Alexander77

Noose, it's clear that the substance is genocide, but do you allow that 3 million more or less Christians make an enormous difference, legally, historically, and humanly? They're not just numbers; we're talking about people...

Do you see that you're an idiot, and I'm pointing it out to you here!? I just said that THAT IDIOT was not referring to Jack... and I even specified that I had had a heated discussion with Jack... BUT HOW PATHETIC ARE YOU? Let's see if at least in this case you'll admit that you didn't understand a damn thing and that you picked random sentences... LET'S SEE!

"I don't find Cappio's (September 11) comparison inappropriate, since recently both things have brought together all the 'fans' of various conspiracy theories et similia: I remember a phrase from Attivissimo that said more or less that it's important to deconstruct any theory not grounded in reality to prevent any resurgence of denialism": now Attivissimo has become a guarantee, not only that... but nobody talked about denialism here... and you, based on a phrase from Attivissimo, equate two completely disconnected events?! Look, let's drop it, if you don't see the absurdity in this, I don't know what to do... I noticed you skipped over half of the post above, let's say the uncomfortable part... good job... Ah, regarding what you reported in the first line, yes, I enjoy animated discussion; sometimes I use a more direct and colorful language, that's true, but always better than writing nonsense like 'it's an incorrect phrase, one of many in your intervention... All this with the utmost possible serenity, eh...'! Anyway, let's wrap this up, I'm not interested in knowing what you find in monitoring the users of the site or warning them that excessive compliance from others often hides unpleasant opinions: again, if you don't see the ridiculousness, I can't do anything about it..."

Geb, that idiot was not at all referring to you... to be honest, not even to Jack (even though the exchange of opinions was quite animated). It was a way of saying that one cannot misunderstand a phrase like "The difference between 3/4 to 6 million deaths is 2/3 million people, and if you allow me, it makes a colossal difference, both legally and historically or more simply humanly." I understood what you meant, it's clear that there was intention, and we are still talking about genocide, but I found the phrase unnecessary because processes based on intentions do not exist, and that seems to me to be a fact. That's all... and furthermore, quoting or referencing only those who support our theses is a useless exercise (referring to the fact that Jack pointed out your post as the only sensible one)... I hope I have made myself clear.

"I wrote 'Really, the only one who's lost it between you and me here is you,' which is different": and I told you it’s not like that, what is it that you fail to understand?
"Talking badly about others, what’s the part you're missing?": you keep this tone and expect me to take you as a calm person? I haven’t spoken ill of anyone, learn Italian. I pointed out that discussing such a topic requires serenity and avoiding to weigh down feuds between neighbors, dislikes, and being minimally willing to listen to the other.
My problem is that I have doubts and I also listen to the other side... you, on the other hand, as a great history expert, have only certainties. I’m happy for you.
"Free to think what you believe is right": just so you know, I believe nothing, I present my opinion and my doubts unlike you. The only thing I’m certain about: that comparison means nothing... different historical moments, different motivations, however connected (according to your indisputable judgment) by the fact that both events are subject to revisionist movements or conspiracy theories. You don't make sense as a historian, you know?
"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": besides the fact that I didn’t understand, do you spend your days monitoring me or other users? Does that seem normal to you? What I can tell you is that I always give the benefit of the doubt, go ahead and check how many times I’ve written it, since I see you have plenty of time to waste... as for the rest, I always try to provide reasons, I expect the same in return and I’m always willing to change my opinion.
"Be careful of excessive acquiescence from others... it often conceals unpleasant opinions": THERE, THIS QUALIFIES YOU FOR WHO YOU ARE! What are you trying to say? Should I be worried about someone who talks behind my back? Do you realize what you are writing? Here are people I enjoy discussing with, others I have fun joking with, others I gladly "read", and others I will probably meet... do you realize how sad what you wrote is? But do you think I should worry about the acquiescence I have on Debaser?????????
"I am equally free to think what I’ve said so far": yes, but you have motivated nothing... anyway, yes, you are completely free.
"If you don’t understand the comparison of Cappio and many other things, you probably studied for nothing": I motivated why that comparison has no validity (nothing against Cappio, to be clear), you haven’t... but you’re right... I don’t understand many things, you are a luminary of history and I have studied for nothing... weren’t you the one who felt offended because he felt degraded by what his profession is... you’re doing the same...
And with this, I’ll close... this discussion seems pointless.

