Smokey wrote:You continue to argue in bad faith.
You finally conceded that there is ballpoint pen in the original manuscript of the Anne Frank Diary. I’m glad we could let everyone know that after 15 pages of you pretending to debunk that simple fact.
Ladies Gentlemen pretending to be Ladies and Gentlemen: There is in fact ballpoint pen in a Anne Frank’s Diary. Like I said five days ago, no serious person disputes this.
I’m back to asking my original question, can you even articulate why we are all supposed to hate Adolf Hitler, and by default anyone the Transvestite Left calls Hitler? You can’t use Anne Frank as a source anymore, so please pick a reliable source.
You just continue to lie, and lie, and lie, and lie Maybe this is what the cesspool of holocaust denial does to people. You decide that telling the truth isn't important.
I do love your execution of the "declare victory after your claims are disproved" gambit. You're pretty good at that one.
You only think I was disputing that there were any ball point pen markings on the manuscript pages because you're so arrogant you assume you know things no one else does. You assumed I was some yokel who would deny that there were any ball point pen markings at all so you could spring your trap.
But you're so arrogant, you don't even bother to read. Hell, I even posted a blueprint of how I engage holocaust deniers -- make sure I know their arguments and why they are BS before ever engaging. Before I ever commented on the ball point pen issue, I knew the whole history of the controversy. I also knew, despite the maliciously deceptive claims holocaust deniers had been making for years, that only two specific pages among the loose pages had been identified that had markings or writings in ball point pen. And I knew that none of the text of the diary entries in Anne Frank's handwriting were in ball point pen. In fact, although the two pages were found among the loose pages, there is some evidence that they were added sometime after Anne wrote the original manuscript.
What I didn't know was how much you actually knew.
I started out by asking you which portions of the original manuscripts were written in ball point pen. I wanted to see if you actually knew the truth -- that we were talking about a total of two pages among the manuscript pages for The Secret Annex. You couldn't. You falsely claimed that you already had, reposted images of diary pages that were not connected to any evidence that they were written in ball point pen, and were unable to identify which, if any, writing on those pages was in ball-point pen. When you couldn't identify which parts of the manuscripts were written in ball point pen, I asked you an easier question: identify a single diary entry that was purportedly written in Anne Frank's handwriting and that was in ball point pen. After repeating that request several times, you posted an image of a diary page that had some arrows pointing, not to any portion of the diary entry in Anne's handwriting, but to
edits to the diary entry. It also contained no evidence whatsoever that any of the writing on the page had been identified as being in ball point pen.
When I asked initially asked you to identify the pages with the ball point pen markings, you just assumed I was disputing that the markings existed. That's your own arrogant assumption. If I had wanted say "there aren't any ball point pen markings," I would have said so. You assumed, and made an ass out of you and you. At no point in our discussion did I ever make the claim that there are no ball point pen markings. Your contention that I did is just another in your series of lies.
My argument, which I have been making solely on the evidence that you are able to produce, is that your original claims about the ball point pen are malicious lies. The ball point pen markings that actually exist in no way whatsoever are evidence against Anne Frank's authorship of the original entries that are in her handwriting. Anyone can put any mark on the pages of an original manuscript after the original text has been written. Suppose I write a first draft of my autobiography in handwriting because I'm an old boomer who hates typing. Then I go through the draft and edit it -- correct spelling, correct grammar, change klutzy wording, revise a paragraph because it didn't really describe an incident very well. And then I ask my Dad to read it, and he makes some marks on it to correct mistakes I missed, change the name of a person because I had misremembered who was involved in the incident. I do the same with my mom and my sibs, because I want their input and because their memories may be more accurate than mine.
So, I have an original manuscript in my handwriting, with all kinds of editing marks on it. Those marks don't change the fact that I wrote the autobiography -- I am the author. And if I don't get around to publishing it and my kids find the manuscript 20 years later and make more marks on it, I'm still the author. And you can tell exactly what I wrote by looking at the handwriting on the original manuscript. No mark added later somehow changes the authenticity of the text I wrote.
What you are trying to argue is that these later markings that aren't part of the original text in my handwriting somehow proves that I didn't write the original text. And you do it by lying about the markings added later, claiming that couldn't have written the text because there are markings that were made later. That's pure, unadulterated BS. And if you had the honesty to admit that none of the diary entries written in Anne's handwriting were written using a ball point pen, your claim that the ball point pen markings mean that Anne couldn't have written the original manuscripts would vanish in a puff of smoke.
So, you lie, you dodge, you provide evidence that isn't actually evidence, you change the subject, you play stupid word games, you make phony accusations -- you do everything but look closely at the actual evidence and make a good faith attempt to understand what it means. Because if you do that with holocaust denial, it crumbles to dust.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
