they don't exist."
.
Well, good thing they *don't* charge then, which you would know if you had ever actually, you know, gone to the site.
.
If you really want to do a comprehensive search, you'd need to do a Boolean search for all those terms without the quotes and then filter the articles. For example, instead of "six million Jews" look for
"six million" and Jews or
six and million and Jews or
6,000,000 Jews.You'd need to do a search replacing "Jews" with "Hebrews" (because they used that word back in the olden days). If you can't do a wildcard search, you would need to go through all the searches again with "Jewish" instead of "Jews."
.
And how many articles do these URLs produce? How does that number support either the "slew" you posted to support, or your later claim of "whining"? Post the *specific* URLs you feel support either of these points, or admit that they do not.
Now, which of these, specifically (with the, you know, linky), represent "whining"? And how many, stretching the search to the end of the war, require payment?
.
See, it takes quite a bit of work to make sure you covered all your bases. But I didn't bother doing it mainly because your mini-search accomplished what I wanted you to accomplish: search the archives with those terms and count the hits.
.
Which doesn't support either Saggy's 'point' about a "slew" or your point about "whining".
.
Because I trust the participants here to be able to read the articles and decide for themselves. Obviously, you just got through reading those articles online. You're probably more familiar with what they said than I am. If you believe I'm wrong, why don't you quote the author, with the link, to show the reader I am wrong?
.
Oh, I'm obviously more familiar with them than you, having ACTUALLY DONE THE SEARCH.
And the URLs I've already provided show that you are wrong.
.
What's that?
You don't want to do that?
Why?
Because it will prove I'm right?
.
Right about what? There being a "slew", or that the articles are "whining", or that the NYT requires you to pay for war time articles?
Why don't *you* give even one link to an article which demonstrates any of these points that you have tried to make?
What's that?
You don't want to do that?
Why?
Because you know that it will prove that *I* am right when I say you are lying about all three points you seem to be championing?
That's what I thought.
.
.
No, you quite obviously do *not* think before you support claims of "slews" or make claims of "whining" and having to pay for articles.
.
I read those fifteen articles. I didn't read the hundreds of others.
.
Ah, then you can cite a few that are whining.
Or for which you have to pay.
Or even give an URL that shows hundreds of articles on any of your original search parameters.
What's that?
You can't do any of these?
Because none of them support you?
Prove me wrong, whiner.
.
.
Well, for example, that Jean-Claude, Richard, and Jacques Benguigui's non-Jewish neighbors suffered under the same conditions as they did.
But you couldn't care less about trying to support your lies, can you?
.
If the European Jews were always living under the threat of destruction
.
Since you have demonstrate that European Jews were "always living under the threat of destruction", straw man appeal to facts not demonstrated snipped.
.
Or were there actually articles addressing this topic?
.
No, there weren't. Feel free to actually provide URLs, paid or not, which show differently, whiner.
.
