Why do Nazi boneheads hate so much?
David S. Maddison
I never fail to be moved by how much hate the Nazi boneheads who post on
this group feel for Jews and most other people.
I feel this hate they feel is due to a lack of parental love at a young
age and this is well understood within modern psychology, however, whilst
their hateful outlook on life is related to a deficit in their upbringing,
it does not excuse their behaviour. A Nazi is a Nazi is a Nazi and these
people should always be held liable for their views and their crimes. The
reasoning for this is that, except in very rare circumstances, people are
fundamentally responsible for their actions because they are aware that
what they are doing is wrong.
Also, these hateful people _are_ capable of reform. There _are_
individuals who have seen the error of their hateful ways, and have gone
on to become integrated into society and to get jobs and be productive.
The erroneous upbringing these people have does not _have_ to be carried
for life, as all individuals, no matter how bad their upbringing have a
free will and are capable of striving to improve themselves.
Also, if you Nazis were brutally honest with yourselves, you would see
that you are "the dregs of society". In general you are unemployable,
untrained, dress poorly and have poor standards of personal hygeine and
cannot relate to the opposite sex in a normal way. When you see the
righteous people with whom you debate, you must surely see that these
mainstream people are everything you would like to be but can't be because
you are too committed to your hateful ideaology. Don't you realise hate is
wrong? As soon as you realise this, you can start to develop, stop being
knuckle-draggers and take a position in society.
Think about it.
David Maddison
LUEK
madd...@connexus.apana.org.au (David S. Maddison) wrote:
>I feel this hate they feel is due to a lack of parental love at a young
>age and this is well understood within modern psychology, however, whilst
>their hateful outlook on life is related to a deficit in their upbringing,
>it does not excuse their behaviour. A Nazi is a Nazi is a Nazi and these
>people should always be held liable for their views and their crimes. The
>reasoning for this is that, except in very rare circumstances, people are
>fundamentally responsible for their actions because they are aware that
>what they are doing is wrong.
>you are too committed to your hateful ideaology. Don't you realise hate is
>wrong? As soon as you realise this, you can start to develop, stop being
>knuckle-draggers and take a position in society.
>Think about it.
>David Maddison
Have you met "SOG" Dave?
Mark Van Alstine
> madd...@connexus.apana.org.au (David S. Maddison) wrote:
>
>
>
> >I feel this hate they feel is due to a lack of parental love at a young
> >age and this is well understood within modern psychology, however, whilst
> >their hateful outlook on life is related to a deficit in their upbringing,
> >it does not excuse their behaviour. A Nazi is a Nazi is a Nazi and these
> >people should always be held liable for their views and their crimes. The
> >reasoning for this is that, except in very rare circumstances, people are
> >fundamentally responsible for their actions because they are aware that
> >what they are doing is wrong.you are too committed to your hateful
ideaology.
> >Don't you realise hate is wrong? As soon as you realise this, you can start
> >to develop, stop being knuckle-draggers and take a position in society.
>
>
> >Think about it.
>
> >David Maddison
>
>
> Have you met "SOG" Dave?
You mean the poster/troller who is reminiscent in his peurile and
vitriolic personal attacks, for example, of deniers/anti-Semites/Nazi
bootlickers like:
The Giwer-swine
"Doc Tavish"
Mr. Bellinger
Mr. Smith
Mr. "Sabatini"
The H*ber(tm)
The Moran(tm)
See:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/g/giwer.matt
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/b/bellinger.joseph
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/s/smith.brian.r
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/s/sabatini.anthony
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/nyms/huber
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom
Can you say "killfile?"
Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas McTavish
David S. Maddison wrote:
>
> I never fail to be moved by how much hate the Nazi boneheads who post on
> this group feel for Jews and most other people.
Mr. Maddison there is so much talk about Nazis in this ng but do you
wish to go on public record and name names and offer documented proof
that the people you name are truly Nazis? Do you wish to do this for all
to see? Please do this! Statutes do exist for the slandering of private
citizens. I have forwarded this public challenge to all the others that
you and yours endlessly wish to defame. My dear uncle Reginald McTavish
has been victimized by the Jewish Defense League and is currently
seeking legal counsel and he may file a case against Nizkor too now that
they are on American soil and under American law which subjects them to
public slander laws which protect private citizens from various radical
groups.
Lucas McTavish
Lucas McTavish
Nizkor is now subject to American Civil Law
Mark Van Alstine wrote:
>
> In article <5eu08q$t...@camel2.mindspring.com>, l...@blaze.com wrote:
>
> > madd...@connexus.apana.org.au (David S. Maddison) wrote:
> > >A Nazi is a Nazi is a Nazi and these
> > >people should always be held liable for their views and their crimes.
> > >Don't you realise hate is wrong? As soon as you realise this, you can start
> > >to develop, stop being knuckle-draggers and take a position in society.
> > >Think about it.
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.
Doc Tavish <tav...@phoenix.net>
> > >David Maddison
> > Have you met "SOG" Dave?
> You mean the poster/troller who is reminiscent in his peurile and
> vitriolic personal attacks, for example, of deniers/anti-Semites/Nazi
> bootlickers like:
>
> The Giwer-swine
> "Doc Tavish"
> Mr. Bellinger
> Mr. Smith
> Mr. "Sabatini"
> The H*ber(tm)
> The Moran(tm)
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.
Doc Tavish <tav...@phoenix.net>
> See:
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/g/giwer.matt
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/b/bellinger.joseph
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/s/smith.brian.r
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/s/sabatini.anthony
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/nyms/huber
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom
>
> Can you say "killfile?"
>
> Mark
Name call, name call, name call- this is Nizkor's philosophy of debate!
What business doe Nizkor have in keeping files on private citizens?
America has laws concerning privacy and the slandering of private
citizens! Your group is on American soil now and you are subject to
American law!
Lucas McTavish
cjsa...@netcom.ca
madd...@connexus.apana.org.au (David S. Maddison) wrote:
>I never fail to be moved by how much hate the Nazi boneheads who post on
>this group feel for Jews and most other people.
The Jews have a word for us non-Jews: "goy." My Webster's dictionary
defines it as "Gentile," but it says that is is a disparaging term. I
believe the literal translation is "human cattle."
>A Nazi is a Nazi is a Nazi and these people should always be held liable
>for their views and their crimes.
I agree with you! If a "Nazi" commits a crime, he should be punished.
Of course I'm not referring to the bullshit hate laws that we have in
Canada, and other politically motivated laws.
While we're on the subject of hate and crimes, you should take a look
at the "Anti-Racist Action" web site. They are a Toronto-based
terrorist group. They use violence and intimidation to further their
goals. In one extreme incident, they trashed a man's home! They
often attack Ernst Zundel's home as well.
Ken Lewis
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:54:44 -0600, Lucas McTavish <tav...@phoenix.net>
wrote:
>seeking legal counsel and he may file a case against Nizkor too now that
>they are on American soil and under American law which subjects them to
>public slander laws which protect private citizens from various radical
Since 'Nizkor' has in no way defamed you you'll have some tough sledding
with that one, Krock. Best to ask your lawyer about frivolous lawsuits.
Ken Lewis
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:04:44 -0600, Lucas McTavish <tav...@phoenix.net>
wrote:
e!
>What business doe Nizkor have in keeping files on private citizens?
>America has laws concerning privacy and the slandering of private
>citizens! Your group is on American soil now and you are subject to
>American law!
You're a Johnny-come-lately to the discussion, Krock. Check Alta Vista and
DejaNews. They warehouse your idiotic rantings also.
Steven Berson
In article <33148773...@nntp.netcruiser> cjsa...@netcom.ca writes:
>madd...@connexus.apana.org.au (David S. Maddison) wrote:
>
>>I never fail to be moved by how much hate the Nazi boneheads who post on
>>this group feel for Jews and most other people.
>
>The Jews have a word for us non-Jews: "goy." My Webster's dictionary
>defines it as "Gentile," but it says that is is a disparaging term. I
>believe the literal translation is "human cattle."
My Webster's gives a different derivation of the word. I would
appreciate it if you would elaborate on your beliefs of the literal
translation. I am always interested in new sources of anti-Semitic
information.
Thanks,
Steve
--
Steven Berson +1 310 822-1511
USC Information Sciences Institute +1 310 823-6714 Fax
4676 Admiralty Way ber...@isi.edu
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 http://www.isi.edu/~berson
madd...@connexus.apana.org.au
In article <33148773...@nntp.netcruiser>,
cjsa...@netcom.ca wrote:
>
> madd...@connexus.apana.org.au (David S. Maddison) wrote:
>
> >I never fail to be moved by how much hate the Nazi boneheads who post on
> >this group feel for Jews and most other people.
>
> The Jews have a word for us non-Jews: "goy." My Webster's dictionary
> defines it as "Gentile," but it says that is is a disparaging term. I
It is not a disparaging term in its general usage, like most other terms
such as "teacher" or "plumber". Most dictionaries do not say it is
disparaging in any way, and neither would you if you knew what it meant.
> believe the literal translation is "human cattle."
You believe a lot of things, don't you? Unfortunately, most of them can be
proved to be wrong. The literal transation of "goy" is simply "people" or
"nation". Please provide a scholarly reference that defines it as "human
cattle".
> >A Nazi is a Nazi is a Nazi and these people should always be held liable
> >for their views and their crimes.
>
> I agree with you! If a "Nazi" commits a crime, he should be punished.
Nazism, by definition, represents a systematic violation of all human
rights. The practice of Nazism represents gross violation of everything
civilisation stands for. In fact, Nazism is a political movement
_against_ civilisation. If you really believe Nazis should be responsible
for their crimes, you wouldn't be one yourself.
[..]
> While we're on the subject of hate and crimes, you should take a look
> at the "Anti-Racist Action" web site. They are a Toronto-based
> terrorist group. They use violence and intimidation to further their
> goals. In one extreme incident, they trashed a man's home! They
> often attack Ernst Zundel's home as well.
I've seen pictures of Zundel's home on TV. It already looks like a
garbage dump, how could you tell whether it had been "trashed" or not?
(Of course, unlike Nazis, I don't believe in trashing people's homes if
what is alleged to have happened is true, which I doubt.)
David Maddison
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Gord McFee
In message <331397...@phoenix.net> - Lucas McTavish
<tav...@phoenix.net> writes:
:>
:>David S. Maddison wrote:
:>>
:>> I never fail to be moved by how much hate the Nazi boneheads who post on
:>> this group feel for Jews and most other people.
:>
:>Mr. Maddison there is so much talk about Nazis in this ng but do you
:>wish to go on public record and name names and offer documented proof
:>that the people you name are truly Nazis? Do you wish to do this for all
:>to see? Please do this! Statutes do exist for the slandering of private
:>citizens. I have forwarded this public challenge to all the others that
:>you and yours endlessly wish to defame. My dear uncle Reginald McTavish
:>has been victimized by the Jewish Defense League and is currently
:>they are on American soil and under American law which subjects them to
:>public slander laws which protect private citizens from various radical
Perhaps your group of hatemongering, white power-ranger racists would
like to start posting under *your* real names, instead of pretending to
be this McTavish character. Tell ya what. How about I post *your*
names? And then sue the shit out of me, because I can prove it in
court. Wanna play, jellyfish?
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Daniel Keren
cjsa...@netcom.ca writes:
# The Jews have a word for us non-Jews: "goy." My
# Webster's dictionary defines it as "Gentile," but it
# says that is is a disparaging term. I believe the
# literal translation is "human cattle.
That's your problem: you "believe" every lie which various
Nazi propagandists feed you with. See me reply to your two
previous articles.
The word "Goy" does not mean "human cattle" or anything
of the sort. As a matter of fact, Jews are also described
as "Goy" in the Bible.
-Danny Keren.
LUEK
dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>The word "Goy" does not mean "human cattle" or anything
>of the sort. As a matter of fact, Jews are also described
>as "Goy" in the Bible.
>-Danny Keren.
Since "goy" is by definition a Yiddish term (see below) just where (as
you clam) in the Bible is the term used?
I performed a search of a CD-ROM disk I have that has the King James
Version of the Bible on it and the search came up empty for the word
Goy or Goyim.
I am of the opinion, unless you have something to add, that referring
to someone as a "goy" or goyim is defamatory and ignorant.
What have you been "fed" lately Dan?
Following definitions are from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Key words: Goy--Yiddish--disparage
goy (goi) n., pl. goy·im (goi“ąm) or goys. Offensive. Used as a
disparaging term for one who is not a Jew. [Yiddish, from Hebrew gôy,
nation, one who is not Jewish, non-Jew, Jew ignorant of the Jewish
religion.] --goy“ish adj.
Yid·dish (yąd“ąsh) n. The language historically of Ashkenazic Jews of
Central and Eastern Europe, resulting from a fusion of elements
derived principally from medieval German dialects and secondarily from
Hebrew and Aramaic, various Slavic languages, and Old French and Old
Italian. [Yiddish yidish, Jewish, Yiddish, from Middle High German
jüdisch, Jewish, from jude, jüde, Jew, from Old High German judo, from
Latin Jżdaeus. See JEW.] --Yid“dish adj. --Yid“dish·ism n.
dis·par·age (dą-sp˛r“ąj) tr.v. dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing,
dis·par·ag·es. 1. To speak of in a slighting way; belittle. See
Synonyms at decry. 2. To reduce in esteem or rank. [Middle English
disparagen, to degrade, from Old French desparager : des-, dis- +
parage, high birth (from per, peer; see PEER2).] --dis·par“age·ment n.
--dis·par“ag·er n. --dis·par“ag·ing·ly adv.
Daniel Keren
ne...@noon.com (LUEK) writes:
# dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
## The word "Goy" does not mean "human cattle" or anything
## of the sort. As a matter of fact, Jews are also described
## as "Goy" in the Bible.
# Since "goy" is by definition a Yiddish term (see below)
# just where (as you clam) in the Bible is the term used?
It is not a Yiddish term, originally. It appears in the
Bible. Many times.
# I performed a search of a CD-ROM disk I have that has the
# King James Version of the Bible on it and the search came
# up empty for the word Goy or Goyim.
This probably comes as a shock to you, but the Bible was not
written in English. It should be easy to check what the
translators chose to substitute for "Goy".
At any rate, the word does not mean, and has never meant,
"human cattle", as various nazi-boys often claim.
-Danny Keren.
Annie Alpert
LUEK wrote:
>
> dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
> >The word "Goy" does not mean "human cattle" or anything
>
>
> Since "goy" is by definition a Yiddish term (see below) just where (as
> you clam) in the Bible is the term used?
>
> Version of the Bible on it and the search came up empty for the word
> Goy or Goyim.
>
Uhm--you DO know that the collection of books we now call The Bible was
not written in English originally?
--
Nizkor (USA) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
Nizkor Web: http://www.nizkor.org/
European mirror: http://www1.de.nizkor.org/~nizkor/
And my own web page: http://www.ccnis.net/~miasaura
Yale F. Edeiken
> > dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
> > >The word "Goy" does not mean "human cattle" or anything
> > >of the sort. As a matter of fact, Jews are also described
> > >as "Goy" in the Bible.
> > Since "goy" is by definition a Yiddish term (see below) just where (as
> > you clam) in the Bible is the term used?
> > I performed a search of a CD-ROM disk I have that has the King James
> > Version of the Bible on it and the search came up empty for the word
> > Goy or Goyim.
> Uhm--you DO know that the collection of books we now call The Bible was
> not written in English originally?
Nor apparently is he familiar with Isiah 2:4.
--YFE
LUEK
Annie Alpert <mias...@ccnis.net> wrote:
>LUEK wrote:
>>
>> dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>>
>> >The word "Goy" does not mean "human cattle" or anything
>> >of the sort. As a matter of fact, Jews are also described
>> >as "Goy" in the Bible.
>>
>> >-Danny Keren.
>>
>> Since "goy" is by definition a Yiddish term (see below) just where (as
>> you clam) in the Bible is the term used?
>>
>Uhm--you DO know that the collection of books we now call The Bible was
>not written in English originally?
I have known for quite some time, and as has been pointed out to me
several times most recently, that the Bible was not originally written
in English. Neither was it originally written in Yiddish! This is
not the point.
The statement was made that the word "goy" is used in the Bible.
So where is it? The only information I can find about this word is
that it is a derogatory Yiddish slang term minted in the Middle Ages
in Europe.
I am forced to conclude that the source of the statement that the word
"goy is in the Bible" is from a liar and fraud who has a political
agenda to keep.
LUEK
ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
>> > >The word "Goy" does not mean "human cattle" or anything
>> > >of the sort. As a matter of fact, Jews are also described
>> > >as "Goy" in the Bible.
>> > Since "goy" is by definition a Yiddish term (see below) just where (as
>> > you clam) in the Bible is the term used?
>
>> > I performed a search of a CD-ROM disk I have that has the King James
>> > Version of the Bible on it and the search came up empty for the word
>> > Goy or Goyim.
>
>> Uhm--you DO know that the collection of books we now call The Bible was
>> not written in English originally?