"it's an incorrect statement (one of many in your contribution)": arrogant, pedantic, and self-important to the core, huh?!
"sources but those derived from those who have investigated scientifically through decades of inquiries": while the others’ sources are drawn from some wet, onanistic dreams, right?!
"Which makes the whole discussion your problem (even if you don't understand the comparison made by Cappio)": oh, just think, since you believe the comparison is correct, it suddenly becomes correct. It's a comparison with neither head nor tail; I even explained why, if you can’t grasp it, the problem isn’t mine...go around telling everyone that the comparison between the Holocaust and 9/11 is pertinent; let’s see if you get taken seriously, and you know the rest.
"the only one who has snapped between you and me here is you": what makes you think I snapped at you? The reference was absolutely not to me or you; you have a flair for the dramatic. You've written 5 posts where you practically say "I'm right, my sources are serious..." But what do you want to talk about? I’ll keep my doubts; I don’t know where the truth lies...you hold on to your certainties, good for you. I’m already fed up with discussing with you; you make it a matter of pedantry, in a boring, faux-calm way...(...it’s an incorrect statement, one of many in your contribution... All this with the utmost possible serenity... it requires some, huh), offering not an ounce of motivation, but with the tone of the perfect historical researcher... double mah. It’s clear I studied for nothing...

Happy? Not at all, never a time when we can have a serious discussion without pointless freakouts, never a time when someone questions themselves and says, "I don't know, let's try to listen to what the other person is saying"... here everyone is a genius and full of certainties... oh well...

"Otherwise, you can remain denialists": there are no denialists here, read better before posting nonsense... one gets tired of restating the same things. "The number of Jewish deaths during World War II was about 6 million, and this is not a random estimate but is supported by all credible and serious sources": I don’t have the truth in hand nor the certainties that you all seem to have here... but considering the sources that support your claims as serious and credible is simply ridiculous. "I appreciate Carlo’s speech and I don’t find Cappio’s comparison (September 11) inappropriate given that both events have recently united all the "fans" of various conspiracy theories and the like": since you mention fans, I’m sorry Moreno, but you’re completely off base... fans of what? Theories involving people caught up in tragic events?! Anyway, September 11 has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Period. How can two such different events be compared? Why don’t we talk about the Madrid massacre then? Does that seem serious to you? You wouldn’t even hear nonsense like that at a bar, come on! Anyway, controversy closed... I don’t like discussing when people intentionally misunderstand what one says, nor do I like talking about such a serious matter in this way, without the necessary seriousness and clarity of thought.

"What others mean to say is that politically and legally, 3 million more or less deaths is an abyssal difference": of course you have to be slow to not understand that, but everyone is capable of senselessly ranting... that other one brings in September 11, but what the hell does that have to do with it? "And anyway, on a HUMAN level, the difference between 3 and 6 MILLION victims is seen only by you": the difference is that there are 3 million more living people! Is that not a small matter? Then, speaking for myself clearly, I'm not even engaging in revisionism; whether it was 3 or 6 million doesn’t change the substance of what happened, which is genocide. Period. But, this is the last time I repeat it, "The difference between 3/4 and 6 million deaths is 2/3 million people, and if you allow me, that makes a colossal difference, both legally and historically or simply human... or even just to finally outline historiographically what happened."

Just to make you look even more like the fool you are: Geb's post (nothing against Geb) is one of the most useless writings on this page...the phrase "1 million is still a nice number. I also think that they didn't kill 6 million, but only due to lack of time" doesn't mean a damn thing because, and I quote, "The difference between 3/4 to 6 million dead is 2/3 million people, and if you allow me, that makes a colossal difference, both legally and historically or more simply humanly." Only an idiot wouldn't understand that...one last thing: "What is the minimum threshold of victims to talk about genocide?" This is the most ridiculous question I've ever read in my life...and it shows that you speak for no reason, that you're ignorant and you don't even realize it. Let's see if you can understand why...