As for ignoring information, are you referring to me not replying to the posts where you put forward yet another outrageous claim as a fact, qualifying your claim with "it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt" or something similar, and then move on to other things, proving nothing? It's an interesting method, common for the likes of you, but academic it is most certainly not.
I referred to sources that go deeper into the topic, which you conveniently ignored too.
They are longer, but that's not the same thing. The basic method is unchanged: you state something as a fact, quote this or that, and conclude that irrefutable proof has now been presented. However, if one follows the reference and reads the quote, that same pattern is repeated. That's how Rudolf does it, with the added twist of referencing his own work, written under pseydonym, but conveniently forgetting to inform the reader that the pseudonym is, in fact, he himself.
Another method is to misrepresent facts--the 15,000,000 population counts before and after the war comprise a typical "argument" in that respect.
So yes, I choose to ignore those, in most cases, because there just isn't any substance to it.
Speaking of which, when will *you* address the little matter of the Dr Konrad & friends?
What is there to address?
Apart from him deliberately hiding the fact that Rudolf invented the character, including his academic title, without telling the reader?
By the way, what do you think of Simon Wiesenthal and Elie Wiesel? Both are/were propagandists for the ancient alien cause as well as the Holocaust myth and both are proven liars with regards to their WW2 experience.
There you go again, using the method I was talking about. "Proven liars...", "propagandists for the ancient alien cause..."
You do know that you yourself are a proven liar, don't you?
Where did I suggest that those two were even remotely equal?
In one of your statements, you said that you regarded censoring Holocaust Revisionism in the light of preventing genocide, even though I haven't heard of a single Holocaust Revisionist who supports any form of genocide whatsoever.
Yes, but where did I equal "questioning history books" with "supporting genocide"?
Oh, and since you brought it up, are you saying that you are merely questioning history books when you say that homosexuality is a perversity of nature (shouldn't that be "perversion", btw?) or when you blame the Jews themselves for having been persecuted throughout history?
My views on homosexuality are an entirely different matter. But yes, when I say that antisemitism is nothing but a typical response to the malign behavior of (a part of) the Jewish community, I'm referring to a historical fact that was mainstream knowledge for most of Western history. Recent authors like Israel Shahak (an Israeli chemistry professor and a Jew himself) and Andrew MacDonald (a North-American professor and evolutionary psychologist) have written several volumes on this topic with loads of source references including many Jewish references.
From Wikipedia:
The Roman-Catholic historian Edward Flannery distinguished four varieties of antisemitism[3]:
* Political and economic antisemitism, giving as examples Cicero and Charles Lindbergh;
* Theological or religious antisemitism, sometimes known as anti-Judaism;
* Nationalistic antisemitism, citing Voltaire and other Enlightenment thinkers, who attacked Jews for supposedly having certain characteristics, such as greed and arrogance, and for observing customs such as kashrut and shabbat;
* Racial antisemitism, which culminated in the Holocaust unleashed by the Nazis.
And this is all their own fault?
BTW, how is it "a historical fact" that "antisemitism is nothing but a typical response to the malign behavior of (a part of) the Jewish community"? Presumably the names you list support that notion, but how, exactly, do those names make it "a historical fact"?
But then, this is the method you use. It's all "historical facts", "irrefutable truths", all "proven beyond any doubt", isn't it? You should try a scientifically more viable method.