> Nor apparently is he familiar with Isiah 2:4.
> --YFE
2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many
people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their
spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against
nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Here is Isaiah 2:4 Mr. Edeiken. The word "goy" is not present.
Perhaps you "typoed" the reference? Sometimes that happens. You did
misspell Isaiah.
Jenn Starkman
>
>>I never fail to be moved by how much hate the Nazi boneheads who post on
>>this group feel for Jews and most other people.
>
>defines it as "Gentile," but it says that is is a disparaging term. I
>believe the literal translation is "human cattle."
If that is what you believe, then you are mistaken--not surprising since it's
doubtful that you actually speak Hebrew. The New Comprehensive Shilo Pocket
Dictionary (Hebrew-English/English-Hebrew) gives two translations for the word
"goy". The second is "gentile", as it is commonly used nowadays. The first,
however, is the literal translation: "nation".
"Goy" literally means "nation", in other words, and in places in the Old
Testament is used to refer to the Jewish people as well as others.
So much for that idea.
>>A Nazi is a Nazi is a Nazi and these people should always be held liable
>>for their views and their crimes.
>
>I agree with you! If a "Nazi" commits a crime, he should be punished.
>Of course I'm not referring to the bullshit hate laws that we have in
>Canada, and other politically motivated laws.
Do I understand you correctly, then, as asserting that if a nazi commits a
crime, then he should be punished, but not if that crime contravenes a law
which, despite being the law of the country in which he resides, he doesn't
agree with or simply "doesn't believe in"?
I guess that puts the Jews one up on you in terms of patriotism, then, as
Judaism teaches that one must follow the law of the land in which one lives as
closely as one would follow that of the religion.
Jenn
Cyril McTavish
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.
Doc Tavish <tav...@phoenix.net>
Look at Ken's only answer to see the truth of Doc Tavish!
Cyril
Yale F. Edeiken
> ne...@noon.com (LUEK) writes:
> Annie Alpert <mias...@ccnis.net> wrote:
> >Uhm--you DO know that the collection of books we now call The Bible was
> >not written in English originally?
> I have known for quite some time, and as has been pointed out to me
> several times most recently, that the Bible was not originally written
> in English. Neither was it originally written in Yiddish! This is
> not the point.
> The statement was made that the word "goy" is used in the Bible.
> So where is it? The only information I can find about this word is
> that it is a derogatory Yiddish slang term minted in the Middle Ages
> in Europe.
Isaiah 2:4
> I am forced to conclude that the source of the statement that the word
> "goy is in the Bible" is from a liar and fraud who has a political
> agenda to keep.
Since this is one of the most quoted verses in the Bible, I can only
conclude that your efforts to find the origins of the word were limited to asking one of
your nazi friends.
--YFE
pgroff
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:20:40 GMT, ne...@noon.com (LUEK) wrote:
>2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many
>people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their
>spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against
>nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Great, just great, now Luek you should *TRY* reading Isaiah in
*HEBREW*, gosh how novel. You might then run across the word/words,
Goy, Goyim, several times.
>
>Here is Isaiah 2:4 Mr. Edeiken. The word "goy" is not present.
>Perhaps you "typoed" the reference? Sometimes that happens. You did
>misspell Isaiah.
Nor would it be, when read in English. Are you honestly that stupid??
Nizkor (USA) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
Nizkor Web: http://www.nizkor.org/
Anonymous ftp: http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?
European mirror: http://www1.de.nizkor.org/~nizkor/
|
In Memory of Pooh.Bah
Daniel Keren
ne...@noon.com (LUEK) writes:
# The statement was made that the word "goy" is used
# in the Bible.
Yes; for instance, while quickly going through the book
of Genesis, I found it in 21:18, 22:18, 26:4, and some
other locations.
# I am forced to conclude that the source of the statement
# that the word "goy is in the Bible" is from a liar and
# fraud who has a political agenda to keep.
Do you always feel so confident when writing about things
on which you haven't got a clue?
-Danny Keren.
Daniel Keren
ne...@noon.com (LUEK) writes:
[Quoting from the Bible]
# "nation shall not lift up sword against
# nation, neither shall they learn war any more".
The word "nation" appears as "goy" in the original:
"Lo yisha goy el goy cherev, ve'lo yilmdu od milchama".
You see, for instance, "milchama" means "war". Now,
the word "milchama" does not appear in your text,
because it's in English. Get it? It's *translated*
into "war". And "goy" is *translated* into "nation".
Do you understand, or was this too fast for you?
# The word "goy" is not present.
It is in the original. But you have a translation,
in which it appears as "nation".
Sleep on it. You'll understand it, eventually.
-Danny Keren.
Annie Alpert
LUEK wrote:
>
> ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> >
> >> > >The word "Goy" does not mean "human cattle" or anything
> >> > >of the sort. As a matter of fact, Jews are also described
> >> > >as "Goy" in the Bible.
>
> >> > Since "goy" is by definition a Yiddish term (see below) just where (as
> >> > you clam) in the Bible is the term used?
> >
> >> > I performed a search of a CD-ROM disk I have that has the King James
> >> > Version of the Bible on it and the search came up empty for the word
> >> > Goy or Goyim.
> >
> >> not written in English originally?
>
>
> > --YFE
>
> people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their
> nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
>
> Perhaps you "typoed" the reference? Sometimes that happens. You did
> misspell Isaiah.
Oh duh--couldn't you figure out that in the original Hebrew, the word
tranlated as "nations" was originally "Goyim"?? For goodness sakes,
man--use your head!
--
Nizkor (USA) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
Nizkor Web: http://www.nizkor.org/
LUEK
pgr...@txdirect.net (pgroff) wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:20:40 GMT, ne...@noon.com (LUEK) wrote:
>Great, just great, now Luek you should *TRY* reading Isaiah in
>*HEBREW*, gosh how novel. You might then run across the word/words,
>Goy, Goyim, several times.
Yeah, reading Isaiah in Hebrew would be novel but you have completely
missed the point.
I will keep this very simple so you will not get more befuddled. The
word "goy" IS or CAN BE (sic) interpreted by Hebrew scholars as
meaning "nation" or "people."
The contention is not about the HEBREW meaning of "goy" but the
VERNACULAR meaning of the word.
The statement was made by a Holoconformist that the actual word "goy"
is in the English language Bible. IT IS NOT!
The Holoconformist used this statement attempting a defense against
the "vernacular" use of the word "goy". The vernacular use of the
word "goy" is according to popular consensus used to refer to non-Jews
in a defamatory way.(see below GOY, American Heritage Dictionary)
........
goy (goi) n., pl. goy·im (goi“¹m) or goys. Offensive. Used as a
disparaging term for one who is not a Jew. [Yiddish, from Hebrew gôy,
nation, one who is not Jewish, non-Jew, Jew ignorant of the Jewish
religion.] --goy“ish adj.
........
My interpretation of the Holoconformist's motive was that he was being
deliberately misleading about the vernacular use of the "G WORD" and
was really promoting a political agenda through deceit and fraud. I
have not seen anything that would warrant my reconsideration of this
evaluation.
>Nizkor (USA) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
>Nizkor Web: http://www.nizkor.org/
Yale F. Edeiken
> >> > >The word "Goy" does not mean "human cattle" or anything
> >> > >of the sort. As a matter of fact, Jews are also described
> >> > >as "Goy" in the Bible.
> >> > Since "goy" is by definition a Yiddish term (see below) just where (as
> >> > you clam) in the Bible is the term used?
> >> > I performed a search of a CD-ROM disk I have that has the King James
> >> > Version of the Bible on it and the search came up empty for the word
> >> > Goy or Goyim.
> >> Uhm--you DO know that the collection of books we now call The Bible was
> >> not written in English originally?
> > Nor apparently is he familiar with Isiah 2:4.
> 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many
> people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their
> spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against
> nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
> Here is Isaiah 2:4 Mr. Edeiken. The word "goy" is not present.
> Perhaps you "typoed" the reference? Sometimes that happens. You did
> misspell Isaiah.
The verse uses the word "goy" three times. Of course, perhaps, you
think it is mistranslated. Perhaps it should read "human cattle shall not lif up sword
against human cattle . . . ."
--YFE
LUEK
> --YFE
That would be kinda hard to do with hoofs. Don't you think so
Mr.Edeiken?
LUEK
dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>ne...@noon.com (LUEK) writes:
># The statement was made that the word "goy" is used
># in the Bible.
>Yes; for instance, while quickly going through the book
>of Genesis, I found it in 21:18, 22:18, 26:4, and some
>other locations.
Yes you did! You found the word "nation". But did you find the actual
word "goy"?
I think you are probably related to "Soggie" in some way.
Ken Lewis
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:34:52 -0600, Cyril McTavish <tav...@phoenix.net>
wrote:
>Ken Lewis wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:04:44 -0600, Lucas McTavish <tav...@phoenix.net>
>> wrote:
>> >What business doe Nizkor have in keeping files on private citizens?
>> >America has laws concerning privacy and the slandering of private
>> >citizens! Your group is on American soil now and you are subject to
>> >American law!
>> You're a Johnny-come-lately to the discussion, Krock. Check Alta Vista and
>> DejaNews. They warehouse your idiotic rantings also.
[snip]
>Look at Ken's only answer to see the truth of Doc Tavish!
Doc wouldn't know what the truth was if it jumped up and bit him in the ass.
pgroff
On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 00:03:03 GMT, ne...@noon.com (LUEK) wrote:
(some material deleted)
>I will keep this very simple so you will not get more befuddled. The
>word "goy" IS or CAN BE (sic) interpreted by Hebrew scholars as
>meaning "nation" or "people."
That is correct, but not just by scholarly interpretations, this is
exactly what the word means in Hebrew, in the bible.
>
>The contention is not about the HEBREW meaning of "goy" but the
>VERNACULAR meaning of the word.
Oh, Puleese, you would first have to get inside the head of each
person that used the word and then decide if in fact it was
derogatory, or at the very least determine *IF* at a particular local
that word was used to slur or defame a person or people.
>
>The statement was made by a Holoconformist that the actual word "goy"
>is in the English language Bible. IT IS NOT!
it is *IF* you are to accept that *GOY- *GOIIM- indeed means, nation
or people, those words do infact appear in the English Language Bible,
don't they?
>
>The Holoconformist used this statement attempting a defense against
>the "vernacular" use of the word "goy". The vernacular use of the
>word "goy" is according to popular consensus used to refer to non-Jews
>in a defamatory way.(see below GOY, American Heritage Dictionary)
The encyclopedia Britannnica says, for Goy: (goi) n. pl. goy-im
(goi'im) Yiddish a non-Jew A Gentile.
........
>
>My interpretation of the Holoconformist's motive was that he was being
>deliberately misleading about the vernacular use of the "G WORD" and
>was really promoting a political agenda through deceit and fraud. I
>have not seen anything that would warrant my reconsideration of this
>evaluation.
It could be that indeed you are doing nothing but ascribing something
to a poster that in fact, you cannot prove. Like you say "My
interpretation" thus allowing for no other thought but your own.
So while you ascribe to people being misleading, promoting a political
agenda through deceit and fraud, which I think isn't just stupid, but
narrow minded, and imature, which sure doesn't allow for any other
type of though but yours. So go ahead close your mind that is fine,
but you will always see but one side of a coin.
Ken Lewis
On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 00:02:21 GMT, ne...@noon.com (LUEK) wrote:
>dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>>ne...@noon.com (LUEK) writes:
>># The statement was made that the word "goy" is used
>># in the Bible.
>>Yes; for instance, while quickly going through the book
>>of Genesis, I found it in 21:18, 22:18, 26:4, and some
>>other locations.
>Yes you did! You found the word "nation". But did you find the actual
>word "goy"?
Are you incapable of doing your own research?
(1) Go to you local library and find a copy of 'Strong's Exhaustive
Concordance of the Bible.'
(2) Turn to page 708 where you will find the word 'nation' along with the
versus where it is used. At the top of the list you will see Gen. 21:18.
(3) Off to the right is a guide number. In this case 1471.
(4) Now turn to the back of the book where you will find the Hebrew and
Chaldee Dictionary.
(5) Look for guide number 1471 on page 26.
There you will find the word 'goy.'
Now see how easy that was? You don't even have to be able to read Hebrew.
Now, while you are in the library, you may wish to borrow some of the books,
start reading, and get an education. That way you won't appear as such a
complete doofus when you post here.
Gord McFee
In message <5f3fh8$i...@camel0.mindspring.com> - ne...@noon.com (LUEK)
writes:
:>
:>dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
:>
:>
:>>The word "Goy" does not mean "human cattle" or anything
:>>of the sort. As a matter of fact, Jews are also described
:>>as "Goy" in the Bible.
:>
:>>-Danny Keren.
:>
:>Since "goy" is by definition a Yiddish term (see below) just where (as
:>you clam) in the Bible is the term used?
:>
:>I performed a search of a CD-ROM disk I have that has the King James
:>Version of the Bible on it and the search came up empty for the word
:>Goy or Goyim.
Omigod!! Do you suppose it might be because the Bible was not
originally written in English?
:>I am of the opinion, unless you have something to add, that referring
:>to someone as a "goy" or goyim is defamatory and ignorant.
:>
:>What have you been "fed" lately Dan?
Better check your own diet.
Yale F. Edeiken
> > Perhaps it should read "human cattle shall not lif up sword
> >against human cattle . . . ."
> That would be kinda hard to do with hoofs. Don't you think so
> Mr.Edeiken?
Which is why I prefer the accepted translation of the word "goy" to the
yours. You cannot have it both ways.
--YFE
Yale F. Edeiken
> ># The statement was made that the word "goy" is used
> ># in the Bible.
> >Yes; for instance, while quickly going through the book
> >of Genesis, I found it in 21:18, 22:18, 26:4, and some
> >other locations.
> Yes you did! You found the word "nation". But did you find the actual
> word "goy"?
Yes.
--YFE
Annie Alpert
LUEK wrote:
> >> Since "goy" is by definition a Yiddish term (see below) just where (as> >> you clam) in the Bible is the term used?
> >>
>
>not written in English originally?
>
> several times most recently, that the Bible was not originally written
> in English. Neither was it originally written in Yiddish! This is
> not the point.
>
> The statement was made that the word "goy" is used in the Bible.
>
> So where is it? The only information I can find about this word is
> that it is a derogatory Yiddish slang term minted in the Middle Ages
> in Europe.
>
> "goy is in the Bible" is from a liar and fraud who has a political
> agenda to keep.
>
Has it occured to you that many Yiddish words were originally found in
the Hebrew language? Isn't this conversation getting a little silly?
You seem to be looking for ways to criticise Jews at all costs. Why be
so fixated?
Jenn Starkman
In article <5f4jb9$i...@camel2.mindspring.com>, ne...@noon.com (LUEK) wrote:
>ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
>>> > Version of the Bible on it and the search came up empty for the word
>>> > Goy or Goyim.
>>
>>> not written in English originally?
>
>
>2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many
>people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their
>spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against
>nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
>
>Here is Isaiah 2:4 Mr. Edeiken. The word "goy" is not present.
Once again, you seem to have missed the point.
Jenn
Jenn Starkman
In article <8570068...@dejanews.com>,
madd...@connexus.apana.org.au wrote:
>In article <33148773...@nntp.netcruiser>,
> cjsa...@netcom.ca wrote:
>> The Jews have a word for us non-Jews: "goy." My Webster's dictionary
>> defines it as "Gentile," but it says that is is a disparaging term. I
>
>It is not a disparaging term in its general usage, like most other terms
>such as "teacher" or "plumber". Most dictionaries do not say it is
>disparaging in any way, and neither would you if you knew what it meant.
Actually, I'm just curious as to which "Webster's" dictionary he has. The
Webster's New World Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, that I have, gives the
meaning of the word "goy" as simply "a non-Jew; gentile".
>> believe the literal translation is "human cattle."
>
>You believe a lot of things, don't you? Unfortunately, most of them can be
>proved to be wrong. The literal transation of "goy" is simply "people" or
>"nation". Please provide a scholarly reference that defines it as "human
>cattle".
Again, it is funny that he should mention that, as my Webster's dictionary's
only comment outside of the definition is to note that the word "goy" is from
the Hebrew, which literally means "tribe" or "nation". No mention of it being
disparaging, though...
Again, I wonder which "Webster's" it is that our little friend has been
reading.
Jenn
LUEK
Annie Alpert <mias...@ccnis.net> wrote:
>> I am forced to conclude that the source of the statement that the word
>> "goy is in the Bible" is from a liar and fraud who has a political
>> agenda to keep.
>>
>Has it occured to you that many Yiddish words were originally found in
>the Hebrew language? Isn't this conversation getting a little silly?
>You seem to be looking for ways to criticise Jews at all costs. Why be
>so fixated?
Has it occured to you that words change meaning over time because they
go through social and historical filters? Let me give you some
examples: The word GAY as used today can refer to homosexuality.
The same word 100 years ago would never have had that connotation.
Referring to someone or something as COOL today does not necessarily
mean the temperature of that person or object.
