Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
Debunks1
ISRAEL MUSEUM HOSTS ANTI-CATHOLIC ART
On May 26, the Israel Museum will host an exhibition, Revelation:
Representations of Christ in Photography, that is based on a newly released
book by that name; it will run through September 6. Nissan N. Perez is curator
of photography at the museum and the author of the book’s introduction.
“Merrell, the publisher of Revelation, sent me a complimentary copy of the
book in April. The letter said it was published ‘in time for Easter-related
columns.’ I take it this was my Easter gift.
“As Nissan Perez says, the 195 illustrations range from the ‘sacred’ to
the ‘profane.’ His decision to include the profane may explain his
defensiveness: he writes that ‘no disrespect or offence [is] intended.’
How considerate. I wonder, is this what he tells his Jewish friends when they
are offended by anti-Semitic art—to consider that no disrespect was intended?
Does he likewise seduce himself?
“Nissan claims that unlike secular art, the prime function of artistic
expression in the Catholic Church has been to stifle independent thought. He
cites, for example, that the Dada and Surrealist movements (from roughly World
War I through the 1930s) were united in their ‘call for the eradication of
all organized religion.’ Midway through the 1920s, the principal organ of
the Surrealists featured on its cover a photograph bearing the same title as
the main article: ‘1925: End of the Christian Era.’ In 1934, Georges
Hugnet offered us ‘The Last Supper,’ which featured a woman performing
fellatio on a man standing in front of Jesus and his disciples at the Last
Supper.
“But it is obvious that Nissan fails to appreciate how nihilistic art
dehumanizes the culture and abets a collective sense of insouciance in the face
of suffering. In the same year that ‘Christianity Ended’ (1925), Mein
Kampf was published. The moral relativism that marked Weimar Germany—the
work of ‘creative’ artists—made possible Hitler’s triumph. For the
Israel Museum not to get this is quite sad.”
END
But, alas, the Israel Museum does 'get it'..they have 'gotten it' for 2000
years and their antichristian rancor persists beyond man's wildest imagination,
so the real question here is... .when will Christians wake up and 'get it?"
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
in message <20030516172247...@mb-m15.aol.com>:
>May 7, 2003
>
>ISRAEL MUSEUM HOSTS ANTI-CATHOLIC ART
<snip copyright violation following a misleading title
>But, alas, the Israel Museum does 'get it'..they have 'gotten it' for 2000
>years and their antichristian rancor persists beyond man's wildest imagination,
>so the real question here is... .when will Christians wake up and 'get it?"
When will you 'get" the concepts of intellectual property and on-topic
posting?
Probably about the same time you produce that tape of Clarke.
Hey, joe -- is "Die Polemik und die Menschenopfer des Rabbinismus" by
August Rohling a reliable source for in formation on the Talmud?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message
<b9d4668f109783b2...@free.teranews.com>:
>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
> in message <20030516172247...@mb-m15.aol.com>:
>
>>May 7, 2003
>>
>>ISRAEL MUSEUM HOSTS ANTI-CATHOLIC ART
>
> <snip copyright violation following a misleading title>
My apologies, it would appear that it is the Catholic League which was
inaccurate in their subject.
BTW, you never did answer whether or not your publisher knows that you
regularly engage in such plagiarism and copyright violation?
Nor why you thought Gore Vidal doesn't like Christianity?
Nor why you keep changing your story on the bible codes.
Nor ... well, the readers at home get the idea...
steve wolk
"Debunks1" <debu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030516172247...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> May 7, 2003
>
>
>
> ISRAEL MUSEUM HOSTS ANTI-CATHOLIC ART
>
>
>
> On May 26, the Israel Museum will host an exhibition, Revelation:
> Representations of Christ in Photography, that is based on a newly
released
> book by that name; it will run through September 6. Nissan N. Perez is
curator
> of photography at the museum and the author of the book's introduction.
>
> "Merrell, the publisher of Revelation, sent me a complimentary copy of the
> book in April. The letter said it was published 'in time for
Easter-related
> columns.' I take it this was my Easter gift.
>
> "As Nissan Perez says, the 195 illustrations range from the 'sacred' to
> the 'profane.' His decision to include the profane may explain his
> defensiveness: he writes that 'no disrespect or offence [is] intended.'
> How considerate. I wonder, is this what he tells his Jewish friends when
they
intended?
> Does he likewise seduce himself?
>
> "Nissan claims that unlike secular art, the prime function of artistic
> expression in the Catholic Church has been to stifle independent thought.
He
> cites, for example, that the Dada and Surrealist movements (from roughly
World
> War I through the 1930s) were united in their 'call for the eradication of
> all organized religion.' Midway through the 1920s, the principal organ of
> the Surrealists featured on its cover a photograph bearing the same title
as
> the main article: '1925: End of the Christian Era.' In 1934, Georges
> Hugnet offered us 'The Last Supper,' which featured a woman performing
> fellatio on a man standing in front of Jesus and his disciples at the Last
> Supper.
>
>
> "But it is obvious that Nissan fails to appreciate how nihilistic art
> dehumanizes the culture and abets a collective sense of insouciance in the
face
> of suffering. In the same year that 'Christianity Ended' (1925), Mein
> work of 'creative' artists-made possible Hitler's triumph. For the
> Israel Museum not to get this is quite sad."
>
> END
>
> But, alas, the Israel Museum does 'get it'..they have 'gotten it' for 2000
> years and their antichristian rancor persists beyond man's wildest
imagination,
> so the real question here is... .when will Christians wake up and 'get
it?"
--
Who's the publisher, Joebbels?
Fergus MacTavish
<b9d4668f109783b2...@free.teranews.com> Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>joe bellinger steals again
---Traits and tactics of trolls commented on:
"Well, <<fill in the blank with whoever is smearing and/or lying now>> . . .
I've been debating 'anti-revisionists' in alt.revisionism for years and I've yet
to see you do anything other than hurl abuse at people. You people are bereft of
arguments. All you 'anti-revisionist' characters can do is call people names,
try to intimidate people, smear and defame them and, if that doesn't work, troll
like hell."
-From: "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk>
-Subject: Re: Paul Grubach
-Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 02:55:56 +0100
-Message-ID: <3ec0...@212.67.96.135>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tavish comment: Though I steadfastly disagreed with and ardently opposed
David's remarks about WTC it looks like he hit the nail on the head with
the observation he made above. The comment between << and >> was mine.
Debunks1
>Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Date: 5/16/03 3:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <b9d4668f109783b2...@free.teranews.com>
>
>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
> in message <20030516172247...@mb-m15.aol.com>:
>
>>May 7, 2003
>>
>>ISRAEL MUSEUM HOSTS ANTI-CATHOLIC ART
>
> <snip copyright violation following a misleading title
>
>>But, alas, the Israel Museum does 'get it'..they have 'gotten it' for 2000
>>years and their antichristian rancor persists beyond man's wildest
>imagination,
>>so the real question here is... .when will Christians wake up and 'get it?"
>
>When will you 'get" the concepts of intellectual property and on-topic
>posting?
>
Explain what is off topic about this subject? What were the causes for the
holocaust? What prompts supposed antisemitism? Are these references and
issues not topical to the subject? There are reasons, legitimate or otherwise,
as to why some people espouse perceived antisemitic viewpoints. So as I see
it, this is open to discussion and most relevant to not the holocaust of world
war two. For every effect there is a cause.
>Probably about the same time you produce that tape of Clarke.
>
That issue is dead and over. You failed to produce any credible information to
discredit Butler's published non-fictional account.
>Hey, joe -- is "Die Polemik und die Menschenopfer des Rabbinismus" by
>August Rohling a reliable source for in formation on the Talmud?
Why ask me? I suppose you would recommend Strack.
Debunks1
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Message-id: <d5da12d63749ee7c...@free.teranews.com>
>
>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be Roger wrote
> in message
><b9d4668f109783b2...@free.teranews.com>:
>
>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>> in message <20030516172247...@mb-m15.aol.com>:
>>
>>>May 7, 2003
>>>
>>>ISRAEL MUSEUM HOSTS ANTI-CATHOLIC ART
>>
>> <snip copyright violation following a misleading title>
>
>My apologies, it would appear that it is the Catholic League which was
>inaccurate in their subject.
>
>BTW, you never did answer whether or not your publisher knows that you
>regularly engage in such plagiarism and copyright violation?
This is the internet. Not Random House Publishing or your local newspaper. It
is an open forum for the free exchange of information.
>Nor why you thought Gore Vidal doesn't like Christianity?
Read his own words. Why ask my thoughts on the subject? I will give them to
you soon enough.
>Nor why you keep changing your story on the bible codes.
