Five Plain & Simple Questions - When Will They be Answered? (was Re: Scott wonders what a real life would be like....)
Doc Tavish
Attention lurkers: Twice Gregory Taylor has used childish titles. I.E.
"Scott wonders what a real life would be like...."
"SCOTTY, YOUR VIRGINITY IS SHOWING! (was Re: Doc Tavish Is A Jew)"
But yet he won't answer five plain and simple questions!
......................................................................................
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 07:51:58 -0600, gta...@msn.fullfeed.com wrote:
>Scott Bradbury's odiferous sock puppet doc_t...@nonspam.bigfoot.com
>wrote:
Still making the personal attacks BUT NOT answering the serious
questions.
>>...You still haven't summoned up the antsy to
>> answer these questions in an adult manner:
Notice that Gregory only left two lines of my reply to his original
post. I have attached the post below so all may see his methods of
debate. I have not snipped one word from his posts.
>Scott, at the moment you're not worth the trouble;
What you are saying is that you can't answer the questions. Any
thinking person would know that you would make a dodge such as this. I
see that you have enough time to make a fictionalized account of your
public radio fantasy. I will attach the challenge I issued you just
below your typical run of the mill fancy foot work at avoiding the
serious matter at hand.
>I've got a bunch of
>new product announcements to design, a new ad campaign and direct mail
>program to keep an eye on, and some of the other perks that us folks who
>stayed in school and wound up with careers spend our time on (instead of
>importuning women who are your intellectual superiors, inventing fake
>persons to cover your own noted lack of fortitude, and trolling for naked
>pix from the safety of your trailer).
>
>Here's a quick hint: Your "proofs" don't contain the language of supposed
>gentiles' uncleanliness (you imputed that bit, moron). Moreover, you
>demonstrate a rather unsuprising lack of general understanding of what
>Kosher/Kashrut is in addition to the sort of idiocy which might be
>explicable by your relative lack of exposure to the range of pietistic
>behaviours through the world's religious practices. Finally, you've got
>the same basic problem with understanding the extent to which the stuff
>you quote reflects anything approaching authoritative descriptions of
>anyone other than the person who wrote it (that same "some X/all X"
>problem you just can't get past).
>
>In brief: You can't make sense of what you read. Your propositionalizing
>is faulty from the git-go, and you wouldn't recognize the construction of
>proper evidence and authority if it bit you in your fat arse.
>
>Now excuse me: I've got some web interfaces to a database to mess around
>with.
>
>Stay lame, dude. That last little whiny peek under your tinfoil helmet in
>re: Ms. Cohen (who really does think you're a pathetic yutz, by the way)
>was thrilling; I think that the diagnosis of infantilism and narcissism
>is spot on in your case.
~~~~~~~~ END ~~~~~~~~
Here is what Gregory Taylor won't answer because he can't answer in a
way that would not make him look bigoted. This was his post and my
reply:
Original subject title posted under by Gregory Taylor was:
Re: SCOTTY, YOUR VIRGINITY IS SHOWING! (was Re: Doc Tavish Is A Jew)
On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 16:52:21 -0600, gta...@msn.fullfeed.com wrote:
>A. G. Phillbin wrote:
>> Why do I get the impression that you are a virginal adolescent who stammers
>> and stutters in the presence of any reasonably attracive female?
Gregory Taylor (uncut):
>You've probably been led astray by assuming that the concentration of
>fixations on oral sex and juvenile slobbering exists mainly in the
>virginal adolescent. While there may be some residual inarticulacy
>occasioned by his leaving school before his middle-school diploma, we are
>reliabily informed by Scott Bradbury that he's a portly man on the far
>side of forty. It is also quite likely that he's intimidated by the
>intelligence of any woman he doesn't rent or inflate (which would
>constitute most women), and regresses at the first sight of inadequacy.
>This would certainly square with his more general inability to take any
>personal responsibility for his views.
>
>Hope this helps.
It only helps people know that all you can do is name call and make
personal attacks as well. You still haven't summoned up the antsy to
answer these questions in an adult manner:
1) ".... Wine, more than any other food or drink, represents the
holiness and separateness of the Jewish people."
Aren't non-Jews holy or clean?
2) "The production and handling of kosher wine must be done
exclusively by Jews. Wine, grape juice, and all products containing
wine or grape juice must remain solely in Jewish hands during the
manufacturing process and also after the seal of the bottle has been
opened."
