And then one day...

[_Smokey]

By the way, casual observers might note that the confused Holocaust denier in this thread is arguing that Anne Frank's diary was written with a type of pen that was not invented until four years after the diary was first published.

; )

The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying. Gradually I began to hate them.

[_canpakes]

The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying. Gradually I began to hate them.

Aha. You do own a mirror. I was beginning to wonder. ; )

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[_Smokey]

[_canpakes]

Are we to address you as 'alt-virgin', now?

[_Smokey]

[_canpakes]

That's quaint. Using a Holocaust denier to promote Holocaust denial. ; )

Where are the missing 'guests', tool?

[_Smokey]

[_canpakes]

Look! A parenthesis and an underline! This proves that Anne Frank didn't exist..!!1!

And written in a pen not invented until after the diary was published, right?

[_Smokey]

I haven't asked for page numbers in a book.

You asked me to reference “diary” entries that contain ballpoint pen markings. You won’t tell me which “diary” you are referring to because you know there are many different versions, with a different amount of entries, and conflicting details. One example of the ballpoint pen marks is in the 1975 British Edition, but removed from the American Cardinal edition, so this is important but you continue to argue in bad faith.

Another reason this is important, yet you argue in bad faith, is the “entry” for June 12 1942 does not appear in all editions. Why is this?

If you are even sentient, you probably know there appears ballpoint pen in some of the “Diary™️“ and even if we continued on endlessly until you finally declared which Anne Frank Diary was written by Anne Frank, you will then squirm out of it by saying the markings are not an entire entry, or the markings do not purport to be written by Anne Frank, or it’s perfectly normal for ballpoint pen to appear where it does, etc.

Followers of Holocaustism are typical in this way. You are a Holopologist.

I'm ignoring your evasions because they are red herrings.

Same here, Fedora.

You want to change the subject from your ball point pen claim to a different claim because you don't want to discuss the actual evidence.

What was my claim, Fedora? Please articulate it without misrepresentation or pilpul.

I'm letting you choose from every document in the world, as long as it meets my criteria.

I’m not going to walk through every page with you, and “meeting your criteria” is something I couldn’t care less about, because you are a Holopologist arguing in bad faith, however just for fun let’s start with the first page of what most people consider “the Diary”.

There is ballpoint pen markings on the very first entry. Page 64, volume 1 of the 1965 Zurich edition. Do I need to post another example or will you finally stop arguing in bad faith?

And we can discuss it, after we finish the ball point pen. Or do you want to do more Anne Frank's diary next. Or the swimming pool. You pick.

I’m not on your schedule, faggot. That being said, debunking Holocaustism will be a death by a thousand cuts. Every piece of evidence crumbles under scrutiny. Just look at what has happened to Anne Frank’s Diary™️, and that was just the first topic that came up. There is much more, as I’m sure you’re starting to learn. I look forward to enlightening you and others lurking here, when I have the time and am not being censored.