>
You mean the Bible codes as devised and taught by Cabalists and other Orthodox
Jews?
>Nor ... well, the readers at home get the idea...
If not now, they will in time.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>Subject: joe bellinger steals again, writes dishonest subject was Re: Israel
>Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Date: 5/16/03 3:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <b9d4668f109783b2...@free.teranews.com>
>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>> in message <20030516172247...@mb-m15.aol.com>:
>>>May 7, 2003
>>>
>>>ISRAEL MUSEUM HOSTS ANTI-CATHOLIC ART
>> <snip copyright violation following a misleading title
>>>But, alas, the Israel Museum does 'get it'..they have 'gotten it' for 2000
>>>years and their antichristian rancor persists beyond man's wildest
>>>imagination,
>>>so the real question here is... .when will Christians wake up and 'get it?"
>>When will you 'get" the concepts of intellectual property and on-topic
>>posting?
>Explain what is off topic about this subject?
Does a exhibition in 2003 have change in the slightest the events of
60 years ago?
>What were the causes for the holocaust?
A megalomaniac seized control of a country and used that power to act
out a persecution fantasy.
>What prompts supposed antisemitism?Are these references and
>issues not topical to the subject? There are reasons, legitimate or otherwise,
>as to why some people espouse perceived antisemitic viewpoints. So as I see
>it, this is open to discussion and most relevant to not the holocaust of world
>war two. For every effect there is a cause.
*Current* anti-semitism can not have caused the events of over 6
decades ago. Nor does it have any impact on the facts of those
events.
>>Probably about the same time you produce that tape of Clarke.
>That issue is dead and over. You failed to produce any credible information to
>discredit Butler's published non-fictional account.
Keep saying that, joe -- you might fool someone that has not been
following this newsgroup.
Those that have know that you have claimed that Clarke was quoted
verbatim and offered no credible information in support of that --
which claim is directly contradicted by the phone conversation I had
with him.
>>Hey, joe -- is "Die Polemik und die Menschenopfer des Rabbinismus" by
>>August Rohling a reliable source for in formation on the Talmud?
>Why ask me? I suppose you would recommend Strack.
Well, you claim to have investigated pranaitis' claims thoroughly --
and he quotes rohling. Why would he have done that, do you suppose?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>Subject: Re: joe bellinger steals again, writes dishonest subject was Re:
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Date: 5/16/03 3:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <d5da12d63749ee7c...@free.teranews.com>
>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Roger wrote
>> in message
>><b9d4668f109783b2...@free.teranews.com>:
>>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>>> someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>>> in message <20030516172247...@mb-m15.aol.com>:
>>>>May 7, 2003
>>>>
>>>>ISRAEL MUSEUM HOSTS ANTI-CATHOLIC ART
>>> <snip copyright violation following a misleading title>
>>My apologies, it would appear that it is the Catholic League which was
>>inaccurate in their subject.
>>
>>BTW, you never did answer whether or not your publisher knows that you
>>regularly engage in such plagiarism and copyright violation?
>This is the internet. Not Random House Publishing or your local newspaper. It
>is an open forum for the free exchange of information.
So, you contend that copyright does not cover material posted on the
Web? What is your legal basis for doing so?
>>Nor why you thought Gore Vidal doesn't like Christianity?
>Read his own words. Why ask my thoughts on the subject? I will give them to
>you soon enough.
You were *just* invited to do so (again.) Why didn't you? I ask you
because you ran from the question the last time, too...
>>Nor why you keep changing your story on the bible codes.
>You mean the Bible codes as devised and taught by Cabalists and other Orthodox
>Jews?
No, I mean the Bible codes you originally started out claiming were
Revealed by God...
>>Nor ... well, the readers at home get the idea...
>If not now, they will in time.
Absolutely -- you can't help but make extravagant claims you cannot
factually support and so create magic rabbits in an effort to save
face, which only ends up making you look even *more* the fool...
Debunks1
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Message-id: <60f407152e595294...@free.teranews.com>
How droll. Where did Hitler claim he was being personally persecuted? I see
you used the word 'megalomaniac' - as in Ariel Sharon? BTW, Hitler did not
'seize' control, but was appointed Chancellor legally by President von
Hindenburg.
>>What prompts supposed antisemitism?Are these references and
>>issues not topical to the subject? There are reasons, legitimate or
>otherwise,
>>as to why some people espouse perceived antisemitic viewpoints. So as I see
>>it, this is open to discussion and
>most relevant to not the holocaust of world
>>war two. For every effect there is a cause.
>*Current* anti-semitism can not have caused the events of over 6
>decades ago
That was not the point I was making. Define 'antisemitism' for us, Roger. Do
you have a definition you can provide for us here? Have you ever bothered to
read the history of the Jewish people? Have you read Graetze's volumes on this
subject? Current 'antisemitism' may simply be the same effect of the cause
which produced a similar effect 60 years ago. Ever stop to consider that
possibility?
>Nor does it have any impact on the facts of those
>events.
>
That is a matter of opinion.
>>>Probably about the same time you produce that tape of Clarke.
>
>>That issue is dead and over. You failed to produce any credible information
>to
>>discredit Butler's published non-fictional account.
>Keep saying that, joe
I will, because it is true and you cannot prove otherwise. Stop yapping and
post your proof.
>>>Hey, joe -- is "Die Polemik und die Menschenopfer des Rabbinismus" by
>>>August Rohling a reliable source for in formation on the Talmud?
>
>>Why ask me? I suppose you would recommend Strack.
>Well, you claim to have investigated pranaitis' claims thoroughly --
Yes, I did. And he is credible.
>and he quotes rohling. Why would he have done that, do you suppose?
If you have any particular points of contention re what Rohling wrote, post the
particulars.
Debunks1
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Message-id: <f34e9607a0b0f40e...@free.teranews.com>
Sue me if you think you have a legal basis for complaining.
>
>>>Nor why you thought Gore Vidal doesn't like Christianity?
>
>>Read his own words. Why ask my thoughts on the subject? I will give them
>to
>>you soon enough.
>You were *just* invited to do so (again.) Why didn't you? I ask you
>because you ran from the question the last time, too...
The issue here is not my thoughts on why Gore is an antichristian hate monger.
The issue here is what Gore personally stated, which appears to be fully
consistent with the viewpoints expressed in the Jewish Talmud. Do I have a
problem with that? Yes, I do. And so would most honest Christians if they
were made privy to the information contained in those books.
>>>Nor why you keep changing your story on the bible codes.
>
>>You mean the Bible codes as devised and taught by Cabalists and other
>Orthodox
>>Jews?
>No, I mean the Bible codes you originally started out claiming were
>Revealed by God...
You misinterpret. I claimed and still claim that it is the Jews who
'discovered' and promoted these codes. Their system is fully consistent with
Jewish tradition as contained in the Cabala and Zohar.
>>Nor ... well, the readers at home get the idea...
>
>>If not now, they will in time.
>
>bsolutely -- you can't help but make extravagant claims you cannot
>factually support and so create magic rabbits in an effort to save
>face, which only ends up making you look even *more* the fool...
>
Don't look now Roger, but you are referring to yourself. Classic example of a
Freudian slip or projection, etc etc etc. I am not the least bit disconcerted
over how I 'look' in this hateful forum. To be called a fool by you is a badge
of honor.
Yitzchak Goodman
> >Well, you claim to have investigated pranaitis' claims thoroughly --
>
Here is something I posted in December:
[begin quote]
El Paredon wrote:
> VIII. JEWS MUST NEVER CEASE TO EXTERMINATE THE GOIM; THEY MUST NEVERLEAVE
> THEM IN PEACE AND NEVER SUBMIT TO THEM
> In Hilhoth Akum (X, 1) it says:
> "Do not eat with idolaters, nor permit them to worship their idols; for it
> is written: Make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them (Deuter.
> ch. 7, 2). Either turn away from their idols or kill them."
This is Maimonides rather than the Talmud.
Here is a competent translation:
We may not make a covenant with idolators so as to make peace
with them and still permit them to worship idols, as it states
[Deuteronomy 7:2]: "Do not establish a covenant with them. . ."
Rather, they must renounce idolatry or be slain.
It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as it states
[Deuteronomy 7:2 continued], " . . . nor have mercy upon them."
It makes a lot more sense when it is translated competently,
doesn't it? When Pranaitis got finished translating
"Ein kortin brit l'Akum" as "do not eat with idolators,"
didn't he read what he had written and notice that he was making
nonsense of the passage? We can't even make
excuses for him based on poor Hebrew skills.
Notice also that the caption ("JEWS MUST NEVER CEASE
TO EXTERMINATE THE GOIM") is lying.
As badly as Pranaitis mangles the Rambam's
beautifully terse prose, you can even see
from his version that it isn't talking about
Gentiles per se.
[end quote]
Is this an example of Pranaitis being "credible"?
If it isn't, how badly does it reflect on his
credibility?
Yitz
Debunks1
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>Date: 5/21/2003 9:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c338b5c0.03052...@posting.google.com>
>
>Debunks1 wrote:
>
>> >Well, you claim to have investigated pranaitis' claims thoroughly --
>>
>> Yes, I did. And he is credible.
>
>Here is something I posted in December:
>
>[begin quote]
>
>El Paredon wrote:
>
>> VIII. JEWS MUST NEVER CEASE TO EXTERMINATE THE GOIM; THEY MUST NEVERLEAVE
>> THEM IN PEACE AND NEVER SUBMIT TO THEM
>> In Hilhoth Akum (X, 1) it says:
>> "Do not eat with idolaters, nor permit them to worship their idols; for it
>> is written: Make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them (Deuter.
>> ch. 7, 2). Either turn away from their idols or kill them."
>
>This is Maimonides rather than the Talmud.
I have read Maimonides translation and of these passages. I do not recall
Maimonides ever commenting positively in any matter pertaining to Christianity
and Jewish converts to the same.
>Here is a competent translation:
>
>We may not make a covenant with idolators so as to make peace
>with them and still permit them to worship idols, as it states
>[Deuteronomy 7:2]: "Do not establish a covenant with them. . ."
>Rather, they must renounce idolatry or be slain.
>It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as it states
>[Deuteronomy 7:2 continued], " . . . nor have mercy upon them."
>
>It makes a lot more sense when it is translated competently,
>doesn't it?
Certainly there are good translations and bad translations, but now we come
down to the process of interpretation. Do you deny that Orthodox Jews view
Roman Catholicism as a form of 'idolatry?' And if they do, then the passage
you cited would still apply to them, would it not? I will tell you now that I
have here Orthodox Jewish sources which indeed do specifically claim that Roman
Catholicism is idolatry.
Furthermore, all idolators would qualify as Goyim, collectively, would they
not?
>When Pranaitis got finished translating
>"Ein kortin brit l'Akum" as "do not eat with idolators,"
>didn't he read what he had written and notice that he was making
>nonsense of the passage? We can't even make
>excuses for him based on poor Hebrew skills.
We do not know whether his sources were written in Hebrew or some vernacular
tongue. That point remains vague and unclear.
>Notice also that the caption ("JEWS MUST NEVER CEASE
>TO EXTERMINATE THE GOIM") is lying.
Not necessarily. Refer to my comments above. It appears to be a question of
interpretation. Akkum are idolators, are they not? Goyim are gentiles and by
their very nature also 'idolators' are they not? They certainly cannot be said
to qualify as Jews relative to Rabbinical authorities on the subject.
>As badly as Pranaitis mangles the Rambam's
>beautifully terse prose, you can even see
>from his version that it isn't talking about
>Gentiles per se.
>
The question remains to be answered:
Can and were these terms "Goyim", idolator, "Akkum" et al used interchangeably,
and I believe that they were and are and can be so interpreted in that sense
according to the texts under examination, and especially in view of the fact
that I have here books published by Orthodox Jews which refer to Roman
Catholicism/Christianity as idolatry.
>end quote]
>
>Is this an example of Pranaitis being "credible"?
I still maintain that he is a credible source, yes.
>If it isn't, how badly does it reflect on his
>credibility?
>
>Yitz
I don't feel that it does at all, until we resolve the issue of whether
Orthodox Jews believe Roman Catholics are idolators.
David Gehrig
>>No, I mean the Bible codes you originally started out claiming were
>>Revealed by God...
>
> You misinterpret. I claimed and still claim that it is the Jews who
> 'discovered' and promoted these codes. Their system is fully consistent
> with Jewish tradition as contained in the Cabala and Zohar.
No, Joe-Joe, it is most definitively not.
You have never adequately explained how skip codes can be used to find
the message "Jesus is evil" 49 times in the Book of Genesis. However,
you _have_ claimed that the skip codes are indeed part of God's
revelation. Could you please explain to us -- for the first time --
how God's revelation can include the message that "Jesus is evil"
so many times?
As I recall, you fled from that question earlier like an embarrassed
child. Can you do better now that you've had a couple years to think
about it?
--
@%<
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>Subject: Re: joe bellinger steals again, writes dishonest subject was Re:
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Date: 5/20/03 3:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <60f407152e595294...@free.teranews.com>
<snip attributions>
>>>>>May 7, 2003
>>>>>
>>>>>ISRAEL MUSEUM HOSTS ANTI-CATHOLIC ART
<snip copyright violation following a misleading title
>>>>>But, alas, the Israel Museum does 'get it'..they have 'gotten it' for 2000
>>>>>years and their antichristian rancor persists beyond man's wildest
>>>>>imagination,
>>>>>so the real question here is... .when will Christians wake up and 'get
>>>>>it?"
>>>>When will you 'get" the concepts of intellectual property and on-topic
>>>>posting?
>>>Explain what is off topic about this subject?
>>Does a exhibition in 2003 have change in the slightest the events of
>>60 years ago?
How does a modern exhibit retroactively change facts from decades ago,
joe?
>>>What were the causes for the holocaust?
>>A megalomaniac seized control of a country and used that power to act
>>out a persecution fantasy.
>How droll. Where did Hitler claim he was being personally persecuted?
He considered himself the embodiment of the German people, and
asserted that the German people were so persecuted. "North America's
leading expert on the Third Reich" doesn't know this?
>I see
>you used the word 'megalomaniac' - as in Ariel Sharon?
No: as in Hitler, as the context clearly indicates.
>BTW, Hitler did not
>'seize' control, but was appointed Chancellor legally by President von
>Hindenburg.
For certain values of the word "legally." Do you claim that Hitler
and his goons did nothing outside the law to facilitate his rise to
power?
>>>What prompts supposed antisemitism?Are these references and
>>>issues not topical to the subject? There are reasons, legitimate or
>>>otherwise,
>>>as to why some people espouse perceived antisemitic viewpoints. So as I see
>>>it, this is open to discussion and most relevant to not the holocaust of world
>>>war two. For every effect there is a cause.
>>*Current* anti-semitism can not have caused the events of over 6
>>decades ago
>That was not the point I was making.
That was the excuse you *just* gave for stealing this article: That
this article shows a justification for antisemitism, the like of which
gave rise to the Holocaust.
>Define 'antisemitism' for us, Roger. Do
>you have a definition you can provide for us here?
The irrational hatred of and opposition to Jews as some monolithic
entity. Have you a better?
>Have you ever bothered to
>read the history of the Jewish people? Have you read Graetze's volumes on this
>subject? Current 'antisemitism' may simply be the same effect of the cause
>which produced a similar effect 60 years ago. Ever stop to consider that
>possibility?
And...? Unless you are going to claim that anti-semitism is
justified, and by extension that the Holocaust is justified, I fail to
see how a discussion of *current* anti-semitism has any impact on the
events of decades ago. Is that your assertion?
>>Nor does it have any impact on the facts of those
>>events.
>That is a matter of opinion.
Then tell us, joe -- which specific fact of the Holocaust has changed
because of this exhibit?
>>>>Probably about the same time you produce that tape of Clarke.
>>>That issue is dead and over. You failed to produce any credible information
>>>to discredit Butler's published non-fictional account.
>>Keep saying that, joe
>I will, because it is true and you cannot prove otherwise. Stop yapping and
>post your proof.
I already did -- a phone conversation between me and Clarke for which
I provided every bit as much documentation as you did for your tape.
>>>>Hey, joe -- is "Die Polemik und die Menschenopfer des Rabbinismus" by
>>>>August Rohling a reliable source for in formation on the Talmud?
>>>Why ask me? I suppose you would recommend Strack.
>>Well, you claim to have investigated pranaitis' claims thoroughly --
>Yes, I did. And he is credible.
No more so than you...
>>and he quotes rohling. Why would he have done that, do you suppose?
>If you have any particular points of contention re what Rohling wrote, post the
>particulars.
Done, in other threads.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>Subject: Re: joe bellinger steals again, writes dishonest subject was Re:
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Date: 5/20/03 3:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <f34e9607a0b0f40e...@free.teranews.com>
<snip attributions>
>>>>>>May 7, 2003
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ISRAEL MUSEUM HOSTS ANTI-CATHOLIC ART
<snip copyright violation following a misleading title>
>>>>My apologies, it would appear that it is the Catholic League which was
>>>>inaccurate in their subject.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, you never did answer whether or not your publisher knows that you
>>>>regularly engage in such plagiarism and copyright violation?