These are examples of common words that have gone through "filters"
that have given them different or expanded meanings than what they
were originally intended to mean.
The word GOY can now be interpreted in the vernacular as a derogatory
and demeaning term because it has undergone similar changes as have
the two previous examples.
Your reference that I am "criticizing Jews at all costs" is blatantly
defensive and maybe you should closely examine your reasons for making
such a provocative and broad statement. The criticism was aimed at the
vernacular use of the word goy and not at a religious sect. Your
self-righteous attitude is getting a bit obvious if you haven't
noticed.
Jenn Starkman
In article <5f3fh8$i...@camel0.mindspring.com>, ne...@noon.com (LUEK) wrote:
>dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
>
>>The word "Goy" does not mean "human cattle" or anything
>>of the sort. As a matter of fact, Jews are also described
>>as "Goy" in the Bible.
>
Whatever it is that your "American Heritage Dictionary" tells you about the
word goy, it can--in light of your own comments--hardly be the best authority
on words in another language. The fact remains that while the word "goy", in
its modern sense, is a Yiddish word for "Gentile", that the Yiddish word is
derived from the original *HEBREW* word "goy" which simply means "nation", and
was used in the Old Testament to refer to the Jews as well as other peoples.
And, because the simple fact that I speak Hebrew and am familiar with Yiddish
and you obviously don't will likely not be enough of a basis of evidence for
you, I direct you to the "Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College
Edition" to verify what I have just said.
>I performed a search of a CD-ROM disk I have that has the King James
>Version of the Bible on it and the search came up empty for the word
>Goy or Goyim.
Unless your CD-ROM happens to include the King James Version of the Old
Testament in *Hebrew*, then I have no doubt that that is true. If you do a
search for a word in *one* language, in a book that has been translated into
*another* language, odds are you're not going to find what you're looking for.
>I am of the opinion, unless you have something to add, that referring
>to someone as a "goy" or goyim is defamatory and ignorant.
I'm sure you have a whole *pile* of opinions, but since you seem to have no
factual basis for them, and evidence has, in fact, been provided that proves
quite different from your assertions, that's rather irrelevant isn't it?
Jenn
Yale F. Edeiken
> >> I am forced to conclude that the source of the statement that the word
> >> "goy is in the Bible" is from a liar and fraud who has a political
> >> agenda to keep.
> >Has it occured to you that many Yiddish words were originally found in
> >the Hebrew language? Isn't this conversation getting a little silly?
> >You seem to be looking for ways to criticise Jews at all costs. Why be
> >so fixated?
> Has it occured to you that words change meaning over time because they
> go through social and historical filters? Let me give you some
> examples: The word GAY as used today can refer to homosexuality.
> The same word 100 years ago would never have had that connotation.
> Referring to someone or something as COOL today does not necessarily
> mean the temperature of that person or object.
> These are examples of common words that have gone through "filters"
> that have given them different or expanded meanings than what they
> were originally intended to mean.
> The word GOY can now be interpreted in the vernacular as a derogatory
> and demeaning term because it has undergone similar changes as have
> the two previous examples.
So far, there is nothing but your own statement to that effect. You
have been caught in error after error. Specifically:
1. You stated that the literal translation is "human cattle." It is not.
2. You state that the word "goy" does not appear in the Bilbe. It does.
3. You stated that it was a Yiddish word "minted" in the 15th century.
It was not.
4. You stated that the standard dictionary definition labels the word
"derogatory." You have yet to produce a dictionary that states that.
Consdiering your proven lack of knowledge about the word and its
proper use, your "theory" is, in the words of Justice Michael A. Musmanno,
presiding judge at the eisnsatzgruppen trial: "This, of course, is to ignore fact for
fancy, positive evidence for guesswork and demonstrated proof for dialectic
legerdemain."
> Your reference that I am "criticizing Jews at all costs" is blatantly
> defensive and maybe you should closely examine your reasons for making
> such a provocative and broad statement.
The evidence supports this state,ment. You decided that the word
"goy" was derogatory and, instead of even looking it's origin and use, made
fallacious statement after fallacious statement. Even when presented with
irrefutable references exposing the inaccuracy of your statements, you have
persisted in making them.
> The criticism was aimed at the
> vernacular use of the word goy and not at a religious sect. Your
> self-righteous attitude is getting a bit obvious if you haven't
> noticed.
Your ignorance and dishonesty is getting more than a bit obvious.
--YFE
Sla...@orbiter.com
bb...@freenet.carleton.ca wrote:
> I guess that puts the Jews one up on you in terms of patriotism, then, as
> Judaism teaches that one must follow the law of the land in which one lives as
> closely as one would follow that of the religion.
>
> Jenn
I guess that is why the prayer the Kol Nidrey that is chanted three
times on yom kipur basically says that a kike is not suspost to keep
oaths vows or pledges.
So much for following the law of the land in which one lives.
--
** Orbiter Online -- Orbiter.Com -- http://WWW.Orbiter.Com
LUEK
ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>> ne...@noon.com (LUEK) writes:
>> Annie Alpert <mias...@ccnis.net> wrote:
>> >> I am forced to conclude that the source of the statement that the word
>> >> "goy is in the Bible" is from a liar and fraud who has a political
>> >> agenda to keep.
> So far, there is nothing but your own statement to that effect. You
>have been caught in error after error. Specifically:
> 1. You stated that the literal translation is "human cattle." It is not.
THIS IS THE ORIGINAL POST WHERE THE PHRASE WAS USED.
I did not post it!
If you have any reading comprehension left at all NOTICE THE HEADING!
It is from someone in Canada.
Not from me!
cjsa...@netcom.ca writes:
# The Jews have a word for us non-Jews: "goy." My
# Webster's dictionary defines it as "Gentile," but it
# says that is is a disparaging term. I believe the
# literal translation is "human cattle.
Do you see "cjs...@netcom.ca writes:" Mr. Edeiken? That is the
heading.
> 2. You state that the word "goy" does not appear in the Bilbe. It does.
It appears there if it is written in Hebrew! Not otherwise. Why is
this a major problem with you?
> 3. You stated that it was a Yiddish word "minted" in the 15th century.
>It was not.
Nope, the 15th century was never mentioned by me. I said the Middle
Ages in Europe.
The sentence was poorly constructed. The thought that I meant to
convey was that "goy" probably became a derogatory slang term through
the Yiddish idiom during the period known as the Middle Ages. The
exact origin of goy as a slang term is inconclusive but most evidence
points to this period.
> 4. You stated that the standard dictionary definition labels the word
>"derogatory." You have yet to produce a dictionary that states that.
Your misquoting again. Never ever said "standard dictionary". I
referenced the source in the post as the American Heritage Dictionary.
The definition I posted was verbatim from a source based on the
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Third Edition.
The words "disparaging" and "offensive" were used in defining the word
Mr. Edeiken not derogatory.
> Consdiering your proven lack of knowledge
Proven lack of knowledge? When did you ever prove or disprove any
damn thing? All you know how to do is misquote, mislead and misspell.
>presiding judge at the eisnsatzgruppen trial: "This, of course, is to ignore fact for
>fancy, positive evidence for guesswork and demonstrated proof for dialectic
>legerdemain."
Uh oh! I think you may be "Nazzzi Nuttts" Mr. Edeiken. Just can't
seen to keep those damn old Nazzzzis out of your thoughts can you.
Are you related to "SOG?"
>> Your reference that I am "criticizing Jews at all costs" is blatantly
>> defensive and maybe you should closely examine your reasons for making
>> such a provocative and broad statement.
> The evidence supports this state,ment. You decided that the word
>"goy" was derogatory
Misleading innuendo here Mr. Edeiken. The discussion was about the
"slang" meaning of goy not the literal meaning of the word. I do not
like being repetitious on this point, but you just do not seem to
GET IT.
> Your ignorance and dishonesty is getting more than a bit obvious.
Your wrong again as per usual Mr. Edeiken. Slander and defamation?
Tsk. Tsk. Is that the best you can do? What agenda are you keeping
today Mr. Edeiken? Can you answer honestly Mr. Edeiken?
> --YFE
For someone whose first name is Yale you sure are a dumbass.
Have a good day Mr. Edeiken.
You putz!
LUEK
gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>Tell me you are not really this stupid, Mr. Luek. I thought you were
>joking, but this is getting ridiculous. No, you will not find the word
>"goy" in the King James version of the Bible, since that version was
>written in *English* and "goy" is not an English word. In fact, in the
>King James version, there is only one phrase used that is not English.
>Being the Biblical scholar you are, I am sure you know it by hea
>--
>Gord McFee
Mr. McFee,
This post was in the mid part of a discussion about the word "goy".
Please do yourself a favor and read the the thread from top to bottom.
You are taking things out of context.
>I'll write no line before its time
You were a little premature this time Gordie.
Yale F. Edeiken
> ne...@noon.com (LUEK) writes:
> gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
> >Tell me you are not really this stupid, Mr. Luek. I thought you were
> >joking, but this is getting ridiculous. No, you will not find the word
> >"goy" in the King James version of the Bible, since that version was
> >written in *English* and "goy" is not an English word. In fact, in the
> >King James version, there is only one phrase used that is not English.
> >Being the Biblical scholar you are, I am sure you know it by hea
> This post was in the mid part of a discussion about the word "goy".
> Please do yourself a favor and read the the thread from top to bottom.
Should he do so he will disocver the following rather disgraceful
performance on your part:
1. You asserted that the literal translation of "goy" is "human cattle." You
now seem to deny making this claim.
2. You asserted that "goy" was a Yiddish word "minted' during the 15th
century. You have now "forgotten" that you made this demonstrably false statement.
3. You asserted, when claim #2, was flung down and danced upon by
numerous people who pointed out that it was a Hebrew word used numerous times in
the Bible, that you had consulted a CD copy of the King James Version (which
depended not so much on translations from the Hebrew for its Old Testament
tranlation as it did upon the Septaguint) and could not find it. Now that it is pointed
out to you that the King James Version does not contain Hebrew words becasue
*duh* it is written in English, you are claiming that people are taking your silly
assertions out of context.
You are not being taken out of context. You are being exposed as an
ignoramus.
--YFE
Yale F. Edeiken
> ne...@noon.com (LUEK) writes:
> > So far, there is nothing but your own statement to that effect. You
> >have been caught in error after error. Specifically:
> > 1. You stated that the literal translation is "human cattle." It is not.
> THIS IS THE ORIGINAL POST WHERE THE PHRASE WAS USED.
> I did not post it!
> cjsa...@netcom.ca writes:
> # The Jews have a word for us non-Jews: "goy." My
> # Webster's dictionary defines it as "Gentile," but it
> # says that is is a disparaging term. I believe the
> # literal translation is "human cattle.
> Do you see "cjs...@netcom.ca writes:" Mr. Edeiken? That is the
> heading.
Sorry for the misattribution.
> > 2. You state that the word "goy" does not appear in the Bilbe. It does.
> It appears there if it is written in Hebrew! Not otherwise. Why is
> this a major problem with you?
Sorry, the Bible (at least that part of it) *was* written in Hebrew. All
other versions are translations.
> > 3. You stated that it was a Yiddish word "minted" in the 15th century.
> >It was not.
> Nope, the 15th century was never mentioned by me. I said the Middle
> Ages in Europe.
> The sentence was poorly constructed. The thought that I meant to
> convey was that "goy" probably became a derogatory slang term through
> the Yiddish idiom during the period known as the Middle Ages. The
> exact origin of goy as a slang term is inconclusive but most evidence
> points to this period.
Since "goy" is not now and never has been a "slang" term -- it is proper
usage both in Hebrew and Yiddish -- you now have another "poorly constructed"
sentence to rewrite. To date, the "most evidence" you refer to is your own
assertion. Please point to the usage to which you refer in Yiddish literature of that
period.
> > 4. You stated that the standard dictionary definition labels the word
> >"derogatory." You have yet to produce a dictionary that states that.
> Your misquoting again. Never ever said "standard dictionary". I
> referenced the source in the post as the American Heritage Dictionary.
> The definition I posted was verbatim from a source based on the
> American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Third Edition.
> The words "disparaging" and "offensive" were used in defining the word
> Mr. Edeiken not derogatory.
Sorry, but when I want to determine how a word in Yiddish is used, I
check Yiddish sources. As a matter of fact, most dictionaries -- including the OED
and Webster's -- do not give it connotation that you do.
> > Consdiering your proven lack of knowledge
>
> Proven lack of knowledge? When did you ever prove or disprove any
> damn thing? All you know how to do is misquote, mislead and misspell.
Your words speak for themselves. You did not know the word was
Hebrew nor did you know that it was used in the Bible nor have you shown a
single contemporary use of the word that would back up your claim.
> >presiding judge at the eisnsatzgruppen trial: "This, of course, is to ignore fact
for
> >fancy, positive evidence for guesswork and demonstrated proof for dialectic
> >legerdemain."
> Uh oh! I think you may be "Nazzzi Nuttts" Mr. Edeiken. Just can't
> seen to keep those damn old Nazzzzis out of your thoughts can you.
> Are you related to "SOG?"
No, just a fan of Musmanno. I quote him whenever possible. He says
things in a very memorable manner. In this case he nailed you.
> >> Your reference that I am "criticizing Jews at all costs" is blatantly
> >> defensive and maybe you should closely examine your reasons for making
> >> such a provocative and broad statement.
> > The evidence supports this statement. You decided that the word
> >"goy" was derogatory
>
> Misleading innuendo here Mr. Edeiken. The discussion was about the
> "slang" meaning of goy not the literal meaning of the word. I do not
> like being repetitious on this point, but you just do not seem to
> GET IT.
Not only have you failed to demonstrate such usage but the word is
*not* slang. It is an accepted Hebrew and Yiddish word with accepted meanings.
GET IT?
> > Your ignorance and dishonesty is getting more than a bit obvious.
> Your wrong again as per usual Mr. Edeiken. Slander and defamation?
> Tsk. Tsk. Is that the best you can do? What agenda are you keeping
> today Mr. Edeiken? Can you answer honestly Mr. Edeiken?
Certainly I can -- but you will not like it. You are a vulgar, loud-mouthed
Jew hating ass who comes to any battle of wits half-armed. Your make wild
assertions based on your prejudices and expect others to take them seriously.
When your manifest bigotry is exposed for what it is you resort to your usual
routine: lying and calling names. My "agenda" -- assuming you are not using
another word you do not understand -- is expose those facts. As, for example:
> You putz!
I'm devastated by the intelligence of your response.
--YFE
Gord McFee
In message <5f57c8$5...@camel4.mindspring.com> - ne...@noon.com (LUEK):>
:>>ne...@noon.com (LUEK) writes:
:>
:>># The statement was made that the word "goy" is used
:>># in the Bible.
:>
:>>Yes; for instance, while quickly going through the book
:>>of Genesis, I found it in 21:18, 22:18, 26:4, and some
:>>other locations.
:>
:>Yes you did! You found the word "nation". But did you find the actual
:>word "goy"?
Tell me you are not really this stupid, Mr. Luek. I thought you were
joking, but this is getting ridiculous. No, you will not find the word
"goy" in the King James version of the Bible, since that version was
written in *English* and "goy" is not an English word. In fact, in the
King James version, there is only one phrase used that is not English.
Being the Biblical scholar you are, I am sure you know it by heart.
BTW, I have another Bible here that doesn't have the word "goy" in it.
From Isaiah 2:4:
Und er wird richten unter den Heiden und zurechtweisen viele Voelker.
Da werden sie ihre Schwerter zu Pflugscharen und ihre Spiesse zu Sicheln
machen. Denn es wird kein Volk wider das andere das Schwert erheben,
und sie werden hinfort nicht mehr lernen, Krieg zu fuehren.
Amazing, isn't it?
--
Gord McFee
David James Isham
In article <5f6uum$8...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Jenn Starkman <bb...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
>In article <8570068...@dejanews.com>,
> madd...@connexus.apana.org.au wrote:
>>In article <33148773...@nntp.netcruiser>,
>> cjsa...@netcom.ca wrote:
>
>>> The Jews have a word for us non-Jews: "goy." My Webster's dictionary
>>> defines it as "Gentile," but it says that is is a disparaging term. I
>>
>>It is not a disparaging term in its general usage, like most other terms
>>such as "teacher" or "plumber". Most dictionaries do not say it is
>>disparaging in any way, and neither would you if you knew what it meant.
>
>Actually, I'm just curious as to which "Webster's" dictionary he has. The
>Webster's New World Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, that I have, gives the
>meaning of the word "goy" as simply "a non-Jew; gentile".
>
The following definition is taken from the Random House UNABRIDGED Dictionary.
Second Ed.
goy (goi), n. Often Disparaging. a non-Jewish person; gentile.
dave
Gord McFee
In message <5f4idn$9...@camel0.mindspring.com> - ne...@noon.com (LUEK)
[deleted]
:>
:>>Uhm--you DO know that the collection of books we now call The Bible was
:>>not written in English originally?