Are non-Jews unclean? Is this why they can't touch the bottle of wine
after the seal is broken?
3) " We are not allowed to drink any wine or grape juice, or any drink
containing wine or grape juice, which has been touched by a non Jew
after the seal of the bottle has been opened."
A repeat in general from above. Why aren't Jews allowed to drink if
the seal has been broken and the wine is touched by a non-Jew?
4) " Non commercial bread and cake that is completely baked by an
individual non Jew is called pat akum and may not be eaten."
I'm dying to hear you explain this bigotry too! Can you imagine the
outrage by you if a web site had a something that said instead:
"Non commercial bread and cake that is completely baked by an
individual non-White is called pat akum and may not be eaten by a
white." ? You'd be screaming racist bigot at the top of your lungs!
5) "Certain foods which were completely cooked by a non Jew (disbud
akum) may not be eaten, even if the foods are kosher and are cooked in
kosher utensils."
How about this? Care to explain?
The above actually from the following:
http://www.kashrus.org/kosher/supervis.html
[ ... ]
.... Wine, more than any other food or drink, represents the holiness
and separateness of the Jewish people.
It is used for the sanctification of Shabbat and Yom Tovand at Jewish
simchot. In the Beit Hamikdash wine was poured upon the Altar together
with the sacrifice. However, since wine was and still is used in many
forms of idolatrous worship, it has a unique status in Jewish Law,
which places extra restrictions on the making and handling of wine.
This includes wine used for non ceremonial purposes.
The production and handling of kosher wine must be done exclusively by
Jews. Wine, grape juice, and all products containing wine or grape
juice must remain solely in Jewish hands during the manufacturing
process and also after the seal of the bottle has been opened.
We are not allowed to drink any wine or grape juice, or any drink
containing wine or grape juice, which has been touched by a non Jew
after the seal of the bottle has been opened.
[ ... ]
Grape Ingredients In Processed Foods: All liquids produced from fresh
or dried grapes, whether alcoholic or non alcoholic, such as grape
juice and wine vinegar, are in the same category as wine in Jewish
Law.
Therefore foods with grape flavoring or additives must aiways have a
reliable hechsher; examples are jam, soda, popsicles, candy, juice
packed fruit, fruit punch, and lemonade.
Alcoholic drinks such as cognac and brandy have wine bases. Liqueurs
and blended whiskeys are often blended with wine. All such beverages
require kashnut supervision, as does herring in wine sauce. Cream of
tartar is made from wine sediment and needs Rabbinical supervision.
All baked goods must have reliable kashrut certification. Some
bakeries in Jewish communities carry the certification from a local
Orthodox Rabbi or the kashrut board in that city.
In addition, bread, cake and other baked goods from a Jewish bakery
with reliable kashnut certification often ensures not only the kashrut
of these products but also that they are patYisrael. It is preferable
to use pat Yisrael products whenever possible. This means that a
Jewish person has baked or assisted in the baking of the products.
Even if he simply lit the oven he is considered as having assisted.
Non commercial bread and cake that is completely baked by an
individual non Jew is called pat akum and may not be eaten.
[ ... ]
Certain foods which were completely cooked by a non Jew (disbud akum)
may not be eaten, even if the foods are kosher and are cooked in
kosher utensils.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyone can do childish taunts as you do Gregory but it takes something
other than that to deal with the above. You avoid answering my posts
because their is no way that you can make excuses for what was said
not being bigoted. If what I posted is so much out of line then it
should be an easy slam dunk for a person with a "rapier wit[TM]" that
you've bragged about having. If what I have posted is so off then why
do you always delete it and go into your name call and smear mode?
Tavish
BTW you only make yourself look bad when you avoid the serious stuff.
Lurkers apply the Tavish maxim to what you have seen and you decide
who seks truth and who seeks to hide it! See for yourselves who
attacks the opposition persoanlly and who attacks the opposition's
premise.
The Tavish Maxim is:
"If I hear something being debated pertaining to a subject that I am
not cognizant of, therefore impartial, I examine the manner of the
debate and conduct. I know who is telling the truth and who is lying
by the tactics employed- the liar always attacks the opposing person
and the truth teller always attacks the opposing premise!"
- Doc Tavish -
BTW Gregory, I will be posting this post along with your reply to many
other news groups as well. If you want to carry on as you normally do
then it is fine by me because as I have said before you are hurting
yourself far more than you are hurting me!
(I'll be posting to more than you see above in other words. You will
become quite famous as a great debater!)
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet