Gravity??? WHat about that??

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

So what that Cavendish been disputed? That's irrelevant. Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

By your logic: I dispute FET; therefore, FET is false.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

So what that Cavendish been disputed? That's irrelevant. Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

By your logic: I dispute FET; therefore, FET is false.

wat. I never claimed any such thing.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:09:51 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

So what that Cavendish been disputed? That's irrelevant. Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

By your logic: I dispute FET; therefore, FET is false.

wat. I never claimed any such thing.

Whoever said you claimed anything? Have you ever claimed anything?

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.

I never claimed such a thing.

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:14:45 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.

I never claimed such a thing.

But you keep implying it.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:15:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:14:45 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.

I never claimed such a thing.

But you keep implying it.

You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:16:32 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:15:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:14:45 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.

I never claimed such a thing.

But you keep implying it.

You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.

Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:17:37 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:16:32 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:15:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:14:45 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.

I never claimed such a thing.

But you keep implying it.

You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.

Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.

It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.

It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.

It remains irrelevant.

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:35:50 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:17:37 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:16:32 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:15:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:14:45 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.

I never claimed such a thing.

But you keep implying it.

You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.

Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.

It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.

And what exactly does Cavendish having been disputed mean in the context of this discussion?

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 11:16:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:35:50 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:17:37 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:16:32 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:15:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:14:45 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.

I never claimed such a thing.

But you keep implying it.

You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.

Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.

It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.

And what exactly does Cavendish having been disputed mean in the context of this discussion?

It means that Cavendish is not universally accepted by all, namely, those who dispute it.

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 12:48:37 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 11:16:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:35:50 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:17:37 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:16:32 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:15:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:14:45 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.

I never claimed such a thing.

But you keep implying it.

You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.

Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.

It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.

And what exactly does Cavendish having been disputed mean in the context of this discussion?

It means that Cavendish is not universally accepted by all, namely, those who dispute it.

And since those who dispute have failed to back up their claim with evidence, this remains irrelevant.

I've always liked disputing things. It sounds a little like proving something false but with out the proof and the obvious inconvenience of actually having to prove your point. I'm a prime example I dispute the Cavendish experiment, if he couldn't even get his arithmetic right how can I trust him to find G. Thankfully he wasn't trying to find G so all im disputing is his measurement of the density of the Earth. Thankfully a number of other folk have used torsion balances to measure G more recently.

M. Fitzgerald and T. R. Armstrong, IEEE Trans. on Inst. and Meas.  44, 494 (1995)
W. Michaelis, H. Haars, and R. Augustin, Metrologia  32, 267 (1995)
V.P. Izmailov, O.V. Karagioz et. al., Measurement Techniques  36, 1065 (1993)
H. Walesch, H. Meyer, H. Piehl, and J. Schurr, IEEE Trans. on Inst. and Meas.  44, 491 (1995)
J.H. Gundlach, E.G. Adelberger, B.R. Heckel, and H.E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D  54, 1256 (I don't think this uses a torsion balance)

I've always liked disputing things. It sounds a little like proving something false but with out the proof and the obvious inconvenience of actually having to prove your point. I'm a prime example I dispute the Cavendish experiment, if he couldn't even get his arithmetic right how can I trust him to find G. Thankfully he wasn't trying to find G so all im disputing is his measurement of the density of the Earth. Thankfully a number of other folk have used torsion balances to measure G more recently.

M. Fitzgerald and T. R. Armstrong, IEEE Trans. on Inst. and Meas.  44, 494 (1995)
W. Michaelis, H. Haars, and R. Augustin, Metrologia  32, 267 (1995)
V.P. Izmailov, O.V. Karagioz et. al., Measurement Techniques  36, 1065 (1993)
H. Walesch, H. Meyer, H. Piehl, and J. Schurr, IEEE Trans. on Inst. and Meas.  44, 491 (1995)
J.H. Gundlach, E.G. Adelberger, B.R. Heckel, and H.E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D  54, 1256 (I don't think this uses a torsion balance)

Thanks! Well done.