:>
:>I have known for quite some time, and as has been pointed out to me
:>several times most recently, that the Bible was not originally written
:>in English. Neither was it originally written in Yiddish! This is
:>not the point.
:>
:>The statement was made that the word "goy" is used in the Bible.
:>
:>So where is it? The only information I can find about this word is
:>that it is a derogatory Yiddish slang term minted in the Middle Ages
:>in Europe.
:>
:>I am forced to conclude that the source of the statement that the word
:>"goy is in the Bible" is from a liar and fraud who has a political
:>agenda to keep.
In that case, everyone else will be forced to conclude that you are an
idiot.
Try to follow this. "Goy" is a Hebrew word for "nation". You will not
find the word "goy" is an English translation of the Bible. You will
also not find the word "nation" in a Hebrew translation of the Bible.
That's what translations are for: they enable people not conversant in a
foreign language to read things in their own language. It is a
marvelous tool and, without it, I doubt you would have read many of the
books you have read (assuming you have read many books). Included in
that are many masterpieces in English which, without a modern
translation, you would be unable to read. See how it works?
Gord McFee
In message <5f86gi$5...@camel2.mindspring.com> - r 1997 03:06:10 GMT:>
:>>Tell me you are not really this stupid, Mr. Luek. I thought you were
:>>joking, but this is getting ridiculous. No, you will not find the word
:>>"goy" in the King James version of the Bible, since that version was
:>>written in *English* and "goy" is not an English word. In fact, in the
:>>King James version, there is only one phrase used that is not English.
:>>Being the Biblical scholar you are, I am sure you know it by hea
:>Mr. McFee,
:>
:>This post was in the mid part of a discussion about the word "goy".
:>
:>Please do yourself a favor and read the the thread from top to bottom.
I have read the thread from top to bottom. It started with a claim that
"goy" is a derogatory word for Gentile. It transmuted into an argument
about whether the word "goy" is in the Bible. The answer was posted.
The word "goy" is in the Bible, at several locations, and some of them
have been given. You are insisting that the word "goy" must appear in
an English version of the Bible for anyone to claim that it is in the
Bible. That is silly.
:>You are taking things out of context.
You have established no context.
BTW, why didn't you answer my little question?
Jenn Starkman
In article <5f57dk$5...@camel4.mindspring.com>, ne...@noon.com (LUEK) wrote:
>pgr...@txdirect.net (pgroff) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:20:40 GMT, ne...@noon.com (LUEK) wrote:
>
>>Great, just great, now Luek you should *TRY* reading Isaiah in
>>*HEBREW*, gosh how novel. You might then run across the word/words,
>>Goy, Goyim, several times.
>
>Yeah, reading Isaiah in Hebrew would be novel but you have completely
>missed the point.
No, everybody here seems to get the point except you, in which case your
response is to backpedal and insist that you meant something other than what
you said.
>I will keep this very simple so you will not get more befuddled. The
>word "goy" IS or CAN BE (sic) interpreted by Hebrew scholars as
>meaning "nation" or "people."
Nonsense. It is simple and straightforward fact that the DEFINITION--the one
and only--of the word "goy" in Hebrew is "nation" or "people".
It is also simple and straightforward fact that the vernacular--whether used
in Yiddish or English--comes from the original Hebrew, and now refers to
nations of non-Jews, or "Gentiles".
>The contention is not about the HEBREW meaning of "goy" but the
>VERNACULAR meaning of the word.
And the general response was that the vernacular is based on the original
Hebrew, which never *has* had any negative connotation.
>The statement was made by a Holoconformist that the actual word "goy"
>is in the English language Bible. IT IS NOT!
That is just an out-and-out lie. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. But
just for the sake of letting you clarify: Who, exactly, stated that the word
"goy" is in the *English language* Bible, and where was this statement made?
It's easy--just point to or quote the article and prove that you're not lying
outright.
>The Holoconformist used this statement attempting a defense against
>the "vernacular" use of the word "goy".
The only contention I've seen made by your opponents that even remotely
resembles that is the assertion that the word "goy" appears numerous times in
the Bible--no comment on whether it appears in the English translation of
such.
>The vernacular use of the word "goy" is according to popular consensus used
>to refer to non-Jews in a defamatory way.(see below GOY, American Heritage
Dictionary)
>.........
>goy (goi) n., pl. goy·im (goi“¹m) or goys. Offensive. Used as a
>disparaging term for one who is not a Jew. [Yiddish, from Hebrew gôy,
>nation, one who is not Jewish, non-Jew, Jew ignorant of the Jewish
>religion.] --goy“ish adj.
>.........
The only "popular consensus" you have shown thus far is the "consensus" of one
person--you--who seems to be neither Jewish (and hence not qualified to make a
statement about "how Jews feel"), nor familiar with the Hebrew or Yiddish
languages beyond pure conjecture. As for the dictionary definition being the
be-all and end-all of proof, I give you the definition of "goy" presented in
my Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition:
***********
goy (goi) n., pl. goy'im (-im) [Yid. < Heb. göi, tribe, nation] a non-Jew;
gentile
***********
I believe this renders us even on the definitions, and gives me a couple of
points on you, since not only am I Jewish, and therefore a hell of a lot more
likely than you to know what I mean when I say, "goy", but I am also familiar
with the word in its original Yiddish and Hebrew contexts.
Any questions?
Jenn
Jenn Starkman
In article <5f57c8$5...@camel4.mindspring.com>, ne...@noon.com (LUEK) wrote:
>dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
>>ne...@noon.com (LUEK) writes:
>
>># The statement was made that the word "goy" is used
>># in the Bible.
>
>>Yes; for instance, while quickly going through the book
>>of Genesis, I found it in 21:18, 22:18, 26:4, and some
>>other locations.
>
>Yes you did! You found the word "nation". But did you find the actual
>word "goy"?
I don't know if he did, but I did. Of course, I found it in the Hebrew
translation, since "goy" is a Hebrew word and obviously would have been
translated in the English version to "nation".
Just so you can be sure, here it is in the transliteration of Genesis 21:18...
"Kumi sh'i et hana'ar v'hachaziki et yadech bo ki l'GOY gadol ashimenu"
^^^
..here it is in the transliterated Genesis 22:18...
"V'hitbarachnu b'zaracha kol GOYai [note: suffix indicates the plural
^^^
'nations'] ha'aretz . . ."
..and here it is in the transliterated Genesis 26:4...
". . .v'hitbarchu v'zaracha kol GOYai ha'aretz."
^^^
Any other questions?
Jenn
LUEK
dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>ne...@noon.com (LUEK) writes:
># The statement was made that the word "goy" is used
># in the Bible.
>Yes; for instance, while quickly going through the book
>of Genesis, I found it in 21:18, 22:18, 26:4, and some
>other locations.
># I am forced to conclude that the source of the statement
># that the word "goy is in the Bible" is from a liar and
># fraud who has a political agenda to keep.
>Do you always feel so confident when writing about things
>on which you haven't got a clue?
>-Danny Keren.
Does this particular "Bible" you are quoting from have the New
Testament in Hebrew also? It comes after the Old Testament you know.
Not meaning to go off on a tangent but very few people have seen a
Hebrew translation of the "Bible." It is useful to "Biblical"
scholars in their reseach so it would not have a very wide
circulation. Used for reference mostly I suppose. Of course a first
class translation of the Pentateuch would more than pay for itself in
researching the background and interpretation of the "Bible."
And having a working knowledge of Aramaic would be critical in
understanding the Hebrew translation of the "Bible." Research often is
built up upon "layers" you see.
Yiddish is really not seriously taken in true scholarship. The
foundation of "Yiddish" NOT being Hebrew, it would have very little
value unless you were studying the "Bible" in a Germanic dialect such
as a certain Mr. Mcfee seems to be doing. However, I personally
believe "Yiddish" would have marginal value in this pursuit. But I
digress.
I can not understand however (assuming your copy does) why the New
Testament part of your "Bible" would be in Hebrew. This is very
curious.
The "Bible" in Hebrew translation probably came in handy when the
"Bible" was translated into modern English giving us the King James
Version of the "Bible." But the biblos of the New Testament in
Hebrew? Must have been a real "hairball" translating it from GREEK!
Those GREEK words can be very tricky. Maybe that is where that old
saying "Seems Greek to me." came from.
LUEK
bb...@freenet.carleton.ca (Jenn Starkman) wrote:
A whole bunch of maniacal ravings, misquotes, hyperbole, defamation
and misinterpretation by Jenn Starkman snipped.
>>goy (goi) n., pl. goy·im (goi“¹m) or goys. Offensive. Used as a
>>disparaging term for one who is not a Jew. [Yiddish, from Hebrew gôy,
>>nation, one who is not Jewish, non-Jew, Jew ignorant of the Jewish
>>religion.] --goy“ish adj.
>>.........
>The only "popular consensus" you have shown thus far is the "consensus" of one
>person--you--who seems to be neither Jewish (and hence not qualified to make a
>statement about "how Jews feel"),
>Seems to be neither Jewish
An example of racist arrogance at its worse!
>(and hence not qualified to make a
>statement about "how Jews feel"),
Nope, never ever made any statement or inference concerning the
feelings of others. You're a bigoted hate monger Starkman and not a
very nice person at all.
> nor familiar with the Hebrew or Yiddish
>languages beyond pure conjecture. As for the dictionary definition being the
>be-all and end-all of proof, I give you the definition of "goy" presented in
>my Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition:
>***********
>goy (goi) n., pl. goy'im (-im) [Yid. < Heb. göi, tribe, nation] a non-Jew;
>gentile
>**********
The classic example of selective interpretation. Hate mongers often
use this ploy.
>I believe this renders us even on the definitions, and gives me a couple of
>points on you
In your dreams, bigot!
>, since not only am I Jewish,
So you want a medal maybe?
>and therefore a hell of a lot more
>likely than you to know what I mean when I say, "goy", but I am also familiar
>with the word in its original Yiddish and Hebrew contexts.
Kind of like saying "Blacks can not be racist."
>Any questions?
Yes just one. Are you the village idiot in your hometown?
Anthony Sabatini
Mark Van Alstine <mvan...@rbi.com> wrote in article
<mvanalst-250...@rbi148.rbi.com>...
> In article <5eu08q$t...@camel2.mindspring.com>, l...@blaze.com wrote:
>
> > madd...@connexus.apana.org.au (David S. Maddison) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >I feel this hate they feel is due to a lack of parental love at a
young
> > >age and this is well understood within modern psychology, however,
whilst
> > >their hateful outlook on life is related to a deficit in their
upbringing,
> > >it does not excuse their behaviour. A Nazi is a Nazi is a Nazi and
these
> > >people should always be held liable for their views and their crimes.
The
> > >reasoning for this is that, except in very rare circumstances, people
are
> > >fundamentally responsible for their actions because they are aware
that
> > >what they are doing is wrong.you are too committed to your hateful
> ideaology.
> > >Don't you realise hate is wrong? As soon as you realise this, you can
start
> > >to develop, stop being knuckle-draggers and take a position in
society.
> >
> >
> > >Think about it.
> >
> > >David Maddison
> >
> >
> > Have you met "SOG" Dave?
>
> You mean the poster/troller who is reminiscent in his peurile and
> vitriolic personal attacks, for example, of deniers/anti-Semites/Nazi
> bootlickers like:
>
> The Giwer-swine
> "Doc Tavish"
> Mr. Bellinger
> Mr. Smith
> Mr. "Sabatini"
> The H*ber(tm)
> The Moran(tm)
No, he means the slanderous curs like:
Mark Van Alstine
Allan Mathews
Daniel Keren
SOG
(There are others, but I would not insult them by categorizing them with
the likes of the above)
For a good laugh, you can explore their exploits at Deja News
(http://www.dejanews.com); Disclaimer: bring a barf bag just in case!
[snip]
> Can you say "killfile?"
Can you say, "misbegotten jackal-spawn?"
[.sig snipped]
Mark Van Alstine (allegedly one Stuart Pidley) is, as far as I can tell, a
virulent spewer of mistruths, a slanderous serpent and has a most peculiar
interest for building demolition procedures, something which most honest
citizens do not share. His ranting, mewling and temper tantrums, along with
his foul verbiage and assorted excrement, can be found regularly in
alt.revisionism, one of his favorite haunts.
For more information on this incorrigible poisonous snake, please see:
http://search.dejanews.com/profile.xp?author=van%20alstine%20mark
http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/v/van-alstine.mark
Yale F. Edeiken
> "Anthony Sabatini" <anth...@infobahnos.com> writes:
> Mark Van Alstine <mvan...@rbi.com> wrote in article
> > You mean the poster/troller who is reminiscent in his peurile and
> > vitriolic personal attacks, for example, of deniers/anti-Semites/Nazi
> > bootlickers like:
> > The Giwer-swine
> > "Doc Tavish"
> > Mr. Bellinger
> > Mr. Smith
> > Mr. "Sabatini"
> > The H*ber(tm)
> > The Moran(tm)
> No, he means the slanderous curs like:
> Mark Van Alstine
> Allan Mathews
> Daniel Keren
> SOG
> (There are others, but I would not insult them by categorizing them with
> the likes of the above)
Thank you for, at long last, admitting your double standard.
> For a good laugh, you can explore their exploits at Deja News
> (http://www.dejanews.com); Disclaimer: bring a barf bag just in case!
And anybody who does so and, upon comparing the writings of Van
Alstine, Mathews and Keren to Moran, the criminal Giwer and the "Tavish"-Phelps
crowd believes that you are not beating the drum for a crowd of bigots, should be
advised to keep that deed they bought to that bridge in Brooklyn in a safe place.
They might be able to trade it for oceanfront property in Arizona someday.
--YFE
Jenn Starkman
In article <5f718i$4...@camel4.mindspring.com>, ne...@noon.com (LUEK) wrote:
>Annie Alpert <mias...@ccnis.net> wrote:
>
>>> I am forced to conclude that the source of the statement that the word
>>> "goy is in the Bible" is from a liar and fraud who has a political
>>> agenda to keep.
>>>
>
>>Has it occured to you that many Yiddish words were originally found in
>>the Hebrew language? Isn't this conversation getting a little silly?
>>You seem to be looking for ways to criticise Jews at all costs. Why be
>>so fixated?
>
>Has it occured to you that words change meaning over time because they
>go through social and historical filters? Let me give you some
>examples: The word GAY as used today can refer to homosexuality.
>The same word 100 years ago would never have had that connotation.
>Referring to someone or something as COOL today does not necessarily
>mean the temperature of that person or object.
Then again, unlike the word "gay", which generally only means one thing these
days, the word "cool" can be taken as meaning one of a number of different
things--it has evolved, in other words, but not changed meanings completely.
It's sort of like the word "goy", in other words, which now refers to a
Gentile, or non-Jew, as opposed to the original meaning, which was simply
"nation".
>The word GOY can now be interpreted in the vernacular as a derogatory
>and demeaning term because it has undergone similar changes as have
>the two previous examples.
Virtually *any* word can be *interpreted* as a derogatory and demeaning term,
depending on the attitude and tone of the person saying it--the word "special"
being a prime example, as it is a perfectly innocuous word which, when used
sarcastically, is terribly condescending. This is a matter of the intention
of the person saying it, however, and does not necessarily say anything about
the word itself. The same can be said for the term "goy", which is an
innocuous term meaning "Gentile" but like anything else, when used in a
condescending manner (again, reflecting on the person saying it, rather than
the word itself) comes across as being derogatory.
Simple enough, really.
Jenn
Jenn Starkman
In article <5f8p64$22...@cymbal.aix.calpoly.edu>,
dis...@cymbal.aix.calpoly.edu (David James Isham) wrote:
>In article <5f6uum$8...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>Jenn Starkman <bb...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
>>In article <8570068...@dejanews.com>,
>> madd...@connexus.apana.org.au wrote:
re: the word "goy"
>>>It is not a disparaging term in its general usage, like most other terms
>>>such as "teacher" or "plumber". Most dictionaries do not say it is
>>>disparaging in any way, and neither would you if you knew what it meant.
>>
>>Actually, I'm just curious as to which "Webster's" dictionary he has. The
>>Webster's New World Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, that I have, gives the
>>meaning of the word "goy" as simply "a non-Jew; gentile".
>
>The following definition is taken from the Random House UNABRIDGED
Dictionary.
>Second Ed.
>
>goy (goi), n. Often Disparaging.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So is the word "special", which reflects wholly on the person's attitude who
is using the word, and not at all on the actual meaning of that word, which in
this case is...
>a non-Jewish person; gentile.
Jenn
Jenn Starkman
In article <857151...@BBS.Orbiter.Com>, Sla...@orbiter.com wrote:
>
>bb...@freenet.carleton.ca wrote:
>
>> I guess that puts the Jews one up on you in terms of patriotism, then, as
>> Judaism teaches that one must follow the law of the land in which one lives
>> as closely as one would follow that of the religion.
>
>times on yom kipur basically says that a kike is not suspost to keep
>oaths vows or pledges.