>>>This is the internet. Not Random House Publishing or your local newspaper.
>>>It is an open forum for the free exchange of information.
>>So, you contend that copyright does not cover material posted on the
>>Web? What is your legal basis for doing so?
>Sue me if you think you have a legal basis for complaining.
As I am not the copyright holder, I have no legal standing to do so.
I can, however, point out that you are incorrect about the status of
IP published on the web, and in violation when you steal the work in
its entirety without permission of the holder and notice of said
copyright.
>>>>Nor why you thought Gore Vidal doesn't like Christianity?
>>>Read his own words. Why ask my thoughts on the subject? I will give them
>>>to you soon enough.
>>You were *just* invited to do so (again.) Why didn't you? I ask you
>>because you ran from the question the last time, too...
>The issue here is not my thoughts on why Gore is an antichristian hate monger.
Yes, it is -- that's exactly what I and others have asked.
>The issue here is what Gore personally stated, which appears to be fully
>consistent with the viewpoints expressed in the Jewish Talmud. Do I have a
>problem with that? Yes, I do. And so would most honest Christians if they
>were made privy to the information contained in those books.
Only if they also filter it through your anti-semetic world view...
>>>>Nor why you keep changing your story on the bible codes.
>>>You mean the Bible codes as devised and taught by Cabalists and other
>>>Orthodox Jews?
>>No, I mean the Bible codes you originally started out claiming were
>>Revealed by God...
>You misinterpret.
Nope (for just one example:)
<quote>
From: deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
Date: 1999/06/10
Message-ID: <19990610185231...@ng-fn1.aol.com>
>From: William Daffer <daf...@primenet.com>
>Date: Wed, 09 June 1999 02:06 AM EDT
>Message-id: <m3btepo...@ip34-026.bur.primenet.com>
<snip to>
> By the way. Wasn't it you that said the bible codes were 'biblical
> revelation?'
Yes, I believe they are, but like the Bible, may also be distorted by
cynics.
> Which catholic web site did this come from?
None. It came from me and my reading of the Bible.
</quote>
>I claimed and still claim that it is the Jews who
>'discovered' and promoted these codes. Their system is fully consistent with
>Jewish tradition as contained in the Cabala and Zohar.
This was your story *after* it was pointed out to you that the same
codes could be used to concoct "revelations" you didn't like the
content of.
Why the change?
>>>Nor ... well, the readers at home get the idea...
>>>If not now, they will in time.
>>Absolutely -- you can't help but make extravagant claims you cannot
>>factually support and so create magic rabbits in an effort to save
>>face, which only ends up making you look even *more* the fool...
>Don't look now Roger, but you are referring to yourself. Classic example of a
>Freudian slip or projection, etc etc etc.
Then perhaps you can document a *single* instance in which I have
asserted a Magic Rabbit (other than in response to your lies about the
Clarke tape, which readers should note I offer every bit as much
documentation for as joe does for his "verbatim" claim?)
>I am not the least bit disconcerted
>over how I 'look' in this hateful forum. To be called a fool by you is a badge
>of honor.
Good -- then you will continue to provide us all with comic relief,
just as I stated.
David Gehrig
<< snip >>
> <snip to>
>
>> By the way. Wasn't it you that said the bible codes were 'biblical
>> revelation?'
>
> Yes, I believe they are, but like the Bible, may also be distorted by
> cynics.
It's a mathematically verifiable fact that the Book of Genesis, using
skip codes, includes the phrase "Jesus is Evil" 49 times. That is a
simple fact that can be confirmed by anyone with a computer, some
programming knowledge, and the Hebrew text of Genesis.
Herr Doktor Joe-Joe "Foremost Expert in Judaism" Bozonger is unable
to explain this phenomenon while still regarding the skip code
results as meaningful.
The blatant contradiction has been out there a-flappin' in the summer
breeze for years, and Joe-Joe continues to run away from it or
announce -- on no firmer ground than his own Fuhrerprinzip -- that
it's really not a contradiction, although he doesn't know why.
But Joe-Joe has already fled this thread, because he knows that he's
been caught out again, and the last thing he wants to do is find himself
in a spot where he has to try to pretend he hasn't painted himself into
a corner one more time.
--
@%<
Debunks1
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Message-id: <c0c2b69d4d59a324...@free.teranews.com>
Figure it all out for yourself, Roger.
>>>What were the causes for the holocaust?
>
>>>A megalomaniac seized control of a country and used that power to act
>>>out a persecution fantasy.
>>How droll. Where did Hitler claim he was being personally persecuted?
>
>He considered himself the embodiment of the German people, and
>asserted that the German people were so persecuted.
I asked you where he claimed he was being personally persecuted, which is one
of the hallmarks of a paranoid personality.
>North America's
>leading expert on the Third Reich" doesn't know this?
If I was no expert at all, it appears I would be far better informed than you.
>I see
>>you used the word 'megalomaniac' - as in Ariel Sharon?
>
>No: as in Hitler, as the context clearly indicates.
I fail to see any appreciable difference between the two.
>>BTW, Hitler did not
>>'seize' control, but was appointed Chancellor legally by President von
>>Hindenburg.
>For certain values of the word "legally." Do you claim that Hitler
>and his goons did nothing outside the law to facilitate his rise to
>power?
>
My claim needs no further clarification. Politics is a dirty business whether
practiced by Hitler, Stalin, Churchill or Roosevelt.
>
>>>>What prompts supposed antisemitism?Are these references and
>>>>issues not topical to the subject? There are reasons, legitimate or
>>>>otherwise,
>>>>as to why some people espouse perceived antisemitic viewpoints.
>So as I see
>>>>it, this is open to discussion and most relevant to not the holocaust of
>world
>>>>war two. For every effect there is a cause.
>
>>>*Current* anti-semitism can not have caused the events of over 6
>>>decades ago
>
>>That was not the point I was making.
>That was the excuse you *just* gave for stealing this article:
A person who steals articles claims credit for them. I do not. When I claim
credit for something, I will say so.
> That
>this article shows a justification for antisemitism, the like of which
>gave rise to the Holocaust.
I have asked you to discuss the causes for antisemitism. I see you balk at the
idea. So let me help you along: Some authorities on the subject claim that
one cause of antisemitism is due to the fact that non-Jews were resentful of
Jewish wealth and success. Do you agree with that statement?
>Define 'antisemitism' for us, Roger. Do
>>you have a definition you can provide for us here?
>
>The irrational hatred of and opposition to Jews as some monolithic
>entity. Have you a better?
Give me some examples of this irrational hatred you refer to and explain what
is irrational about it. Certainly I agree that hating all Jews from a racial
standpoint is irrational. In fact, hating them at all with an intent to do
violence to them is wrong. But it is also wrong to for Jews to hold similar
beliefs about Christians and Gentiles, is it not?
>>Have you ever bothered to
>>read the history of the Jewish people? Have you read Graetze's volumes on
>this
>>subject? Current 'antisemitism' may simply be the same effect of the cause
>>which produced a similar effect 60 years ago. Ever stop to consider that
>possibility?
>And...? Unless you are going to claim that anti-semitism is
>justified, and by extension that the Holocaust is justified, I fail to
>see how a discussion of *current* anti-semitism has any impact on the
>events of decades ago. Is that your assertion?
I am not claiming that at all and never have.
>
>>>Nor does it have any impact on the facts of those
>>>events.
>
>>That is a matter of opinion.
>
>Then tell us, joe -- which specific fact of the Holocaust has changed
>because of this exhibit?
>
We first must determine the facts of the holocaust.
>
Debunks1
>> 'discovered' and promoted these codes. Their system is fully consistent
>> with Jewish tradition as contained in the Cabala and Zohar.
>
>No, Joe-Joe, it is most definitively not.
>
>You have never adequately explained how skip codes can be used to find
>the message "Jesus is evil" 49 times in the Book of Genesis. However,
>you _have_ claimed that the skip codes are indeed part of God's
>revelation. Could you please explain to us -- for the first time --
>how God's revelation can include the message that "Jesus is evil"
>so many times?
>
>As I recall, you fled from that question earlier like an embarrassed
>child. Can you do better now that you've had a couple years to think
>about it?
>
>--
>@%<
There is no reason for me to be embarrassed at all by what Jewish scholars have
claimed to find within the Bible.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>> <snip attributions>
I have -- it doesn't. But it did give you a chance to rant about dem
Evil Jooos.
>>>>What were the causes for the holocaust?
>>>>A megalomaniac seized control of a country and used that power to act
>>>>out a persecution fantasy.
>>>How droll. Where did Hitler claim he was being personally persecuted?
>>He considered himself the embodiment of the German people, and
>>asserted that the German people were so persecuted.
>I asked you where he claimed he was being personally persecuted, which is one
>of the hallmarks of a paranoid personality.
And I explained it.
>>North America's
>>leading expert on the Third Reich" doesn't know this?
>If I was no expert at all, it appears I would be far better informed than you.
Only if you are JHJ, and therefore incapable of admitting *anyone*
being better informed than you could disagree with your delusions.
>>I see
>>>you used the word 'megalomaniac' - as in Ariel Sharon?
>>No: as in Hitler, as the context clearly indicates.
>I fail to see any appreciable difference between the two.
Which says more about you than about either of them.
>>>BTW, Hitler did not
>>>'seize' control, but was appointed Chancellor legally by President von
>>>Hindenburg.
>>For certain values of the word "legally." Do you claim that Hitler
>>and his goons did nothing outside the law to facilitate his rise to
>>power?
>My claim needs no further clarification. Politics is a dirty business whether
>practiced by Hitler, Stalin, Churchill or Roosevelt.
Did Churchill or Roosevelt have organized gangs running around beating
up people and wrecking their property?
>>>>>What prompts supposed antisemitism?Are these references and
>>>>>issues not topical to the subject? There are reasons, legitimate or
>>>>>otherwise,
>>>>>as to why some people espouse perceived antisemitic viewpoints.
>>>>>So as I see
>>>>>it, this is open to discussion and most relevant to not the holocaust of
>>>>>world
>>>>>war two. For every effect there is a cause.
>>>>*Current* anti-semitism can not have caused the events of over 6
>>>>decades ago
>>>That was not the point I was making.
>>That was the excuse you *just* gave for stealing this article:
>A person who steals articles claims credit for them. I do not. When I claim
>credit for something, I will say so.
Did you properly attribute the article? No? Did you even say "this
is not something I wrote?" No?
Did you infringe copyright? Yes?
You stole it.
And then gave as excuse the justification of being on-topic, because
for every effect there is a cause.
And then ran from explaining how a modern exhibition of art could have
caused the events of six decades ago.
>> That
>>this article shows a justification for antisemitism, the like of which
>>gave rise to the Holocaust.
>I have asked you to discuss the causes for antisemitism. I see you balk at the
>idea.
No, I didn't. I told you what I thought.
You just didn't like the answer.
>So let me help you along: Some authorities on the subject claim that
>one cause of antisemitism is due to the fact that non-Jews were resentful of
>Jewish wealth and success. Do you agree with that statement?
No, I don't. And even if I did, it doesn't justify your off topic
theft, which was what we *were* discussing before you decided to try a
diversion.
>>>Define 'antisemitism' for us, Roger. Do
>>>you have a definition you can provide for us here?
>>The irrational hatred of and opposition to Jews as some monolithic
>>entity. Have you a better?
>Give me some examples of this irrational hatred you refer to and explain what
>is irrational about it. Certainly I agree that hating all Jews from a racial
>standpoint is irrational. In fact, hating them at all with an intent to do
>violence to them is wrong. But it is also wrong to for Jews to hold similar
>beliefs about Christians and Gentiles, is it not?
See -- there's an example right there.
>>>Have you ever bothered to
>>>read the history of the Jewish people? Have you read Graetze's volumes on
>>>this
>>>subject? Current 'antisemitism' may simply be the same effect of the cause
>>>which produced a similar effect 60 years ago. Ever stop to consider that
>>>possibility?
>>And...? Unless you are going to claim that anti-semitism is
>>justified, and by extension that the Holocaust is justified, I fail to
>>see how a discussion of *current* anti-semitism has any impact on the
>>events of decades ago. Is that your assertion?
>I am not claiming that at all and never have.
Then what possible bearing can a discussion on *current* anti-semitism
have on the events of six decades ago?
>>>>Nor does it have any impact on the facts of those
>>>>events.
>>>That is a matter of opinion.
>>Then tell us, joe -- which specific fact of the Holocaust has changed
>>because of this exhibit?
>We first must determine the facts of the holocaust.
That's been done by generations of historians.
Now -- which specific fact of the Holocaust has changed because of
this exhibit?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>>>still claim that it is the Jews who
>>> 'discovered' and promoted these codes. Their system is fully consistent
>>> with Jewish tradition as contained in the Cabala and Zohar.
>>No, Joe-Joe, it is most definitively not.
>>
>>You have never adequately explained how skip codes can be used to find
>>the message "Jesus is evil" 49 times in the Book of Genesis. However,
>>you _have_ claimed that the skip codes are indeed part of God's
>>revelation. Could you please explain to us -- for the first time --
>>how God's revelation can include the message that "Jesus is evil"
>>so many times?
>>
>>As I recall, you fled from that question earlier like an embarrassed
>>child. Can you do better now that you've had a couple years to think
>>about it?
>There is no reason for me to be embarrassed at all by what Jewish scholars have
>claimed to find within the Bible.
But there evidently *is* reason for you to be embarrassed about the
fact that you first claimed the codes to be divine revelation. It was
only after some phrases you didn't like were pointed out to you that
you decided it was all da Jooos' fault.
Debunks1
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Message-id: <d2a4675ffae16df7...@free.teranews.com>
The Jews are not the people who claimed to discover and reveal these codes?
Their discovery is certainly consistent with their past behavior, as
exemplified by the Cabala. I already implied that you were incapable of
rational thinking and this post confirms that belief.
Debunks1
Please point out what you consider to be an example of my 'ranting' Roger. I
daresay that this is simply further evidence of your incipient Schizophrenia
looming to the fore.
>>>What were the causes for the holocaust?
>
>>>>>A megalomaniac seized control of a country and used that power to act
>>>>>out a persecution fantasy.
>
>>>>How droll. Where did Hitler claim he was being personally persecuted?
>>>He considered himself the embodiment of the German people, and
>>>asserted that the German people were so persecuted.
>
>
>>I asked you where he claimed he was being personally persecuted, which is
>one
>>of the hallmarks of a paranoid personality.
>
>And I explained it.
>
But you did provide a satisfactory answer in spite of your little explanation.
>>North America's
>>>leading expert on the Third Reich" doesn't know this?
>
>>If I was no expert at all, it appears I would be far better informed than
>you.
>Only if you are JHJ, and therefore incapable of admitting *anyone*
>being better informed than you could disagree with your delusions.
What delusions are those, Roger? Enumerate them for me, won't you? Provide
examples.
>>>I see
>>>>you used the word 'megalomaniac' - as in Ariel Sharon?
>
>>>No: as in Hitler, as the context clearly indicates.
>
>>I fail to see any appreciable difference between the two.
>
>Which says more about you than about either of them.
I think your comment says more about 'you' than the above says about me or them
together.
>>>BTW, Hitler did not
>>>>'seize' control, but was appointed Chancellor legally by President von
>>>>Hindenburg.
>
>>For certain values of the word "legally." Do you claim that Hitler
>>>and his goons did nothing outside the law to facilitate his rise to
>>>power?
>
>>My claim needs no further clarification. Politics is a dirty business
>whether
>>practiced by Hitler, Stalin, Churchill or Roosevelt.
>Did Churchill or Roosevelt have organized gangs running around beating
>up people and wrecking their property?
You believe they didn't?
>>>>>What prompts supposed antisemitism?Are these references and
>>>>>>issues not topical to the subject? There are reasons, legitimate or
>>>>>>otherwise,
>>>>>>as to why some people espouse perceived antisemitic viewpoints.
>>>>>>So as I see
>>>>>>it, this is open to discussion and most relevant to not the holocaust of
>>>>>>world
>>>>>>war two. For every effect there is a cause.
>>>>>*Current* anti-semitism can not have caused the events of over 6
>>>>>decades ago
>
>>>>That was not the point I was making.
>
>>>That was the excuse you *just* gave for stealing this article:
>
>>A person who steals articles claims credit for them. I do not. When I
>claim
>>credit for something, I will say so.
>
>
>
>Did you properly attribute the article? No? Did you even say "this
>is not something I wrote?" No?
>
>Did you properly attribute the article? No? Did you even say "this
>is not something I wrote?" No?
Did I claim authorship? Yes or no? Did I provide comments at the end of some
of them?
>Did you infringe copyright? Yes?
>
>You stole it.
Not the way I see it. But move along with this, because in truth I could not
care less about you calling me a thief or any other name which you pull out of
your straw hat.
>And then gave as excuse the justification of being on-topic, because
>for every effect there is a cause.
And that is so true, is it not?
>And then ran from explaining how a modern exhibition of art could have
>caused the events of six decades ago.
>
I allow the article to stand on its own.