What debate? Allow me to remind you that you eventually refused to discuss with me. There is no debate, just a series of accusations and the lack of understanding of a certain phrase.
Anyway, let's stop derailing the thread. Answer the original question.

I've just read over the whole thread. You picked strawman after strawman, until it was probably realized that you were a lost cause, a casualty of madness. #1 was incorrect, because he essentially said if one were to look from a height, one would not see curvature. That is his premise, and without a source, it is based on the conclusion that the earth is flat. Therefore it is not proof, regarding that his premise is false

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 12:48:37 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 11:16:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:35:50 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:17:37 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:16:32 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:15:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:14:45 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.

I never claimed such a thing.

But you keep implying it.

You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.

Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.

It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.

And what exactly does Cavendish having been disputed mean in the context of this discussion?

It means that Cavendish is not universally accepted by all, namely, those who dispute it.

It is disputed by some neo nazis, that the holocaust never happened. Does that mean we can't use it as evidence for the evils of Hitler?

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 01:51:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 12:48:37 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 11:16:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:35:50 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:17:37 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:16:32 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 05, 2010, 10:15:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:14:45 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 06:03:44 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 04, 2010, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.

I never claimed such a thing.

But you keep implying it.

You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.

Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.

It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.

And what exactly does Cavendish having been disputed mean in the context of this discussion?

It means that Cavendish is not universally accepted by all, namely, those who dispute it.

It is disputed by some neo nazis, that the holocaust never happened. Does that mean we can't use it as evidence for the evils of Hitler?

Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?

Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?

What about first hand accounts of people who lived through it?  My father grew up in Nazi occupied Poland and personally witnessed some of the atrocities carried out against the Jews.

What about first hand accounts of people who lived through it?  My father grew up in Nazi occupied Poland and personally witnessed some of the atrocities carried out against the Jews.

I have a friend that will testify to controlling Saturn with his mind.

I have a friend that will testify to controlling Saturn with his mind.

Does your friend have any evidence that he can control Saturn with his mind?

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 06, 2010, 07:15:08 AM

I have a friend that will testify to controlling Saturn with his mind.

Does your friend have any evidence that he can control Saturn with his mind?

He has first hand accounts of controlling Saturn with his mind. You implied this was acceptable evidence.

Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?

Yes.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 06, 2010, 06:54:33 AM

Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?

Yes.

Present it or it is assumed non-existent.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 06, 2010, 07:37:15 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 06, 2010, 06:54:33 AM

Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?

Yes.

Present it or it is assumed non-existent.

Really? You need to see proof of something that's in every high school history text in the last 20 years, really? Then I direct you to visit the http://www.ushmm.org/ in person.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 06, 2010, 07:39:12 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 06, 2010, 07:37:15 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 06, 2010, 06:54:33 AM

Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?

Yes.

Present it or it is assumed non-existent.

Really? You need to see proof of something that's in every high school history text in the last 20 years, really? Then I direct you to visit the http://www.ushmm.org/ in person.

I've been there, it was very touching. As was The Lion King.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 06, 2010, 07:48:43 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 06, 2010, 07:39:12 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 06, 2010, 07:37:15 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 06, 2010, 06:54:33 AM

Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?

Yes.

Present it or it is assumed non-existent.

Really? You need to see proof of something that's in every high school history text in the last 20 years, really? Then I direct you to visit the http://www.ushmm.org/ in person.

I've been there, it was very touching. As was The Lion King.

So why do waste the Forum's time if you've already seen the evidence in person?

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 06, 2010, 08:37:20 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 06, 2010, 07:48:43 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 06, 2010, 07:39:12 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 06, 2010, 07:37:15 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 06, 2010, 06:54:33 AM

Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?

Yes.

Present it or it is assumed non-existent.

Really? You need to see proof of something that's in every high school history text in the last 20 years, really? Then I direct you to visit the http://www.ushmm.org/ in person.

I've been there, it was very touching. As was The Lion King.

So why do waste the Forum's time if you've already seen the evidence in person?

Because I've also seen evidence that lions and monkeys talk.