I don't know where *you've* been studying, or which "Kol Nidre" *you've* been
saying, but after studying Judaism for 15 years, formally, and informally
since then, *I* have never come across a "Kol Nidre" that said that I as a Jew
am "not suspost to keep oaths vows or pledges (sic)".
Does the word "context" mean anything to you?
I didn't think so...
Jenn
SOG
I examine the rectum and choose to dwell therin.
Tavish McScum
Rajiv K. Gandhi
In article <01bc272d$2b64a900$537213cc@server>, "Anthony Sabatini"
<anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
>Mark Van Alstine
>Allan Mathews
>Daniel Keren
[snip]
>For a good laugh, you can explore their exploits at Deja News
>(http://www.dejanews.com); Disclaimer: bring a barf bag just in case!
[snip]
Can you provide SPECIFIC, working URLs which will demonstrate the
slandering nature of these three individuals ?
I ask, because I have yet to see any of them make an unsubstantiated
claim, and I would like to know if I have missed anything. I'd also note
that I had previously asked you for a similar reference regarding Mr. Van
Alstine; however, you have yet to provide me with a working URL in
response to that request.
-------------------
Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds. (Gandhiji)
Keith Morrison
LUEK wrote:
> ># The statement was made that the word "goy" is used
> ># in the Bible.
>
> >Yes; for instance, while quickly going through the book
> >of Genesis, I found it in 21:18, 22:18, 26:4, and some
> >other locations.
>
> ># I am forced to conclude that the source of the statement
> ># that the word "goy is in the Bible" is from a liar and
> ># fraud who has a political agenda to keep.
>
> >Do you always feel so confident when writing about things
> >on which you haven't got a clue?
>
> >-Danny Keren.
>
> Does this particular "Bible" you are quoting from have the New
> Testament in Hebrew also? It comes after the Old Testament you know.
Your point being? All the quotations were taken from the Old Testament.
You know, the one that all the following babbling is *not* talking about?
Allan Matthews
In article <5fcood$a...@news.enter.net>, ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>> "Anthony Sabatini" <anth...@infobahnos.com> writes:
>> Mark Van Alstine <mvan...@rbi.com> wrote in article
>
>> > You mean the poster/troller who is reminiscent in his peurile and
>> > vitriolic personal attacks, for example, of deniers/anti-Semites/Nazi
>> > bootlickers like:
>
>> > The Giwer-swine
>> > "Doc Tavish"
>> > Mr. Bellinger
>> > Mr. Smith
>> > Mr. "Sabatini"
>> > The H*ber(tm)
>> > The Moran(tm)
>
>> No, he means the slanderous curs like:
>
>> Allan Mathews
>> Daniel Keren
>> (There are others, but I would not insult them by categorizing them with
>> the likes of the above)
>
>
> Thank you for, at long last, admitting your double standard.
>
>> (http://www.dejanews.com); Disclaimer: bring a barf bag just in case!
Boy, oh, boy! I made little"Tony's" short list! What an "honor." At least
you could learn to spell my name right, fascist turd. Also, please note that
I use my real name - not some panzy alias like most nazi-wannabees.
Please also outline for me my supposed slanders, as this is the first I've
heard about them. While you're at it, please tell me your latest excuse for
that "lunchtime" comment of yours.
allan
=================================================
amat...@cybercom.net
=================================================
A monk asked Un Mun, "What is Buddha?"
Un Mun replied, "Dry shit on a stick."
=================================================
http://www.cybercom.net/~amatthews/amatthews.html
=================================================
Allison Tait
Sla...@orbiter.com wrote:
: I guess that is why the prayer the Kol Nidrey that is chanted three
: times on yom kipur basically says that a kike is not suspost to keep
: oaths vows or pledges.
This is a common misconception, however, the Kol Nidre (all vows) service
only asks G-d to annul all personal vows between *the person making them*
and *G-d*.
G-d cannot annul vows made between people. Therefore, Jews are
encouraged to spend the day before Yom Kippur asking forgiveness *of
other people* for any broken vows between them.
If you would like more information on the Yom Kippur liturgy,
the Artscroll siddurim for the High Holidays are very good, and have an
English translation along with the Hebrew. Or, for starters, you could
check out http://user03.blue.aol.com/jewfaq/holiday4.htm, or
www.melizo.com/holidays/highholydays/yom.htm
: --
Anthony Sabatini
Allan Matthews <amat...@cybercom.net> wrote in article
<5fcah7$bos$1...@lator.cybercom.net>...
I don't really have a "list", as you call it. The above is just a sampling.
> At least
> you could learn to spell my name right,
I apologize for misspelling your name -- it was not done intentionally.
> fascist turd.
Ah. I see.
> Also, please note that
> I use my real name - not some panzy alias like most nazi-wannabees.
So? What has this got to do with anything?
> Please also outline for me my supposed slanders, as this is the first
I've
> heard about them.
Please take a trip to Deja News and do a search on yourself. Read some
sample posts and you'll get the idea. And while you haven't slandered me
personally, your first post in response to one of mine was:
"Perhaps, but you'll always be an ignorant moron. BTW, its spelled
'Buddhist,' or were you trying to sound it out while drunk?"
Like a mad charging bull, you came crashing down on someone who has never
said anything bad to you personally. And this was in response to a joke!
You later accused me of being an "Aryan", something I have never even
thought of, called me an "ignorant dolt" and a "fool", all in one post!
Bravo, Mr. Matthews!
> While you're at it, please tell me your latest excuse for
> that "lunchtime" comment of yours.
The barf bag is to be used when reading stuff from SOGgy -- some of his
posts are pretty disgusting.
Allan Matthews
In article <01bc2785$bc043fe0$567213cc@server>, "Anthony Sabatini" <anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
>Allan Matthews <amat...@cybercom.net> wrote in article
>
>I don't really have a "list", as you call it. The above is just a sampling.
Looked like a list to me. Are these "just a sampling" of the "Nizkorites"
you'd like to see jailed simply for their public statements?
>> fascist turd.
>
>Ah. I see.
I notice that you've creatively cropped my original post - something you
routinely blow a gasket about others doing. You said something about a play
on words... However, I still say you're a fascist turd. Play with those
words - preferably in heavy traffic.
>> Please also outline for me my supposed slanders, as this is the first
>>I've heard about them.
>
>Please take a trip to Deja News and do a search on yourself.
Ok, so? I don't see any slanders there - by me anyway.
>Read some sample posts and you'll get the idea.
Nope. You must be talking about some of your own posts, or maybe those of
folks you defend like the Giwer-swine or the Tavish clan.
>And while you haven't slandered me personally, your first post in response to
>one of mine was:
>
>"Perhaps, but you'll always be an ignorant moron. BTW, its spelled
>'Buddhist,' or were you trying to sound it out while drunk?"
I believe I responded to your ignorant posts before this one. However, this
was as good a place to start as any - you are an ignorant moron.
>Like a mad charging bull, you came crashing down on someone who has never
>said anything bad to you personally.
Big deal. Too bad. Live with it. I often come crashing down on revisionazis
and their ilk.
>And this was in response to a joke!
Hardy, har, har! A comedian you'll never be. A joke, yes, but never a
comedian.
>You later accused me of being an "Aryan", something I have never even
>thought of, called me an "ignorant dolt" and a "fool", all in one post!
>Bravo, Mr. Matthews!
Thank you very much. However, any praise from you is faint indeed. You
should understand by now that you often will be judged by the intellectual
(using the term loosely in your case) company you keep - folks like the
criminal Giwer, the Moron and the H*bers - proud Aryans all.
>> While you're at it, please tell me your latest excuse for
>> that "lunchtime" comment of yours.
>
>The barf bag is to be used when reading stuff from SOGgy -- some of his
>posts are pretty disgusting.
Congrats! Another pathetic dodge. What has that SOGgy fool to do with your
authoritarian "joke" about throwing "Nizkorites" in jail for what they say?
Quit trying to change the subject. (now we'll wait and see what brilliant
excuse you come up with this time...)
Keep up the good work "Tony" - someday you might be as foolish and
entertaining as Leslie Griswold used to be around here.
Jenn Starkman
In article <5faoub$s...@camel4.mindspring.com>, ne...@noon.com (LUEK) wrote:
>bb...@freenet.carleton.ca (Jenn Starkman) wrote:
>
>A whole bunch of maniacal ravings, misquotes, hyperbole, defamation
>and misinterpretation by Jenn Starkman snipped.
In other words, all the things he couldn't even *attempt* to refute, as
opposed to the ones he vainly attempted to refute below.
>>The only "popular consensus" you have shown thus far is the "consensus" of
>>one person--you--who seems to be neither Jewish (and hence not qualified to
>>make a statement about "how Jews feel"),
>
>>Seems to be neither Jewish
>
>An example of racist arrogance at its worse!
How is that racist *or* arrogant? I merely noted that you didn't seem to be
Jewish. If I am mistaken, and you *are* Jewish, then I apologize.
>>(and hence not qualified to make a
>>statement about "how Jews feel"),
>
>Nope, never ever made any statement or inference concerning the
>feelings of others.
Actually, you stated that the word "goy" was a derogatory term, inferring that
in using that word, a Jew was feeling animosity or dislike towards the person
being referred to.
>You're a bigoted hate monger Starkman and not a
>very nice person at all.
What makes you say that? Or did you run out of relevant things to say and
figure you'd attack my personality?
>>nor familiar with the Hebrew or Yiddish languages beyond pure conjecture.
>>As for the dictionary definition being the be-all and end-all of proof, I
>>give you the definition of "goy" presented in my Webster's New World
>>Dictionary, Second College Edition:
>
>>***********
>>goy (goi) n., pl. goy'im (-im) [Yid. < Heb. göi, tribe, nation] a non-Jew;
>>gentile
>>**********
>
>The classic example of selective interpretation. Hate mongers often
>use this ploy.
Funny, since you set a precedent by quoting a dictionary definition of the
word "goy", which I merely followed by pointing out the contradictory
definition in another dictionary, does that make you a hate monger too?
How exactly is a definition, quoted verbatim from a dictionary, "selective
interpretation" anyway? And does this mean that you are practising the same?
>>I believe this renders us even on the definitions, and gives me a couple of
>>points on you
>
>In your dreams, bigot!
Rather than calling me names, perhaps you'd care to point out the inaccuracies
of my statement?
>>, since not only am I Jewish,
>
>So you want a medal maybe?
Is there any particular reason why you keep going off on tangents and ignoring
the subject at hand by making snide personal remarks at me? Could it be that
you don't actually have anything to refute what I've said?
>>and therefore a hell of a lot more likely than you to know what I mean when
>>I say, "goy", but I am also familiar
>>with the word in its original Yiddish and Hebrew contexts.
>
>Kind of like saying "Blacks can not be racist."
No, not at all like that. In fact, I'm curious as to what you think the
connection is. It's not "kind of like" anything. It's a simple statement
that means exactly what it says--that *nobody* is likely to understand my
intentions better than I am myself, and that this is made doubly so by the
fact that in this particular case I am also more familiar with the linguistics
at hand than you are.
>>Any questions?
>
>Yes just one. Are you the village idiot in your hometown?
Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear--I was inviting *relevant* and
*topical* questions.
Jenn
LUEK
On Tue, 04 Mar 97 00:27:41 GMT, you wrote:
>>>The only "popular consensus" you have shown thus far is the "consensus" of
>>>one person--you--who seems to be neither Jewish (and hence not qualified to
>>>make a statement about "how Jews feel"),
>>
>>>Seems to be neither Jewish
>>
>>An example of racist arrogance at its worse!
>How is that racist *or* arrogant? I merely noted that you didn't seem to be
>Jewish. If I am mistaken, and you *are* Jewish, then I apologize.
You stereotype people Starkman! There is no other way you could have
come up with that statement. "Seems to be neither Jewish," indeed!
Stereotyping is racial arrogance at its worst. Just for the sake of
argument, what would "tip you off" that someone was Jewish by simply
reading their posts? I am curious about this really.
>>>(and hence not qualified to make a
>>>statement about "how Jews feel"),
>>
>>Nope, never ever made any statement or inference concerning the
>>feelings of others.
>Actually, you stated that the word "goy" was a derogatory term,
Goy can be used in a demeaning way. So can many other words. Why is
this a problem with you?
> inferring that
>in using that word, a Jew was feeling animosity or dislike towards the person
>being referred to.
Never INFERRED any such of a thing. Are you deliberately trying to
mislead?
Your true nature is beginning to show here.
>>You're a bigoted hate monger Starkman and not a
>>very nice person at all.
>What makes you say that? Or did you run out of relevant things to say and
>figure you'd attack my personality?
Oh! Your personality is vulnerable to attack?
How could that be?
Aren't you infallible and superior in every way?
You obviously know every damn thing in the world.
Hey, what do you have to be insecure about?
>>>nor familiar with the Hebrew or Yiddish languages beyond pure conjecture.
>>>As for the dictionary definition being the be-all and end-all of proof, I
>>>give you the definition of "goy" presented in my Webster's New World
>>>Dictionary, Second College Edition:
>>
>>>***********
>>>goy (goi) n., pl. goy'im (-im) [Yid. < Heb. göi, tribe, nation] a non-Jew;
>>>gentile
>>>**********
>>
>>The classic example of selective interpretation. Hate mongers often
>>use this ploy.
>Funny, since you set a precedent by quoting a dictionary definition of the
>word "goy", which I merely followed by pointing out the contradictory
>definition in another dictionary, does that make you a hate monger too?
One uses an UNABRIDGED edition of a dictionary if one whats to
research the definitive meaning of a word. An ABRIDGED dictionary will
only give a truncated superficial definition. Such as you quoted!
>How exactly is a definition, quoted verbatim from a dictionary, "selective
>interpretation" anyway? And does this mean that you are practising the same?
See above.
>>>I believe this renders us even on the definitions, and gives me a couple of
>>>points on you
>>
>>In your dreams, bigot!
>Rather than calling me names, perhaps you'd care to point out the inaccuracies
>of my statement?
>>>, since not only am I Jewish,
>>
>>So you want a medal maybe?
>Is there any particular reason why you keep going off on tangents and ignoring
>the subject at hand by making snide personal remarks at me? Could it be that
>you don't actually have anything to refute what I've said?
No, but if you had particularly bad body odor Starkman I would have to
hold my nose when around you. Holding my nose would be a defensive
jesture in response to your poor hygiene habits.
>>>and therefore a hell of a lot more likely than you to know what I mean when
>>>I say, "goy", but I am also familiar
>>>with the word in its original Yiddish and Hebrew contexts.
>>
>>>Any questions?
SOG
They do what they do because they know not what they do. Jesus would
definately not approve of waht the deniers attempt to do.
SOG
cjsa...@netcom.ca wrote in article <33148773...@nntp.netcruiser>...
> madd...@connexus.apana.org.au (David S. Maddison) wrote:
>
> >I never fail to be moved by how much hate the Nazi boneheads who post on
> >this group feel for Jews and most other people.
>
> The Jews have a word for us non-Jews: "goy." My Webster's dictionary
> defines it as "Gentile," but it says that is is a disparaging term. I
> believe the literal translation is "human cattle."
>
> >A Nazi is a Nazi is a Nazi and these people should always be held liable
> >for their views and their crimes.
>
> I agree with you! If a "Nazi" commits a crime, he should be punished.
> Of course I'm not referring to the bullshit hate laws that we have in
> Canada, and other politically motivated laws.
>
> While we're on the subject of hate and crimes, you should take a look
> at the "Anti-Racist Action" web site. They are a Toronto-based
> terrorist group. They use violence and intimidation to further their
> goals. In one extreme incident, they trashed a man's home! They
> often attack Ernst Zundel's home as well.
>
>
>
Yale F. Edeiken
> ne...@noon.com (LUEK) writes:
Jenn Starman wrote:
> >How is that racist *or* arrogant? I merely noted that you didn't seem to be
> >Jewish. If I am mistaken, and you *are* Jewish, then I apologize.
> You stereotype people Starkman! There is no other way you could have
> come up with that statement. "Seems to be neither Jewish," indeed!
> Stereotyping is racial arrogance at its worst. Just for the sake of
> argument, what would "tip you off" that someone was Jewish by simply
> reading their posts? I am curious about this really.
In your case, the abyssmal ignorance.
> >Actually, you stated that the word "goy" was a derogatory term,
> Goy can be used in a demeaning way. So can many other words. Why is
> this a problem with you?
Many words can be used in a demeaning way. Your statements
were clearly based on the assertion that it was demeaning per se. That is a horse of
a different color.
> Never INFERRED any such of a thing. Are you deliberately trying to
> mislead?
You have most certainly done so.
> Your true nature is beginning to show here.
Please give us all a *coffee alert* before making statements like this. It
saves wear and tear on the monitor.
> One uses an UNABRIDGED edition of a dictionary if one whats to
> research the definitive meaning of a word. An ABRIDGED dictionary will
> only give a truncated superficial definition. Such as you quoted!
The definitive dictionary on word use in English is the OED. It disagrees
with your characterization of the word. For a contrast see their entry under "bitch"
which has both innocent and derogatory meanings.
