cptgaio

The problem is that I didn’t actually report the 116 (which is the typical reaction of someone caught with their hands in the jam), but others that I don't feel like checking right now (I've mentioned them above anyway), so I still think you just don’t get it. Also, no, the phrase by Attivissimo shouldn't be read that way (at this point, it seems you really don’t get it) but that “conspiracy theory” is a contagious disease, and therefore in the presence of facts and certain evidence (like in the case of the 6 million Jews who died), any attempt at distortion must be stopped (and as for distortions, the example of the noose is fitting). By the way, I appreciate the "young" comment, but it seems I have (from your nickname) a few years on you. I’d be careful about calling someone a stalker (unless you're referring to Tarkovsky’s one), since it’s now a criminal offense, and someone, not me who's a tolerant person, might take it as a defamatory statement (and therefore subject to legal action). Furthermore, my first post was neutral and didn’t mention, by name or nickname (nor did it reference any other Debaser users) any user, and you were the first to bring me into it directly, while I simply limited myself to responding to your posts. I hope at least you agree on this point.

Bah, I'm not twisting anything: I've reported exactly what YOU wrote (if you don't like it, don't write next time). Regarding the Attivissimo discussion, that "little phrase" (which I still quote from memory) says it all (it's up to you to understand it or not), so you can say anything to me, but not that I lack the gift of synthesis :-D
On the topic of "deducing," you're right: I deduce many things from your contributions on these pages. I believe it's my right, since it's mutual, isn't it?
I use emoticons sometimes to communicate and sometimes because I know they annoy.
Take care.
P.S.: History lessons? You would need them, but not from me (who humbly couldn’t). Those who seek find.

Admitted (but not conceded because the dead were around 6 million and anyone who says otherwise is a revisionist) that there were "only" 3 and not 6, I believe that attempting to draw any difference, or worse, justification, as some previous comments suggest, (both on a human and legal level) considering the enormity of the tragedy, is barbaric and unjustifiable. Period.

Alexander, you called Jack an imbecile ("Just to make you look even more like the imbecile you are") in post 87, and in post 111 you say you didn't mean to call him an idiot (okay, he isn’t exactly an imbecile, you're right ;-D). There are two possibilities: either you have a short memory or you’re just talking trash (I'm leaning towards the second). As for the rest... come on, don’t freak out!
I won’t even respond to the issues regarding the topic in question because, frankly, I've come to the conclusion that you just don’t understand (and I don’t know why: whether out of bad faith or lack of attention), so let's leave it at that. One last thing: those who sow the wind reap the storm; don’t expect respect from others if you’re the first not to give it.

Ah, post 87.

"ALEXANDER77; Just to make you look even more like the fool you are: (Jack n.d,r.)" Luckily, our friend Alexander didn't want to call anyone an idiot... just a fool ;-)
Shall we look for more little phrases? :-D

Do you know what's funny? That from your first post you used terms (referring to my post) like "pissing outside the pot," "bullshit," and other things that I don't feel like quoting now, and you expect me to use "delicacy" with you: maybe it should be mutual, don't you think? A bit too convenient this way... (and here’s yet another discussion that with you one gets along only by agreeing with you even when you go off the rails: to quote Severgnini, getting back to what matters most, that is the "Pop," often those who call someone else a moralist are simply because they are an immoral fool, so I’m glad to be considered as many consider me, including you) Regarding your final sentence, what do you want me to say? You served me the joke on a silver platter, so I wouldn’t complain. As for the issue you raise, I then defended not myself (for my degradation) but my profession (again, nothing complicated to understand here) while in this case I gave you the freedom to think of me what you want (they didn't seem flattering) in exchange for my thinking what I want about you (it seems like an equal relationship to me), but the point isn't this— the point is that (apart from the "numbers" of the Shoah, which are what they are, point and basta) I motivated Cappio's comparison, citing Attivissimo in the first post (I believe honestly that it’s quite clear), so the options are two: either it’s understood or it isn’t. If it is understood, that’s fine with me; if not, that’s fine too because the problem definitely isn’t mine (I’ve been repeating this for a while). So honestly: what is not clear to you?

"What makes you think I've lost it with you?" I didn't actually say that: I wrote, "The only one who's lost it between you and me here is you," which is different. It doesn't imply that you've lost it with me but that between you and me, you've lost it and I haven't. Since you were complaining about a generic "losing it," I subtly made you understand that you should take care of yourself a bit before badmouthing others (what part are you missing?). As for the rest, what should I say? Since the first post, I've been saying that if certain things are being questioned or misunderstood, it's not my concern but only yours (yours specifically), including your opinion that I'm pedantic, boring, and falsely calm. You're free to think what you believe is right (which, by the way, agreeing with you based on what I've seen in your comments on the site is the only way to get along with you... but be careful with excessive acquiescence from others... it often hides unpleasant opinions: regardless of whether it's right or wrong, there are dozens of examples where I've had "animated" discussions even when the other person agreed with me), but I am equally free to think what I've said so far and now also that, yes, theoretically (because I don't really know you), if you're truly unconvinced by the evidence about the Holocaust (and its "dimensions"), if you don't understand the comparison of Cappio and for many other things, you've probably studied for nothing.

Yet another PS to avoid the average fauna of the site coming to remind me of this: the one about Godel was a joke, I know perfectly well it's a ssssseeeerrrrriiiiissssiimmmoo theorem ;-)

Hi Isi ;-) (I'm always on the other side of the barricade: whatever it may be ;-D)