>
>>> That
>>>this article shows a justification for antisemitism, the like of which
>>>gave rise to the Holocaust.
>
>>I have asked you to discuss the causes for antisemitism. I see you balk at
>the
>>idea.
>No, I didn't. I told you what I thought.
You balked.
>You just didn't like the answer.
You did not provide an answer, so I will ask again: Cite me some specific
examples of what might be the cause of antisemitism and back them up with
facts.
>>So let me help you along: Some authorities on the subject claim that
>>one cause of antisemitism is due to the fact that non-Jews were resentful of
>>Jewish wealth and success. Do you agree with that statement?
>No, I don't.
Ok, so we can toss that one right out the window in your book then. So
antisemites are not jealous of the Jews wealth, as has been claimed by numerous
Jewish historians and writers. Excellent. Now we are getting somewhere. Do
you think they might resent the Jews because of their attacks upon Gentiles in
the Talmud?
>And even if I did, it doesn't justify your off topic
>theft, which was what we *were* discussing before you decided to try a
>diversion.
The topic here is what I set it out to be, Roger, and that is, the cause of
antisemitism. Not whether I posted a news story here unattributed and for
which I did not claim authorship to begin with.
>
>>>>Define 'antisemitism' for us, Roger. Do
>>>>you have a definition you can provide for us here?
>
No definition, Roger? So antisemitism must not exist in your book!
>
>>>The irrational hatred of and opposition to Jews as some monolithic
>>>entity. Have you a better?
>>Give me some examples of this irrational hatred you refer to and explain
>what
>>is irrational about it. Certainly I agree that hating all Jews from a
>racial
>>standpoint is irrational. In fact, hating them at all with an intent to do
>>violence to them is wrong. But it is also wrong to for Jews to hold
>similar
>>beliefs about Christians and Gentiles, is it not?
>
>See -- there's an example right there.
How so, Roger? Are you seriously claiming that there are no Jews who hate
Christianity? Is that what you are claiming? A yes or no will do. But if you
agree that there ARE Jews who are antiChristian and antiGentile, then that
makes your original statement irrational.
A word to the wise: I am quite prepared to substantiate my claim that there
are many Jews who despise both Gentiles and Christianity.
>>>>Have you ever bothered to
>>>>read the history of the Jewish people? Have you read Graetze's volumes on
>>>>this
>>>>subject? Current 'antisemitism' may simply be the same effect of the
>cause
>>>>which produced a similar effect 60 years ago. Ever stop to consider that
>possibility?
>>>And...? Unless you are going to claim that anti-semitism is
>>>justified, and by extension that the Holocaust is justified, I fail to
>>>see how a discussion of *current* anti-semitism has any impact on the
>>>events of decades ago. Is that your assertion?
>>I am not claiming that at all and never have.
>
>Then what possible bearing can a discussion on *current* anti-semitism
>have on the events of six decades ago?
>
Because they overlap from century to century, which is why I am asking you to
discuss the root causes for antiJewish feelings among non Jewish societies.
>>>>Nor does it have any impact on the facts of those
>>>>>events.
>
>>>>That is a matter of opinion.
>
>>>Then tell us, joe -- which specific fact of the Holocaust has changed
>>>because of this exhibit?
>
>>We first must determine the facts of the holocaust.
>
>That's been done by generations of historians.
Not to my satisfaction. Perhaps to yours.
david gehrig
No, no, Joe-Joe, that simply isn't going to cut it.
You're on record as saying that you thought the skip codes were a
legitimate means of God's Revelation. You were particularly
supportive of a dude named Rambsel. You were four-square and
full-bore in support of the codes, because you could use it as
another example for how the Jews can't see all the supposed
Christological prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Then you hit a snag.
The snag was, I demonstrated how meaningless the codes really
were. And in particular I demonstrated how it could be used
-- the _exact same methodology_ -- to find _anti-Christological_
phrases in the Hebrew Scriptures.
And what happened at that point was pure Joe Bellinger:
you started to flail around with ad hoc excuses, one of
which you floated was that Satan had a hand in writing
the Scripture. You took a pretty bad beating on that one.
So bad, in fact, you decided to simplify your strategy.
You simply threw back your head and lied.
You said that you had _never_ supported the skip code concept,
and that it's all Jewish mumbo-jumbo. And that's been your
stock answer ever since. Every time someone points out how
blatantly you're lying about your past endorsement of the
skip code as "God's revelation," you've repeated the same
lame response, muttering something about how it's a Jewish
code. And every time you do that you display your fundamental
intellectual dishonesty in the most blatant way imaginable.
That's why I like to bring up this example, Joe-Joe. It's
_so_ _plain_ that you lied through your teeth, and it's
_so_ _plain_ that you're doing every trick in your limited
intellectual repertoire trying to deny it.
It's all documented, Joe-Joe, and your comic attempts to deny
your lies just make you look more pathetic than you otherwise
would.
@%<
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>Subject: Re: joe bellinger steals again, writes dishonest subject was Re:
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Date: 5/26/03 10:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <d2a4675ffae16df7...@free.teranews.com>
>>>>>still claim that it is the Jews who
>>>>> 'discovered' and promoted these codes. Their system is fully consistent
>>>>> with Jewish tradition as contained in the Cabala and Zohar.
>>>>No, Joe-Joe, it is most definitively not.
>>>>
>>>>You have never adequately explained how skip codes can be used to find
>>>>the message "Jesus is evil" 49 times in the Book of Genesis. However,
>>>>you _have_ claimed that the skip codes are indeed part of God's
>>>>revelation. Could you please explain to us -- for the first time --
>>>>how God's revelation can include the message that "Jesus is evil"
>>>>so many times?
>>>>
>>>>As I recall, you fled from that question earlier like an embarrassed
>>>>child. Can you do better now that you've had a couple years to think
>>>>about it?
>>>There is no reason for me to be embarrassed at all by what Jewish scholars
>>>have claimed to find within the Bible.
>>But there evidently *is* reason for you to be embarrassed about the
>>fact that you first claimed the codes to be divine revelation. It was
>>only after some phrases you didn't like were pointed out to you that
>>you decided it was all da Jooos' fault.
>The Jews are not the people who claimed to discover and reveal these codes?
Doesn't matter -- you claimed that they were divine revelation. It
was only later that you changed your claim and began lying about what
you had said.
Michael Drosnin is the author of the book that, at the time (may 19,
1999,) you claimed to authoritatively demonstrate the "the genuineness
and reliability of the codes" (
19990518223453...@ng-fw1.aol.com )
You claimed him to be a Jew at that time, but it didn't seem to matter
to you, nor did you offer any proof as to his religion.
>Their discovery is certainly consistent with their past behavior, as
>exemplified by the Cabala. I already implied that you were incapable of
>rational thinking and this post confirms that belief.
And your denial of your endorsement of the codes is entirely
consistent with *your* past behaviour.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
<snip attributions>
>>>>>>>>>May 7, 2003
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>ISRAEL MUSEUM HOSTS ANTI-CATHOLIC ART
<snip copyright violation following a misleading title
>>>>>>>>>But, alas, the Israel Museum does 'get it'..they have 'gotten it' for
>>>>>>>>>2000
>>>>>>>>>years and their antichristian rancor persists beyond man's wildest
>>>>>>>>>imagination,
>>>>>>>>>so the real question here is... .when will Christians wake up and 'get
>>>>>>>>>it?"
>>>>>>>>When will you 'get" the concepts of intellectual property and on-topic
>>>>>>>>posting?
>>>>>>>Explain what is off topic about this subject?
>>>>>>Does a exhibition in 2003 have change in the slightest the events of
>>>>>>60 years ago?
>>>>How does a modern exhibit retroactively change facts from decades ago,
>>>>joe?
>>>Figure it all out for yourself, Roger.
>>I have -- it doesn't. But it did give you a chance to rant about dem
>>Evil Jooos.
>Please point out what you consider to be an example of my 'ranting' Roger. I
>daresay that this is simply further evidence of your incipient Schizophrenia
>looming to the fore.
Well, how about the fact that the art in question is perhaps
offensive, but not even anti-Xtian, let alone anti-Catholic?
>>>>What were the causes for the holocaust?
>>>>>>A megalomaniac seized control of a country and used that power to act
>>>>>>out a persecution fantasy.
>>>>>How droll. Where did Hitler claim he was being personally persecuted?
>>>>He considered himself the embodiment of the German people, and
>>>>asserted that the German people were so persecuted.
>>>I asked you where he claimed he was being personally persecuted, which is
>>>one of the hallmarks of a paranoid personality.
>>And I explained it.
>But you did provide a satisfactory answer in spite of your little explanation.
Yes, I did -- thank you for noticing.