--YFE
Jenn Starkman
>Not meaning to go off on a tangent but very few people have seen a
>Hebrew translation of the "Bible."
How many people, approximately, is "very few", LUEK?
I ask because on an individual level I know that virtually every member of
every synagogue, every person who has ever attended a Jewish school from
elementary school to the post-secondary level, every person who has studied
just about any facet of Judaism, every person who has picked up a Bible in a
Judaica store, or who has attended a wedding, baby-naming, or other religious
ceremony of friend or family which took place in a synagogue...has seen a
Hebrew translation of the Bible, and that is just a beginning.
I'm certainly not foolish enough to assume that anything but a *minority* of
people, in general terms, have seen a Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, but a
minority is *far* from the same as "very few", wouldn't you say?
Jenn
Rajiv K. Gandhi
In article <01bc2918$46222cd0$427213cc@server>, "Anthony Sabatini"
<anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
>> Can you provide SPECIFIC, working URLs which will demonstrate the
>> slandering nature of these three individuals ?
>
>Unfortunately, URLs to messages stored at Deja News are not static -- they
>are dynamically created when you query the database. Visit Deja News and
>take a look at the 'author profiles' for these guys.
I have visited DejaNews on numerous occasions, and have yet to discover
the articles.
>> I ask, because I have yet to see any of them make an unsubstantiated
>> claim, and I would like to know if I have missed anything. I'd also note
>> that I had previously asked you for a similar reference regarding Mr. Van
>> Alstine; however, you have yet to provide me with a working URL in
>> response to that request.
>
>Van Alstine and Keren continuously slander me with lies about me being a
>"Nazi", "anti-Semite", et. al. Proof is available in any other their
>replies to my posts. As for the others, please peruse Deja News.
Again, I have visited DejaNews, and am unable to locate any instance where
you are 'slandered.'
>Mr. Gandhi, I realize you are trying to defend your 'buddies' in front of
>the lurkers, but your attempts are just too transparent. Do a little
>research at Deja News and you will see that your 'buddies' are not the
>angels they want to portray, as I am fairly certain you well know.
Oh please. I'm not trying to defend anybody. I'd simply like you to
provide some sort of evidence with respect to your accusation of slander.
Anthony Sabatini
Rajiv K. Gandhi <gan...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<gandhi-0203...@vcta01m03-149.bctel.ca>...
> In article <01bc272d$2b64a900$537213cc@server>, "Anthony Sabatini"> [snip]
>
> >For a good laugh, you can explore their exploits at Deja News
> >(http://www.dejanews.com); Disclaimer: bring a barf bag just in case!
>
>
> Can you provide SPECIFIC, working URLs which will demonstrate the
> slandering nature of these three individuals ?
Unfortunately, URLs to messages stored at Deja News are not static -- they
are dynamically created when you query the database. Visit Deja News and
take a look at the 'author profiles' for these guys.
> I ask, because I have yet to see any of them make an unsubstantiated
> claim, and I would like to know if I have missed anything. I'd also note
> that I had previously asked you for a similar reference regarding Mr. Van
> Alstine; however, you have yet to provide me with a working URL in
> response to that request.
Van Alstine and Keren continuously slander me with lies about me being a
"Nazi", "anti-Semite", et. al. Proof is available in any other their
replies to my posts. As for the others, please peruse Deja News.
Mr. Gandhi, I realize you are trying to defend your 'buddies' in front of
the lurkers, but your attempts are just too transparent. Do a little
research at Deja News and you will see that your 'buddies' are not the
angels they want to portray, as I am fairly certain you well know.
[.sig snipped]
CCed to Rajiv K. Gandhi.
LUEK
bb...@freenet.carleton.ca (Jenn Starkman) wrote:
Are you implying that there is a Judaic version of the New
Testament?!?!
> but a
>minority is *far* from the same as "very few", wouldn't you say?
>Jenn
Instead of using the word "Bible" in Temple how about substituting
"Sifrei Hakodesh."
The word "Bible" has a few problems in your context.
Its historical links are closer to Christianity than to Judaism.
Jenn Starkman
In article <5fg10q$n...@camel4.mindspring.com>, ne...@noon.com (LUEK) wrote:
>
>On Tue, 04 Mar 97 00:27:41 GMT, I, Jenn Starkman, wrote:
>
>>How is that racist *or* arrogant? I merely noted that you didn't seem to be
>>Jewish. If I am mistaken, and you *are* Jewish, then I apologize.
>
>You stereotype people Starkman!
Where, exactly, do you see me stereotyping *anyone*?
>There is no other way you could have come up with that statement.
Bzzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing.
Does the word "logic" mean anything to you?
>Just for the sake of argument, what would "tip you off" that someone was
>Jewish by simply reading their posts? I am curious about this really.
The only thing that would tip me off that someone *was* Jewish from a post
would be if they said that they were. On the other hand, what made it *seem*
that YOU were NOT Jewish is the fact that you have openly expressed your
dislike of and enmity towards Jews, as well as attempting to perpetuate
derogatory stereotypes of Jews, in previous posts. Next question?
>>>Nope, never ever made any statement or inference concerning the
>>>feelings of others.
>
>>Actually, you stated that the word "goy" was a derogatory term,
>
>Goy can be used in a demeaning way. So can many other words. Why is
>this a problem with you?
Not at all--in fact, as you may recall, I was the one who pointed that out, in
*response* to the fact that your original assertion was not that the word
"goy" *could* be used in a demeaning way, but that it was, in ANY context, a
derogatory term.
>> inferring that in using that word, a Jew was feeling animosity or dislike
>>towards the person being referred to.
>
>Never INFERRED any such of a thing. Are you deliberately trying to
>mislead?
Mislead who, and how? In the world of the rational, to say that a word is
derogatory is, logically speaking, to infer that those who use it do so out of
animosity or dislike towards the subject being described.
>Your true nature is beginning to show here.
I'm glad that you're catching on to the fact that I'm a fairly level-headed,
civil, intelligent person, then.
>>>You're a bigoted hate monger Starkman and not a
>>>very nice person at all.
>
>>What makes you say that? Or did you run out of relevant things to say and
>>figure you'd attack my personality?
>
>Oh! Your personality is vulnerable to attack?
That you attack something, darling, doesn't necessarily imply that it is
vulnerable. It means nothing more and nothing less than that you have chosen
to attack it--whether that be a futile endeavour or not.
>How could that be?
>Aren't you infallible and superior in every way?
Haven't you got something more important, or at least relevant, to say here
than "you're mean", and "[insert sarcastic comment which has nothing to do
with anything here]"?
>You obviously know every damn thing in the world.
No, but I obviously *do* know a couple of damn things more than you do.
<sweet smile>
>Hey, what do you have to be insecure about?
Nothing. That's why I'm not insecure. Did you think that I was?
>>Is there any particular reason why you keep going off on tangents and
>>ignoring the subject at hand by making snide personal remarks at me? Could
>>it be that you don't actually have anything to refute what I've said?
>
>No, but if you had particularly bad body odor Starkman I would have to
>hold my nose when around you. Holding my nose would be a defensive
>jesture in response to your poor hygiene habits.
Your point being...what? That you call me names as an involuntary act of
defensiveness based on my actions (those being pointing out the
inconsistencies in what you've said)?
Jenn
LUEK
bb...@freenet.carleton.ca (Jenn Starkman) wrote:
>In article <5fg10q$n...@camel4.mindspring.com>, ne...@noon.com (LUEK) wrote:
>>
>>On Tue, 04 Mar 97 00:27:41 GMT, I, Jenn Starkman, wrote:
>>
>>>How is that racist *or* arrogant? I merely noted that you didn't seem to be
>>>Jewish. If I am mistaken, and you *are* Jewish, then I apologize.
>>
>>You stereotype people Starkman!
>Where, exactly, do you see me stereotyping *anyone*?
Seems rather obvious to me.
>>There is no other way you could have come up with that statement.
>Bzzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing.
>Does the word "logic" mean anything to you?
Do those funny little buzzing sounds go off in you head often
Starkman? (indication of possible organic (CNS) brain damage)
>>Just for the sake of argument, what would "tip you off" that someone was
>>Jewish by simply reading their posts? I am curious about this really.
>The only thing that would tip me off that someone *was* Jewish from a post
>would be if they said that they were.
If they said they were the patriarch Abraham would you believe them?
> On the other hand, what made it *seem*
>that YOU were NOT Jewish is the fact that you have openly expressed your
>dislike of and enmity towards Jews, as well as attempting to perpetuate
>derogatory stereotypes of Jews, in previous posts. Next question?
Have you ever been given a prescription for PROZAC?
>>>>Nope, never ever made any statement or inference concerning the
>>>>feelings of others.
>>
Starkman you may indeed be hearing things in your mind that nobody
ever said! And you may sincerely believe that something was said when
it was not.
>>>Actually, you stated that the word "goy" was a derogatory term,
>>
>>Goy can be used in a demeaning way. So can many other words. Why is
>>this a problem with you?
>Not at all--in fact, as you may recall, I was the one who pointed that out, in
>*response* to the fact that your original assertion was not that the word
>"goy" *could* be used in a demeaning way, but that it was, in ANY context, a
>derogatory term.
Christ's sake give it a rest Starkman, really!
>>> inferring that in using that word, a Jew was feeling animosity or dislike
>>>towards the person being referred to.
>>
>>Never INFERRED any such of a thing. Are you deliberately trying to
>>mislead?
>Mislead who, and how? In the world of the rational, to say that a word is
>derogatory is, logically speaking, to infer that those who use it do so out of
>animosity or dislike towards the subject being described.
Hearing voices Starkman?
>>Your true nature is beginning to show here.
>I'm glad that you're catching on to the fact that I'm a fairly level-headed,
>civil, intelligent person, then.
Delusions of grandeur and infallibility?
Next week you may be Napolean?
>>>>You're a bigoted hate monger Starkman and not a
>>>>very nice person at all.
>>
>>>What makes you say that? Or did you run out of relevant things to say and
>>>figure you'd attack my personality?
Paranoid persecution syndrome?
>>
>>Oh! Your personality is vulnerable to attack?
>That you attack something, darling, doesn't necessarily imply that it is
>vulnerable. It means nothing more and nothing less than that you have chosen
>to attack it--whether that be a futile endeavour or not.
The above statement is totally incoherent! Can not make sense of it
at all!
>>How could that be?
>>Aren't you infallible and superior in every way?
>Haven't you got something more important, or at least relevant, to say here
>than "you're mean", and "[insert sarcastic comment which has nothing to do
>with anything here]"?
>>You obviously know every damn thing in the world.
>No, but I obviously *do* know a couple of damn things more than you do.
><sweet smile>
Megalomania?
>>Hey, what do you have to be insecure about?
>Nothing. That's why I'm not insecure. Did you think that I was?
Gosh, what could possibly make me think that!
>>>Is there any particular reason why you keep going off on tangents and
>>>ignoring the subject at hand by making snide personal remarks at me? Could
>>>it be that you don't actually have anything to refute what I've said?
>>
>>No, but if you had particularly bad body odor Starkman I would have to
>>hold my nose when around you. Holding my nose would be a defensive
>>jesture in response to your poor hygiene habits.
>Your point being...what? That you call me names as an involuntary act of
>defensiveness based on my actions (those being pointing out the
>inconsistencies in what you've said)?
A paranoid persecution disorder coupled with a messianic complex.
Possible organic central nervous system pathology indicated.
>Jenn
SOG
A looser and fool named slayer, gets on his knees to say prayers. Aldoph
his god is burried neat the sod of a place that is the devil's own lair.
Now asskissing slayer mcswine, drunk on the fruit of the vine, spouts his
vile contept whilst smoking his hemp and posts his continuous whine.
We must all watch out for the Jews, but again that's hardly news he and his
pals probably boys not gals are loosers with nothing to lose.
Now Slayer the son a pig, with a brain the size of a twig, regales us with
shit which he thinks is wit and only his beltline is big.
SOG
Allison Tait <at...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in article
<5fdkd4$f...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>...
Anthony Sabatini
> In article <01bc2918$46222cd0$427213cc@server>, "Anthony Sabatini"
> <anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
>
> >> Can you provide SPECIFIC, working URLs which will demonstrate the
> >> slandering nature of these three individuals ?
> >
> >Unfortunately, URLs to messages stored at Deja News are not static --
they
> >are dynamically created when you query the database. Visit Deja News and
> >take a look at the 'author profiles' for these guys.
>
> the articles.
Just take a look at Van Alstine's .sig whenever he replies to one of my
posts. In the case of Keren, read some of his recent posts.
> >> I ask, because I have yet to see any of them make an unsubstantiated
> >> claim, and I would like to know if I have missed anything. I'd also
note
> >> that I had previously asked you for a similar reference regarding Mr.
Van
> >> Alstine; however, you have yet to provide me with a working URL in
> >> response to that request.
> >
> >Van Alstine and Keren continuously slander me with lies about me being a
> >"Nazi", "anti-Semite", et. al. Proof is available in any other their
> >replies to my posts. As for the others, please peruse Deja News.
>
> Again, I have visited DejaNews, and am unable to locate any instance
where
> you are 'slandered.'
Just take a look at Van Alstine's .sig whenever he replies to one of my
posts. In the case of Keren, read some of his recent posts.
> >Mr. Gandhi, I realize you are trying to defend your 'buddies' in front
of
> >the lurkers, but your attempts are just too transparent. Do a little
> >research at Deja News and you will see that your 'buddies' are not the
> >angels they want to portray, as I am fairly certain you well know.
>
> Oh please. I'm not trying to defend anybody.
Uh-huh.
> I'd simply like you to
> provide some sort of evidence with respect to your accusation of slander.
Mr. Gahndi, is seems to me as if you are spoiling for a fight with me. Is
this the case?
[.sig snipped]
Anthony Sabatini
> In article <01bc2785$bc043fe0$567213cc@server>, "Anthony Sabatini"
<anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
> >Allan Matthews <amat...@cybercom.net> wrote in article
> >> Boy, oh, boy! I made little"Tony's" short list! What an "honor."
> >
> >I don't really have a "list", as you call it. The above is just a
sampling.
>
> Looked like a list to me. Are these "just a sampling" of the
"Nizkorites"
> you'd like to see jailed simply for their public statements?
No, not for "their public statements", but for re-producing my posts on
their site. In any case, the comment which you (and others) are so fond of
repeating is not to be taken seriously.
> >> fascist turd.
> >
> >Ah. I see.
>
> I notice that you've creatively cropped my original post - something you
> routinely blow a gasket about others doing.
Excuse me? I only snipped your .sig, so what are you going on about here?
> You said something about a play
> on words... However, I still say you're a fascist turd. Play with those
> words - preferably in heavy traffic.
You are truly a charming gentleman, Mr. Matthews.
> >> Please also outline for me my supposed slanders, as this is the first
> >>I've heard about them.
> >
> >Please take a trip to Deja News and do a search on yourself.
>
>
> Ok, so? I don't see any slanders there - by me anyway.
Look again.
> >Read some sample posts and you'll get the idea.
>
> Nope. You must be talking about some of your own posts, or maybe those
of
> folks you defend like the Giwer-swine or the Tavish clan.
Nope. Look again.
> >And while you haven't slandered me personally, your first post in
response to
> >one of mine was:
> >
> >"Perhaps, but you'll always be an ignorant moron. BTW, its spelled
> >'Buddhist,' or were you trying to sound it out while drunk?"
>
> I believe I responded to your ignorant posts before this one. However,
this
> was as good a place to start as any - you are an ignorant moron.
And you are a pompous little shit who continuously tries to play "tough".
Isn't it past your bedtime?
> >Like a mad charging bull, you came crashing down on someone who has
never
> >said anything bad to you personally.
>
> Big deal. Too bad. Live with it. I often come crashing down on
revisionazis
> and their ilk.
I will remember your words here, Mr. Matthews -- they will probably come
back to haunt you.
> >And this was in response to a joke!
>
> Hardy, har, har! A comedian you'll never be. A joke, yes, but never a
> comedian.
As long as you will always be beneath me, that's fine!
> >You later accused me of being an "Aryan", something I have never even
> >thought of, called me an "ignorant dolt" and a "fool", all in one post!
> >Bravo, Mr. Matthews!
>
> Thank you very much. However, any praise from you is faint indeed. You
> should understand by now that you often will be judged by the
intellectual
> (using the term loosely in your case) company you keep - folks like the
> criminal Giwer, the Moron and the H*bers - proud Aryans all.
Irrelevant garbage. But then again, I've come to expect that from you, Mr.
Matthews.
> >> While you're at it, please tell me your latest excuse for
> >> that "lunchtime" comment of yours.
> >
> >The barf bag is to be used when reading stuff from SOGgy -- some of his
> >posts are pretty disgusting.
>
> Congrats! Another pathetic dodge. What has that SOGgy fool to do with
your
> authoritarian "joke" about throwing "Nizkorites" in jail for what they
say?
What? We are discussing my response to Van Alstine's idiotic post where he
lists me as a "Nazi/anti-Semite/denier". Don't you remember? Go back and
re-read this thread.
> Quit trying to change the subject. (now we'll wait and see what
brilliant
> excuse you come up with this time...)
>
> Keep up the good work "Tony" - someday you might be as foolish and
> entertaining as Leslie Griswold used to be around here.
I have no idea who "Leslie Grisowld" is, but he/she can surely not be as
"foolish and entertaining" as you've been!
[silly .sig snipped]
Jenn Starkman
In article <5fk9un$a...@camel1.mindspring.com>, no...@noon.net (LUEK) wrote:
>bb...@freenet.carleton.ca (Jenn Starkman) wrote:
>
>
>>>Not meaning to go off on a tangent but very few people have seen a
>>>Hebrew translation of the "Bible."
>
>>How many people, approximately, is "very few", LUEK?
>>I ask because on an individual level I know that virtually every member of
>>every synagogue, every person who has ever attended a Jewish school from
>>elementary school to the post-secondary level, every person who has studied
>>just about any facet of Judaism, every person who has picked up a Bible in a
>>Judaica store, or who has attended a wedding, baby-naming, or other
>>religious ceremony of friend or family which took place in a synagogue...has
>>seen a Hebrew translation of the Bible, and that is just a beginning.
>
>>I'm certainly not foolish enough to assume that anything but a *minority* of
>>people, in general terms, have seen a Hebrew copy of the Old Testament,
>
>Are you implying that there is a Judaic version of the New
>Testament?!?!
No.
>> but a
>>minority is *far* from the same as "very few", wouldn't you say?
>
>Instead of using the word "Bible" in Temple how about substituting
>"Sifrei Hakodesh."
I've never been to a "Temple" (as far as I understand, the last Jewish one was
destroyed *long* before I was born).
If you are referring to synagogue, then I don't have much say as to what terms
the congregation chooses to use.
Oh, and the reason I would never substitute "Sifrei Hakodesh" for "Bible" is
twofold--first of all because it doesn't make sense to substitute a plural for
a singular; secondly because the term "Sefer Kodesh" (the singular) can apply
to any Holy Book at all, and does not indicate that you are referring to that
one, specifically.
>The word "Bible" has a few problems in your context.
>
>Its historical links are closer to Christianity than to Judaism.
I admit that I probably should not have capitalized 'Bible', since the topic
of conversation has just been the Old Testament, or the bible of Judaism. It
really doesn't make any difference to my point, though.
Jenn
******
Note: I am no longer using my freenet or Netcom e-mail accounts
in order to protect those servers from the mailbombing which I
have been subjected to recently. Anybody who would like to contact
me via e-mail should leave a message on alt.skinheads to that effect,
and I will send you my new e-mail address.
Sla...@orbiter.com
pcl...@usa.net wrote:
>
> A looser and fool named slayer, gets on his knees to say prayers. Aldoph
> his god is burried neat the sod of a place that is the devil's own lair.
Prayer indicates belief in the obserdity of a "spirit" sorry Smelly Old
Goat or is that Sucks Old Goats? But I pray to nothing. so, if you
please, quit talking about your bizzard on your knees sexual fantasies.
You Shit Odered Goat!
--
Welles and I differed, however, in our interpretation of the results
of the Munich Confrence, he being optimistic, I skeptical. In a radio
address on October 3, several days after the confrence, in which he
described the steps taken by the United States Government just prior
to Munich, he said that today, perhaps more than at any time during
the past two decades, there was presented the opportunity for the
establishment by the nations of the world of a new world order based
upon justice and upon law. It seemed to me that the colors in the
picture were much darker.
- Cordell Hull
- Memoirs of Cordell Hull Vol 1. P. 596
Rajiv K. Gandhi
In article <01bc2a36$b3f3c830$4a7213cc@server>, "Anthony Sabatini"
<anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> I have visited DejaNews on numerous occasions, and have yet to discover
>> the articles.
>
>Just take a look at Van Alstine's .sig whenever he replies to one of my
>posts. In the case of Keren, read some of his recent posts.
I have, and I have found nothing to indicate that you have been slandered.
Please provide specific examples, as I have asked.
[snip]
>> >Mr. Gandhi, I realize you are trying to defend your 'buddies' in front of
>> >the lurkers, but your attempts are just too transparent. Do a little
>> >research at Deja News and you will see that your 'buddies' are not the
>> >angels they want to portray, as I am fairly certain you well know.
>>
>> Oh please. I'm not trying to defend anybody.
>
>Uh-huh.
>
>> I'd simply like you to
>> provide some sort of evidence with respect to your accusation of slander.
>
>Mr. Gahndi, is seems to me as if you are spoiling for a fight with me. Is
>this the case?
Hardly, although I'm beginning to wonder why, if you are being slandered
as you claim, you seem unable to provide a specific example ? This would
now constitute the fourth time I have asked you for some evidence to
support this assertion, yet, you have thus far failed to do so.
Rajiv K. Gandhi
In article <01bc2a37$a251f7e0$4a7213cc@server>, "Anthony Sabatini"
<anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> Looked like a list to me. Are these "just a sampling" of the "Nizkorites"
>> you'd like to see jailed simply for their public statements?
>
>No, not for "their public statements", but for re-producing my posts on
>their site. In any case, the comment which you (and others) are so fond of
>repeating is not to be taken seriously.
Let me get this straight. You want to put "Nizkorites" in jail, because
Nizkor maintains an archive of posts to this newsgroup, and in particular
your posts ?
[big snip]
shogun
Jenn Starkman wrote:
[snip]
>
> >
> >Are you implying that there is a Judaic version of the New
> >Testament?!?!
>
> No.
There may well be. The 'New Testament' was written in Koine Greek, but
that was merely because it was the lingua franca of the day.
Undoubtedly, the Hebrew Christian congregations had copies of scripture
in the local tongue. Nevertheless, I don't know why this person
belabors the point with you.
>
> >> but a
> >>minority is *far* from the same as "very few", wouldn't you say?
> >
> >Instead of using the word "Bible" in Temple how about substituting
> >"Sifrei Hakodesh."
>
> I've never been to a "Temple" (as far as I understand, the last Jewish one was
> destroyed *long* before I was born).
>
> If you are referring to synagogue, then I don't have much say as to what terms
> the congregation chooses to use.
>
> Oh, and the reason I would never substitute "Sifrei Hakodesh" for "Bible" is
> twofold--first of all because it doesn't make sense to substitute a plural for
> a singular; secondly because the term "Sefer Kodesh" (the singular) can apply
> to any Holy Book at all, and does not indicate that you are referring to that
> one, specifically.
This person seems to know a few snippets of Hebrew which he 'slam bams'
at will. He should get a better grasp of the language he's trying to
impugn.
>
> >The word "Bible" has a few problems in your context.
> >
> >Its historical links are closer to Christianity than to Judaism.
>
> I admit that I probably should not have capitalized 'Bible', since the topic
> of conversation has just been the Old Testament, or the bible of Judaism. It
> really doesn't make any difference to my point, though.
>
[signature snipped]
Last time I checked the Pentateuch and the prophets were indeed a part
of the accepted 66 books of the Bible, and therefore when referred to
can be capitalized. 'Links closer to Christianity than Judaism'???? I
guess the Judaic system which led to the Messiah (in Christian belief
systems) is just simply to be ignored. BTW, he should get used to the
fact that the 'Old Testament' was NOT translated into Hebrew, but rather
WRITTEN IN Hebrew and/or Aramaic as its native tongue(s).
If he continues to believe that the 'Old' and 'New Testaments' are
somehow disconnected, how does he explain that Jesus quoted from Isaiah
in the Gospels and explained that he fulfilled it, and that parts of the
Sermon on the Mount are restatements of divine promises in Psalm 37
(virtually word for word)? It's a part of a continuum leading to the
Messiah for any Christian with half a brain.
Oh well, that's enough rambling for a ng SUPPOSEDLY focused on the
question of holocaust revisionism. If he's interested in that, and not
just anti-semitism, I suggest he stick to the subject at hand.
Jenn Starkman
In article <5flbef$v...@camel4.mindspring.com>, r...@muc.net (LUEK) wrote:
>bb...@freenet.carleton.ca (Jenn Starkman) wrote:
>>>On Tue, 04 Mar 97 00:27:41 GMT, I, Jenn Starkman, wrote:
>>>You stereotype people Starkman!
>
>>Where, exactly, do you see me stereotyping *anyone*?
>
>Seems rather obvious to me.
Then what's keeping you from telling us?
>>Bzzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing.
>>Does the word "logic" mean anything to you?
>
>Do those funny little buzzing sounds go off in you head often
>Starkman? (indication of possible organic (CNS) brain damage)
Have you ever gotten through an entire post without avoiding discussing the
topic at hand or answering any questions, and trying to detract from the fact
that you're at a loss for actual facts or logic, by going off on completely
irrelevant and nonsensical tangents?
I didn't think so.
>>>Just for the sake of argument, what would "tip you off" that someone was
>>>Jewish by simply reading their posts? I am curious about this really.
>
>>The only thing that would tip me off that someone *was* Jewish from a post
>>would be if they said that they were.
>
>If they said they were the patriarch Abraham would you believe them?
If they said they were the patriarch Abraham I would have quite obvious reason
not to believe them. On the other hand, why would anybody lie about being
Jewish? And what does this have to do with anything?
>Have you ever been given a prescription for PROZAC?
Have you ever gotten through an entire post without avoiding discussing the
topic at hand or answering any questions, and trying to detract from the fact
that you're at a loss for actual facts or logic, by going off on completely
irrelevant and nonsensical tangents?
I didn't think so.
>>>>>Nope, never ever made any statement or inference concerning the
>>>>>feelings of others.
>
>>>>Actually, you stated that the word "goy" was a derogatory term,
>>>
>>>Goy can be used in a demeaning way. So can many other words. Why is
>>>this a problem with you?
>
>>Not at all--in fact, as you may recall, I was the one who pointed that out,
>>in *response* to the fact that your original assertion was not that the word
>>"goy" *could* be used in a demeaning way, but that it was, in ANY context, a
>>derogatory term.
>
>Christ's sake give it a rest Starkman, really!
Give what a rest--the facts? Logic? Is this your usual response to being
proven to not only be mistaken, but to be lying about your mistakes?
>Hearing voices Starkman?
Have you ever gotten through an entire post without avoiding discussing the
topic at hand or answering any questions, and trying to detract from the fact
that you're at a loss for actual facts or logic, by going off on completely
irrelevant and nonsensical tangents?
I didn't think so.
>>>Your true nature is beginning to show here.
>
>>I'm glad that you're catching on to the fact that I'm a fairly level-headed,
>>civil, intelligent person, then.
>
>Delusions of grandeur and infallibility?
>
>Next week you may be Napolean?
Have you ever gotten through an entire post without avoiding discussing the
topic at hand or answering any questions, and trying to detract from the fact
that you're at a loss for actual facts or logic, by going off on completely
irrelevant and nonsensical tangents?
I didn't think so.
>>>>>You're a bigoted hate monger Starkman and not a
>>>>>very nice person at all.
>>>
>>>>What makes you say that? Or did you run out of relevant things to say and
>>>>figure you'd attack my personality?
>
>Paranoid persecution syndrome?
Not at all--you openly called me a "bigoted hate monger (sic)" and "not a very
nice person at all". What would *you* call that, if not an attack on my
personality?
>>>Oh! Your personality is vulnerable to attack?
>
>>That you attack something, darling, doesn't necessarily imply that it is
>>vulnerable. It means nothing more and nothing less than that you have
>>chosen to attack it--whether that be a futile endeavour or not.
>
>The above statement is totally incoherent! Can not make sense of it
>at all!
The fact that you cannot make sense of the above statement has nothing to do
with its coherence and everything to do with the fact that you seem not to
have a very firm grasp on the intricacies of the English language.
>>>You obviously know every damn thing in the world.
>
>>No, but I obviously *do* know a couple of damn things more than you do.
>><sweet smile>
>
>Megalomania?
Simple, obvious fact, sweetheart--highlighted by your own insistence upon
publicly airing your inadequacies as often and openly as possible.
>>>Hey, what do you have to be insecure about?
>
>>Nothing. That's why I'm not insecure. Did you think that I was?
>
>Gosh, what could possibly make me think that!
I have no idea. Perhaps you'd like to tell us?
LUEK
Oh my! I leave for a couple of days and what do I find when I return.
This junk!
shogun <sho...@na.com> wrote:
>There may well be. The 'New Testament' was written in Koine Greek, but
>that was merely because it was the lingua franca of the day.
The Sassanians would probably have "vigorously" disagreed with you
about Greek being the "lingua franca" of the day shogun!
Are you deliberately attempting to mislead here shogun? I say you
are.
>Undoubtedly, the Hebrew Christian congregations had copies of scripture
>in the local tongue. Nevertheless, I don't know why this person
>belabors the point with you.
>> >Instead of using the word "Bible" in Temple how about substituting
>> >"Sifrei Hakodesh."
>>
>> I've never been to a "Temple" (as far as I understand, the last Jewish one was
>> destroyed *long* before I was born).
>>
>> If you are referring to synagogue, then I don't have much say as to what terms
>> the congregation chooses to use.
>>
>> Oh, and the reason I would never substitute "Sifrei Hakodesh" for "Bible" is
>> twofold--first of all because it doesn't make sense to substitute a plural for
>> a singular; secondly because the term "Sefer Kodesh" (the singular) can apply
>> to any Holy Book at all, and does not indicate that you are referring to that
>> one, specifically.
>This person seems to know a few snippets of Hebrew which he 'slam bams'
>at will. He should get a better grasp of the language he's trying to
>impugn.
"Impugn" shogun? Can't you at least be a little more subtle in your
attempt at libel and defamation?
>>
>> >The word "Bible" has a few problems in your context.
>> >
>> >Its historical links are closer to Christianity than to Judaism.
>>
>> I admit that I probably should not have capitalized 'Bible', since the topic
>> of conversation has just been the Old Testament, or the bible of Judaism. It
>> really doesn't make any difference to my point, though.
>>
>[signature snipped]
>Last time I checked the Pentateuch and the prophets were indeed a part
>of the accepted 66 books of the Bible, and therefore when referred to
>can be capitalized. 'Links closer to Christianity than Judaism'???? I
>guess the Judaic system which led to the Messiah (in Christian belief
>systems) is just simply to be ignored.
> BTW, he should get used to the
>fact that the 'Old Testament' was NOT translated into Hebrew, but rather
>WRITTEN IN Hebrew and/or Aramaic as its native tongue(s).
This fact is really common knowledge shogun! Have known it for quite
some time. Stop distorting!
>If he continues to believe that the 'Old' and 'New Testaments' are
>somehow disconnected, how does he explain that Jesus quoted from Isaiah
>in the Gospels and explained that he fulfilled it, and that parts of the
>Sermon on the Mount are restatements of divine promises in Psalm 37
>(virtually word for word)?
> It's a part of a continuum leading to the
>Messiah for any Christian with half a brain.
Oh, you only have "half a brain" shogun? What a pity.
But that may explain your vulgar attempt to "spam" religious doctrine
together with your reptilian thought processes. Not a very nice thing
to do!
Reminds me of a certain politician's remarkable statement made a few
years back that Christianity, Islam and Judaism maybe different
religions but they all worship the same God! (circa: Jimmy Carter,
late 70's) He didn't have a brain, but you have half of one, you are
therefore held accountable for such blasphemy.
Well "shogun" let's see if we can find that inevitable
"hate signature" that cretins of your ilk always seem to leave. Where
could your defamatory "claw mark" be? Maybe in your following
statement?
>Oh well, that's enough rambling for a ng SUPPOSEDLY focused on the
>question of holocaust revisionism. If he's interested in that, and not
>just anti-semitism, I suggest he stick to the subject at hand.
And there it is! In the lower left hand corner! I just knew it had to
be here someplace. And I was right; what do ya know.
OBTW:The Holocaust and religious doctrine ARE the same thing. So we
are focused.
And if you haven't picked up on that little fact shogun, you must have
retained the "lesser" half of your brain.
AND NOW A FEW WORDS FROM OUR SPONSOR: Mr. John Ball
Hey there Holo_conformists_huggers_promoters_zombies_retentives or
what ever damn thing you want to be called.
There is a $100,000 dollar reward open to anyone of you that can
disprove a few minor details about some ole scratchy WWII air photos.
For the overall details of this offer lookup:
http://www.air-photo.com/summary.html
A certain Mr. Mark Van Alstine has made some funny sounding grunts
about collecting this money so if you want it you better hurry!
But then again, Mr. Markie may not "pack the gear" to collect this
prize if you know what I mean. ;-)
Dene Bebbington
Jenn Starkman <bb...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
>In article <5flbef$v...@camel4.mindspring.com>, r...@muc.net (LUEK)
wrote:
>>bb...@freenet.carleton.ca (Jenn Starkman) wrote:
>>>In article <5fg10q$n...@camel4.mindspring.com>, ne...@noon.com (LUEK)
wrote:
>>>That you attack something, darling, doesn't necessarily imply that it
is
>>>vulnerable. It means nothing more and nothing less than that you
have
>>>chosen to attack it--whether that be a futile endeavour or not.
