Archie wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2026 5:51 pm
Nessie's inability to argue coherently ...
My argument is coherent. The data gathered on HCN levels has all sorts of issues caused by the destruction of the buildings, the time between use and testing and comparisons being available for delousing and fumigation, but not for mass gassing.
....along with his refusal to confront relevant data
I have confronted it, and explained why it is not necessarily reliable for the reasons I just gave above and why, counter intuitively, it is lower than expected.
...are why he will likely never be invited back to the real Debate board. He just recycles the same circular assertions over and over without addressing anything of substance.
The cyclical nature of debates with revisionists, is down to revisionism constantly presenting the same arguments again and again. You have had nothing new for the debate, for years, if not decades.
I don't make assertions. It is evidenced that the Nazis destroyed or altered, as best they could, the buildings used for gassings, which in itself is evidence of a cover up to hide criminal activity. I do not assume that mass gassings would produce lower than delousing levels of HCN, I provide explanations as to what that is.
I will add that as the Debate board has not been busy lately, the bar right now is pretty low, and Nessie still can't meet it. I would rather have the Debate board sit idle until someone smart comes along than to have it larded up with Nessie's lame posts.
As an aside, it's pretty funny that the opposition has complained loudly for years about CODOH's supposed censorship, yet I can tell you the door here has been wide open. They don't come by here because they know it's not going to go well for them.
The reason why you censor me, but not bombsaway and Sanity Check, is because they debate you where you feel strongest. They concentrate on the evidence, such as the Kula columns and the evidence from a construction office document and eyewitness descriptions. You feel you have skin in the game when it comes to that evidence. I, on the other hand, debate you where you feel weakest, methodology. I point out, correctly in terms of both logic and evidence, not knowing exactly how the Kula columns worked, and your dissatisfaction with the explanations, is of no evidential value and it does not prove there were no such columns and the eyewitnesses lied and the document is false. You are unable to counter my points about your methodology, so I have to be quarantined, to protect the debate you are comfortable with.
The reason why few others bother with you, is because they quickly see how wrong you are and how stubbornly you cling to your faulty methodology.
Sanity Check - "Thus, currently revisionists can console themselves by affirming their incredulity..."