>>>North America's
>>>>leading expert on the Third Reich" doesn't know this?
>>>If I was no expert at all, it appears I would be far better informed than
>>>you.
>>Only if you are JHJ, and therefore incapable of admitting *anyone*
>>being better informed than you could disagree with your delusions.
>What delusions are those, Roger? Enumerate them for me, won't you? Provide
>examples.
That, for example, everyone has not seen you completely reverse
yourself on the topic of the Bible Codes, and then deny that you have
done so.
>>>>I see
>>>>>you used the word 'megalomaniac' - as in Ariel Sharon?
>>>>No: as in Hitler, as the context clearly indicates.
>>>I fail to see any appreciable difference between the two.
>>Which says more about you than about either of them.
>I think your comment says more about 'you' than the above says about me or them
>together.
An opinion you are certainly entitled to -- no matter how little
resemblance it bears to the facts of the matter (as so many of your
opinions do)
>>>>>BTW, Hitler did not
>>>>>'seize' control, but was appointed Chancellor legally by President von
>>>>>Hindenburg.
>>>For certain values of the word "legally." Do you claim that Hitler
>>>>and his goons did nothing outside the law to facilitate his rise to
>>>>power?
>>>My claim needs no further clarification. Politics is a dirty business
>>>whether
>>>practiced by Hitler, Stalin, Churchill or Roosevelt.
>>Did Churchill or Roosevelt have organized gangs running around beating
>>up people and wrecking their property?
>You believe they didn't?
You can provide reliable citations to show they did?
>>>>>>>What prompts supposed antisemitism?Are these references and
>>>>>>>issues not topical to the subject? There are reasons, legitimate or
>>>>>>>otherwise,
>>>>>>>as to why some people espouse perceived antisemitic viewpoints.
>>>>>>>So as I see
>>>>>>>it, this is open to discussion and most relevant to not the holocaust of
>>>>>>>world
>>>>>>>war two. For every effect there is a cause.
>>>>>>*Current* anti-semitism can not have caused the events of over 6
>>>>>>decades ago
>>>>>That was not the point I was making.
>>>>That was the excuse you *just* gave for stealing this article:
>>
>>>A person who steals articles claims credit for them. I do not. When I
>>>claim
>>>credit for something, I will say so.
>>Did you properly attribute the article? No? Did you even say "this
>>is not something I wrote?" No?
>Did I claim authorship? Yes or no? Did I provide comments at the end of some
>of them?
Did you disclaim authorship? The default assumption is that if
someone posts here, they are posting their own work.
>>Did you infringe copyright? Yes?
>>
>>You stole it.
>Not the way I see it.
Yet another example of delusion. Republishing without attribution and
permission is infringement. It's black and white.
>But move along with this, because in truth I could not
>care less about you calling me a thief or any other name which you pull out of
>your straw hat.
As I have said all along -- I'm content with pointing out your theft
when it occurs, and thereby demonstrating your lack of morals and
hypocrisy.
>>And then gave as excuse the justification of being on-topic, because
>>for every effect there is a cause.
>And that is so true, is it not?
But the point is that your banal truism was offered as justification
for posting the article you stole. So you seem to be claiming that a
modern art exhibit changes the historical facts of six decades ago,
since any other use of that truism makes your post off topic.
>>And then ran from explaining how a modern exhibition of art could have
>>caused the events of six decades ago.
>I allow the article to stand on its own.
IOW, you've had my rant, and realize you cannot justify it other than
on that basis, so will run away.
>>>> That
>>>>this article shows a justification for antisemitism, the like of which
>>>>gave rise to the Holocaust.
>>>I have asked you to discuss the causes for antisemitism. I see you balk at
>>>the idea.
>>No, I didn't. I told you what I thought.
>You balked.
No, I didn't. I told you what I thought.
>>You just didn't like the answer.
>You did not provide an answer, so I will ask again: Cite me some specific
>examples of what might be the cause of antisemitism and back them up with
>facts.
This is a different question than what you originally asked.
>>>So let me help you along: Some authorities on the subject claim that
>>>one cause of antisemitism is due to the fact that non-Jews were resentful of
>>>Jewish wealth and success. Do you agree with that statement?
>>No, I don't.
>Ok, so we can toss that one right out the window in your book then.
Not quite: You asked if anti-semites were resentful of Jewish wealth
and success. I don't think they are. They *are* however, resentful
of what they ***perceive*** to be such success, attributing it as they
do not to individual effort, but to some sort of Jewish conspiracy.
>So
>antisemites are not jealous of the Jews wealth, as has been claimed by numerous
>Jewish historians and writers. Excellent. Now we are getting somewhere. Do
>you think they might resent the Jews because of their attacks upon Gentiles in
>the Talmud?
Since there are no such attacks, the answer is "no." However, they
*perceive* such attacks and harbour resentment on that basis.
Do you see a pattern here, joe? You are looking for things the Jews
might have done which might justify anti-semitism. Anti-semitism,
being irrational at its core, needs no such justification. IOW, it
matters not what reasons are given for hatred, because if anything
less than complete disappearance occurs, there will always be another
justification found.
This is what I meant by you didn't like my answer -- you are trying to
justify anti-semitism. Since it is an irrational hatred, it cannot be
rationally justified.
>>And even if I did, it doesn't justify your off topic
>>theft, which was what we *were* discussing before you decided to try a
>>diversion.
>The topic here is what I set it out to be, Roger, and that is, the cause of
>antisemitism.
Who died and left you king, joe? *my* topic is your off-topic theft,
and the irrational hatred it demonstrates.
>Not whether I posted a news story here unattributed and for
>which I did not claim authorship to begin with.
Which you neither properly attributed for no rational reason nor
specifically disclaimed authorship of.
Are you really trying to tell us that we should assume you didn't
write anything you post unless you specifically state that you did?
>>>>>Define 'antisemitism' for us, Roger. Do
>>>>>you have a definition you can provide for us here?
>No definition, Roger? So antisemitism must not exist in your book!
The definition is just below, joe -- you had to dishonestly edit the
post to make it look like I had not answered. Why did you feel you
had to be so dishonest, joe?
>>>>The irrational hatred of and opposition to Jews as some monolithic
>>>>entity. Have you a better?
>>>Give me some examples of this irrational hatred you refer to and explain
>>>what
>>>is irrational about it.
For example, your constant whining about how da Jooos hate Christians.
Not all Jews do so, so stating that this is a "Jewish" thing cannot be
rationally supported.
>>>Certainly I agree that hating all Jews from a racial
>>>standpoint is irrational. In fact, hating them at all with an intent to do
>>>violence to them is wrong. But it is also wrong to for Jews to hold
>>>similar beliefs about Christians and Gentiles, is it not?
>>See -- there's an example right there.
>How so, Roger? Are you seriously claiming that there are no Jews who hate
>Christianity?
No, and nothing I have written suggests that. Are *you* seriously
claiming that all Jews hate Xtianity? If not, then why didn't you
specify *some* Jews?
>Is that what you are claiming? A yes or no will do. But if you
>agree that there ARE Jews who are antiChristian and antiGentile, then that
>makes your original statement irrational.
No, it doesn't. Because such hatred is not a Jewish thing. It is
something that individuals who may happen to be Jewish engage in.
WHich is a different thing from saying Jews hate Xtians.
>A word to the wise: I am quite prepared to substantiate my claim that there
>are many Jews who despise both Gentiles and Christianity.
No one is disputing that. As presented, your claim is that such
hatred is a Jewish thing, as opposed to something done by individuals
who happen to be Jewish.
It is this generalization from individuals to the group as a whole
which cannot be supported rationally, and which makes your statement
anti-semitic.
>>>>>Have you ever bothered to
>>>>>read the history of the Jewish people? Have you read Graetze's volumes on
>>>>>this
>>>>>subject? Current 'antisemitism' may simply be the same effect of the
>>>>>cause
>>>>>which produced a similar effect 60 years ago. Ever stop to consider that
>>>>>possibility?
>>>>And...? Unless you are going to claim that anti-semitism is
>>>>justified, and by extension that the Holocaust is justified, I fail to
>>>>see how a discussion of *current* anti-semitism has any impact on the
>>>>events of decades ago. Is that your assertion?
>>>I am not claiming that at all and never have.
>>Then what possible bearing can a discussion on *current* anti-semitism
>>have on the events of six decades ago?
>Because they overlap from century to century, which is why I am asking you to
>discuss the root causes for antiJewish feelings among non Jewish societies.
And I have already stated: irrationality.
>>>>>>Nor does it have any impact on the facts of those
>>>>>>events.
>>>>>That is a matter of opinion.
>>>>Then tell us, joe -- which specific fact of the Holocaust has changed
>>>>because of this exhibit?
>>>We first must determine the facts of the holocaust.
>>That's been done by generations of historians.
>Not to my satisfaction. Perhaps to yours.
Yet another example of joe's megalomaniacal delusions.
Just for fun, what *would* be to your satisfaction?
Debunks1
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>Date: 5/27/2003 6:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <gPJAa.18751$Io.16...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Well, you go on and relish what you think is your little 'victory.' LOL!
david gehrig
What I'm relishing is that you don't seem to -- or are pretending
not to -- understand what a perfect little casebook it is for
showing how you are, at root, a liar motiviated by antisemitism,
and that your empty denials are really only that -- empty denials.
So keep on insisting you don't lie through your teeth, Joe-Joe.
Keep inadvertently showing the world what you really are.
And this is far from the only area where you've let the real Joe-Joe,
in all its antisemitic ugliness, show through.
@%<
Debunks1
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: david gehrig zem...@earthlink.net
>Message-id: <a0oBa.20921$rO.19...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Yes, people are aware of your predilection for repeatedly employing empty
buzzwords like 'antisemitic'...etc.
Debunks1
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Message-id: <e7864bf3c85797e5...@free.teranews.com>
I think it does.
>you claimed that they were divine revelation
Funny, but I was under the impression that this is what the Jew's who
discovered the system, claim. In fact, this claim is only a small part of a
long standing Jewish tradition of occult beliefs which have been collected and
presented in books like the Zohar and Kabala. We find an entire literature
devoted to such arcane subjects as the Gematria. So, if the claim was made or
a system devised on the basis of Bible codes, we ultimately must refer to their
Jewish origins.
> It
>was only later that you changed your claim and began lying about what
>you had said.
Your misperceptions are of no concern to me, Roger.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>>Debunks1 wrote:
>>>>Debunks1 wrote:
>>> Well, you go on and relish what you think is your little 'victory.' LOL!
>>What I'm relishing is that you don't seem to -- or are pretending
>>not to -- understand what a perfect little casebook it is for
>>showing how you are, at root, a liar motiviated by antisemitism,
>>and that your empty denials are really only that -- empty denials.
>>
>>So keep on insisting you don't lie through your teeth, Joe-Joe.
>>Keep inadvertently showing the world what you really are.
>>
>>And this is far from the only area where you've let the real Joe-Joe,
>>in all its antisemitic ugliness, show through.
>Yes, people are aware of your predilection for repeatedly employing empty
>buzzwords like 'antisemitic'...etc.
It's not an empty buzzword -- is a fitting description for you. As
are "liar," "hypocrite," "heretic" and a host of others you probably
wish didn't fit so well...
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
>From: Roger roger@.
>Date: 5/27/03 12:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <e7864bf3c85797e5...@free.teranews.com>
<snip>
>>>>But there evidently *is* reason for you to be embarrassed about the
>>>>fact that you first claimed the codes to be divine revelation. It was
>>>>only after some phrases you didn't like were pointed out to you that
>>>>you decided it was all da Jooos' fault.
>>>The Jews are not the people who claimed to discover and reveal these codes?
>>Doesn't matter -
>I think it does.
Does it change the fact that *you* personally declared them to be
God's Revelation, then changed your mind and lied about the change?
>>you claimed that they were divine revelation
>Funny, but I was under the impression that this is what the Jew's who
>discovered the system, claim. In fact, this claim is only a small part of a
>long standing Jewish tradition of occult beliefs which have been collected and
>presented in books like the Zohar and Kabala. We find an entire literature
>devoted to such arcane subjects as the Gematria. So, if the claim was made or
>a system devised on the basis of Bible codes, we ultimately must refer to their
>Jewish origins.
It matters to no one but *you* where they originated. The topic under
discussion is your lies about your *own* claims.
>>> It
>>was only later that you changed your claim and began lying about what
>>you had said.
>Your misperceptions are of no concern to me, Roger.
No imperception involved.
For example, In message 19990503171700...@ng-fb1.aol.com,
You were quite clear that, in reference to the author of the Bible
Codes book,
<quote>
The man is a scholar, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit when writing
his book.
</quote>
You went on to say, in that same message:
<quote>
It is all part of Gods own revelation. That is why there are divine
mysteries throughout the Bible, both Old and New.
</quote>
There is not any room for imperception there, now, is there?
Then later, after you were shown that the phrase "Jesus is Evil"
appears 49 times in Genesis, you continued to claim divine inspiration
for the codes, stating merely that such demonstration was "perverting
God's word and system of revelation, although you never got around to
showing exactly how.
Your next step was to declare that "Apparently Satan's smoke has crept
into your code system as well," apparently ignoring what this did to
your claim that the codes were God's Revelation.
Then it occurred to you that you had contradicted yourself, so
starting, for example in message
20010529010400...@ng-ci1.aol.com
you began claiming:
<quote>
>It pleases me to ridicule you for attempting to promote the Bible
>Codes as sceintific evidence in support of Christian revelation.
I never have, so you do not know what you are blathering on about
again.
</quote>
Again, very little wiggle room for you there, liar.
Bottom line -- you saw an opportunity to bash the Jews (for not
understanding how the codes revealed Yeshua many times over.) You
then were made to look foolish since the same methodology reveals the
phrase "God is dead" many times over. At which point it all became a
Jewish plot, and you began denying your original position.
Feel free to point out what I have failed to perceive, joe...
Gord McFee
Heaven forbid that anyone call Joe Bellinger an antisemite.
One of his favorite jokes is: "What do you call a Jew hanged at
Auschwitz? Soap on a rope." (a play on words on the "soap on a rope"
commercials, as well as the Danzig experiments where the Nazis
experimented with making soap from human fat.)
Another one is in Message-ID:
<199808010916...@ladder03.news.aol.com> and reads "May-August,
1944. Filip Mueller, Dr. Bendel and Miklos Nyiszli all claim that
thousands of bodies were burned in broad daylight in open pits, and that
the smoke could be seen for miles around. Why is it we can't see any
smoke in any of the aerial photographs taken of Birkenau and Krema 5
during this time? {Actually, one can} What a web they weave...... I
guess they slacked off on their work. Too busy chewing the fat....."
Here's another exchange he had with me. [me] But you didn't find the
word "kike" offensive? [Joe] Why should I? (Message ID
<3743b71a...@news3.ibm.net>)
And here's one from late August 1999: [Scott Murphy] So, you think all
those people who voted for Clinton in 1996 were just expressing their
support for Bob Dole? [Joe Bellinger] No they were supporting his oral
sex sessions with Monica Jewinsky. (Message-ID:
<19990827154026...@ng-fn1.aol.com>)
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Debunks1
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Message-id: <2f0cc30e5f0c3bcf...@free.teranews.com>
>
>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
> in message <20030529155822...@mb-m15.aol.com>:
>
>>From: Roger roger@.
>>Date: 5/27/03 12:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <e7864bf3c85797e5...@free.teranews.com>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>But there evidently *is* reason for you to be embarrassed about the
>>>>>fact that you first claimed the codes to be divine revelation. It was
>>>>>only after some phrases you didn't like were pointed out to you that
>>>>>you decided it was all da Jooos' fault.
>
>>>>The Jews are not the people who claimed to discover and reveal these
>codes?
>
>>>Doesn't matter -
>
>>I think it does.
>
>Does it change the fact that *you* personally declared them to be
>God's Revelation, then changed your mind and lied about the change?
>
Your misinterpretations of my posts are of particular interest to me Roger.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
<snip>
>>>>Doesn't matter -
>>>I think it does.
Of course, joe-joe is unable to explain the specific nature of my
misinterpretation of his very clear posts on the subject...
Debunks1
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>From: Roger roger@.
>Message-id: <001432208aed4865...@free.teranews.com>
I am not in the business of feeding your delusions
Hilary Ostrov
<20030612021013...@mb-m18.aol.com>, debu...@aol.com
(Debunks1) wrote:
That's just as well, because Roger doesn't have any. Furthermore,
you're always far too busy feeding your *own* delusions to have any
time for those you mistakenly imagine others might have.
Not to mention that you are *still* unable to explain the specific
nature of any "misinterpretation" of your very clear declarations
regarding the Bible codes.
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@telus.net
WWW: http://www3.telus.net/myssiwyg/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks1 wrote
<snip>
>>>>>>Doesn't matter -
>>>>>I think it does.
You, you have enough of those of your own.
The record speaks for itself.
Debunks1
>Israel Museum hosts anti-Catholic 'art'
>Date: 6/12/2003 8:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <0g7hevcrn4q2mfqic...@4ax.com>
Well, that comment serves to prove your own delusions.