>>
>>The above statement is totally incoherent! Can not make sense of it
>>at all!
>
>The fact that you cannot make sense of the above statement has nothing to do
>with its coherence and everything to do with the fact that you seem not to
>have a very firm grasp on the intricacies of the English language.
Indeed, I had no problem whatsoever in comprehending your statement,
maybe this LUEK character suffers from reading incomprehension syndrome.
[further snips]
--
Dene Bebbington
"I mean, who would have noticed | "It is impossible to enjoy idling
another madman around here?!" | thoroughly unless one has plenty
- Blackadder | of work to do." - Jerome K Jerome
Dene Bebbington
LUEK <din...@eight.net> wrote:
>
>Oh my! I leave for a couple of days and what do I find when I return.
>This junk!
>
>shogun <sho...@na.com> wrote:
>>Oh well, that's enough rambling for a ng SUPPOSEDLY focused on the
>>question of holocaust revisionism. If he's interested in that, and
not
>>just anti-semitism, I suggest he stick to the subject at hand.
>
>And there it is! In the lower left hand corner! I just knew it had to
>be here someplace. And I was right; what do ya know.
>
>OBTW:The Holocaust and religious doctrine ARE the same thing. So we
>are focused.
Sorry, but the Holocaust and religious doctrine are not the same thing,
so in fact you are not focused on the subject matter of this newsgroup.
>And if you haven't picked up on that little fact shogun, you must have
>retained the "lesser" half of your brain.
Well it seems that your implied full brain still cannot comprehend the
fact that you're wrong.
>AND NOW A FEW WORDS FROM OUR SPONSOR: Mr. John Ball
>
>Hey there Holo_conformists_huggers_promoters_zombies_retentives or
>what ever damn thing you want to be called.
Hey there shit_for_brains_revisionists_deniers_nazis_anti-semites or
what ever damn thing you want to be called.
>There is a $100,000 dollar reward open to anyone of you that can
>disprove a few minor details about some ole scratchy WWII air photos.
>
>For the overall details of this offer lookup:
>
> http://www.air-photo.com/summary.html
Well of course anyone can make grandiose claims on the web like that.
However, Mr Ball has not shown that he in fact has this money, and more
to the point he wants to approve the jury - I wonder why. Sort of like
when the IHR made a similar offer and wanted to choose the jury by
selecting their own staff.
Yale F. Edeiken
> Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> writes:
> LUEK <din...@eight.net> wrote:
> >There is a $100,000 dollar reward open to anyone of you that can
> >disprove a few minor details about some ole scratchy WWII air photos.
> Well of course anyone can make grandiose claims on the web like that.
> However, Mr Ball has not shown that he in fact has this money, and more
> to the point he wants to approve the jury - I wonder why. Sort of like
> when the IHR made a similar offer and wanted to choose the jury by
> selecting their own staff.
According to the deposition of Tom Marcellus (then director of the IHR)
the three "judges" who the IHR had in mind were Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz,
and Ditleib Felderer.
You should also note that "LUEK" is, apaprently, unaware of the offer
that Ball is actually making. He actually issued two challenges (whether they are
disjunctive or conjunctive is ambiguous) but:
1. they do *not* concern "a few minor details." One seems to concern
(Ball's language is unclear) some 3-D work-ups he did based on the photographs.
The other seems to concern (again, Ball's language is unclear) allegations that he
has made that the CIA altered the photographs.
2. His challenges do not involve "proof" as the word is normally used.
His challenge is to produce three experts which meet his approval. Again, Ball is
ambiguous as to whether he means three experts for either challenge or three for
each challenge or three experts for both challenges.
--YFE
shogun
LUEK wrote:
>
> Oh my! I leave for a couple of days and what do I find when I return.
> This junk!
>
This is a response? Oh well, prove it so..
[snip]
> The Sassanians would probably have "vigorously" disagreed with you
> about Greek being the "lingua franca" of the day shogun!
>
> Are you deliberately attempting to mislead here shogun? I say you
> are.
>
Are you aware of what the term 'lingua franca' means? It refers to the
most commonly used language. In the 1st century, when the 'New
Testament' was written, writings in Koine Greek reached the widest
possible audience in the then known civilized world. As far as the
language used by the Sassanian dynasty, I fail to see how the language
spoken by ONE people renders moot the fact that majority of the peoples
in the 1st century understood Greek.
As far as myself 'deliberately misleading', what leads you to believe
that? I further ask that you PROVE it.
[snip]
> >This person seems to know a few snippets of Hebrew which he 'slam bams'
> >at will. He should get a better grasp of the language he's trying to
> >impugn.
>
> "Impugn" shogun? Can't you at least be a little more subtle in your
> attempt at libel and defamation?
>
I thought it was fairly obvious that you were putting the Hebrew
language in as bad a light as possible. As far as 'libel' goes, it
looks like you've hit a payday, if you're correct. Get a lawyer, as
libel is actionable. Something tells me you don't have a case, though.
[snip]
> >>
> >> >The word "Bible" has a few problems in your context.
> >> >
> >> >Its historical links are closer to Christianity than to Judaism.
> >>
[snip]
[snip]
> >Last time I checked the Pentateuch and the prophets were indeed a part
> >of the accepted 66 books of the Bible, and therefore when referred to
> >can be capitalized. 'Links closer to Christianity than Judaism'???? I
> >guess the Judaic system which led to the Messiah (in Christian belief
> >systems) is just simply to be ignored.
>
> > BTW, he should get used to the
> >fact that the 'Old Testament' was NOT translated into Hebrew, but rather
> >WRITTEN IN Hebrew and/or Aramaic as its native tongue(s).
>
> This fact is really common knowledge shogun! Have known it for quite
> some time. Stop distorting!
Stop distorting?? As you see by your own words above, you suggested that
the Bible (I assume you meant the New Testament) had 'historical links
closer to Christianity than to Judaism'. I merely pointed out that it's
part of continuum through the 2 religions and testaments, rather than
somehow magically separated. Jesus himself stated that he came not to
destroy the Mosaic law code, but rather to fulfill it.
[snip]
> Oh, you only have "half a brain" shogun? What a pity.
> But that may explain your vulgar attempt to "spam" religious doctrine
> together with your reptilian thought processes. Not a very nice thing
> to do!
>
> Reminds me of a certain politician's remarkable statement made a few
> years back that Christianity, Islam and Judaism maybe different
> religions but they all worship the same God! (circa: Jimmy Carter,
> late 70's) He didn't have a brain, but you have half of one, you are
> therefore held accountable for such blasphemy.
>
Wow... now I am a 'reptilian blasphemer', according to you... do the
words ad hominem ring a bell? I guess you can't attack the ideas, so
you're trying to attack me. Why don't you try providing scriptural and
evidentiary PROOF I'm wrong, a 'blasphemer', etc.
[snip]
> Well "shogun" let's see if we can find that inevitable
> "hate signature" that cretins of your ilk always seem to leave. Where
> could your defamatory "claw mark" be? Maybe in your following
> statement?
>
Well, for being a 'cretin', somehow I manage to name sources and refute
or prove ideas based on merit and not personal attacks. Come on, let's
see some SUBSTANCE in your next post.
[snip]
> OBTW:The Holocaust and religious doctrine ARE the same thing. So we
> are focused.
>
> And if you haven't picked up on that little fact shogun, you must have
>
> retained the "lesser" half of your brain.
'fraid NOT. Again, PROVE IT.
>
> AND NOW A FEW WORDS FROM OUR SPONSOR: Mr. John Ball
>
...followed by some sort of 'ad'. Sorry, I don't recall ever bringing
this up. A hint: this IS spam; speaking one's mind as I did in my post
(and what you called spam) ISN'T.
[remainder snipped]
Lord Windesmere
It is not that the people you ignorantly call Nazi hate so much, rather
it is that the people you so ignorantly call Nazis hate communism and
everything about it. It's philosophy and those that stealthily push it.
Many lives have been lost as victims of communism out right and more
have died fighting it as more will die in the future until it is on the
ash heap of history.
Communism which has caused more death and misery than Nazism has at its
core one common denominator and the following will show what it is:
Among the Jews who remained in Russia, which then
included Lithuania, Ukraine (A History of Ukraine,
Michael Hrushevsky, Yale University Press, 1941,
passim), and much of Poland, were the founders of
the Russian Bolshevik party:
In 1897 was founded the Bond, the union of Jewish
workers in Poland and Lithuania. . . They engaged
in revolutionary activity upon a large scale, and
their energy made them the spearhead of the Party
(Article on "Communism" by Harold J. Laski, Encyc.
Brit., Vol. III, pp 824-827).
The name Bolsheviki means majority (from Russian
Bolshe, the larger) and commemorates the fact that
at the Brussels-London conference of the party in
late 1902 and early 1903, the violent Marxist
program of Lenin was adopted by a 25 to 23 vote,
the less violent minority or "Mensheviki"
Marxists fading finally from the picture after
Stalin's triumph in October, 1917. It has been also
stated that the term Bolshevik refers to the
"larger" or more violent program of the majority
faction. After (1918) the Bolsheviki called their
organization the Communist Party.
[I would say that declares that Jews founded communism
wouldn't you? Tavish]
The Zionist Jews were another group that laid its
plan in Russia as a part of the new re-orientation of
Russian Jewry after the collapse of Haskalah and the
assassination (1881) of Alexander II. "On November 6,
1884, for the first time in history, a Jewish
international assembly was held at Kattowitz, near
the Russian frontier, where representatives from all
classes and different countries met and decided to
colonize Palestine. .
"(The Haskalah Movement in Russia, p. 285). For a
suggestion of the solidarity of purpose between the
Jewish Bund, which was the core of the Communist
Party, and early Zionism, see Grayzel (op. cit.,
p. 662). "Henceforth a heightened sense of race-
consciousness takes the place formerly held by
religion and is soon to develop into a concrete
nationalism with Zion as its goal" (Graetz-Raisin,
Vol. p. 168).
In Russia and abroad in the late nineteenth
century, not only Bundists but other Khazar Jews had
been attracted to the writings of Karl Marx (1818-1883),
partly, it seems, because he was Jewish in origin.
"On both paternal and maternal sides Karl Marx was
descended from rabbinical families" (Univ. Jew.
Encyc., Vol.VII, p. 289).
The Marxian program of drastic controls, so
repugnant to the free western mind, was no obstacle to
the acceptance of Marxism by many Khazar Jews, for
the Babylonian Talmud under which they lived had taught
then to accept authoritarian dictation on everything
from their immorality to their trade practices. Since
the Talmud contained more than 12,000 controls, the
regimentation of Marxism was acceptable -- provided
the Khazar politician, like the Talmudic rabbi,
exercised the power of the dictatorship.
Lord Windesmere
Kike SOG aka Communist Vermin Filth should see the hole he crawled from:
Among the Jews who remained in Russia, which then
included Lithuania, Ukraine (A History of Ukraine,
Michael Hrushevsky, Yale University Press, 1941,
passim), and much of Poland, were the founders of
the Russian Bolshevik party:
In 1897 was founded the Bond, the union of Jewish
workers in Poland and Lithuania. . . They engaged
in revolutionary activity upon a large scale, and
their energy made them the spearhead of the Party
(Article on "Communism" by Harold J. Laski, Encyc.
Brit., Vol. III, pp 824-827).
The name Bolsheviki means majority (from Russian
Bolshe, the larger) and commemorates the fact that
at the Brussels-London conference of the party in
late 1902 and early 1903, the violent Marxist
program of Lenin was adopted by a 25 to 23 vote,
the less violent minority or "Mensheviki"
Marxists fading finally from the picture after
Stalin's triumph in October, 1917. It has been also
stated that the term Bolshevik refers to the
"larger" or more violent program of the majority
faction. After (1918) the Bolsheviki called their
organization the Communist Party.
[I would say that declares that Jews founded communism
wouldn't you?]
Dene Bebbington
"Rajiv K. Gandhi" <gan...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <01bc2a36$b3f3c830$4a7213cc@server>, "Anthony Sabatini"
><anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>> I have visited DejaNews on numerous occasions, and have yet to discover
>>> the articles.
>>
>>Just take a look at Van Alstine's .sig whenever he replies to one of my
>>posts. In the case of Keren, read some of his recent posts.
>
>I have, and I have found nothing to indicate that you have been slandered.
>Please provide specific examples, as I have asked.
>
>[snip]
>
>>> >Mr. Gandhi, I realize you are trying to defend your 'buddies' in front of
>>> >the lurkers, but your attempts are just too transparent. Do a little
>>> >research at Deja News and you will see that your 'buddies' are not the
>>> >angels they want to portray, as I am fairly certain you well know.
>>>
>>> Oh please. I'm not trying to defend anybody.
>>
>>Uh-huh.
>>
>>> I'd simply like you to
>>> provide some sort of evidence with respect to your accusation of slander.
>>
>>Mr. Gahndi, is seems to me as if you are spoiling for a fight with me. Is
>>this the case?
>
>Hardly, although I'm beginning to wonder why, if you are being slandered
>as you claim, you seem unable to provide a specific example ? This would
>now constitute the fourth time I have asked you for some evidence to
>support this assertion, yet, you have thus far failed to do so.
In the interests of accuracy I must state that Mark Van Alstine has in
fact made comments that Mr Sabatini obviously finds slanderous, of
course, Mark may have been justified in the things he said, but he
nevertheless said them. These remarks can be found in the closing part
of some of his posts in response to Mr Sabatini, I believe in the same
manner as he often does in response to Tom Moran.
Dene Bebbington
"Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
>> Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> LUEK <din...@eight.net> wrote:
>
>> >There is a $100,000 dollar reward open to anyone of you that can
>> >disprove a few minor details about some ole scratchy WWII air photos.
>
>> Well of course anyone can make grandiose claims on the web like that.
>> However, Mr Ball has not shown that he in fact has this money, and more
>> to the point he wants to approve the jury - I wonder why. Sort of like
>> when the IHR made a similar offer and wanted to choose the jury by
>> selecting their own staff.
>
> According to the deposition of Tom Marcellus (then director of the IHR)
>the three "judges" who the IHR had in mind were Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz,
>and Ditleib Felderer.
Indeed, when I said their own staff I was referring to the fact that
these people were apparently on the editorial advisory board of the JHR
(Journal of Historical Review).
[rest snipped]
Dene Bebbington
Lord Windesmere <fla...@windy-city.net> wrote:
>It is not that the people you ignorantly call Nazi hate so much, rather
>it is that the people you so ignorantly call Nazis hate communism and
>everything about it. It's philosophy and those that stealthily push it.
Tavish, or whatever your name is, why do you keep on posting this stuff
about Jews, the subject of this newsgroup is the Holocaust. If you wish
to continually berate Jews then do it somewhere else, or preferably not
at all.
Your new email address now gets added to my killfile.
Mark Van Alstine
In article <R8RLaGA9...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>, Dene Bebbington
<de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Indeed. To whit:
For those interested in proof of Mr. "Sabitini's" Holocaust denial,
intellectual dishonesty, anti-Semitism, and outright lies, please peruse
DejaNews and visit the Nizkor Project at:
http://www.dejanews.com/
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/s/sabatini.anthony
The Moran (tm) is, as far as I can determine, an anti-Semite engaged in
blatant and offensive anti-Semitism, Nazi apologia, and Holocaust denial.
The Moran (tm) generally conducts himself with such a complete lack of
intellectual and factual integrity that there seems to be no point in
taking the time to read and respond other than to point out his vile
behavior. For detailed and documented evidence of this, please peruse
DejaNews and visit the Nizkor Project at:
http://www.dejanews.com/
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom
But what else should one expect from a lying anti-Semite who holds wacko
beliefs, is intellectually depraved, hasn't the slightest clue regarding
Supreme Court decisions, or what constitutes a dud at the box-office? For
evidence of this please see:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/lies
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/1996/what-moran-believes.9607
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/lies/hilberg-out-of-context
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/moran-menorah-faq
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/moran-schindler-faq
Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Labyrinth THX-1138:4EB
What exactly are you trying to prove with all this?
Just because some people who founded the Communist Party were Jewish
does not condemn all Jews to being "commie pinkos." Besides, those that
founded the Communist Party could have in no way been aware what a
failure it would become due to individual corruption (in many people,
not just Jews).
Communism was an ideal that sounded good on paper. It just didn't work
too well when put into practice with real, corruptible humans.
Don't blame the Jews. Blame human nature.
Chad
--
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/5198/index.html
<Be Sure to Stay at Holiday Inn>
Once asked whether they believed in God, Laibach answered, "Yes, we
believe in God, but unlike Americans we do not trust him."
"A generation which ignores history has no past--and no future"
"If you don't like yourself, you cant like other people"
"A brute kills for pleasure. A fool kills from hate."
"You live and learn. Or you don't live long."
"Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny."
"The greatest productive force is human selfishness."
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
"In a society in which it is a moral offense to be different from your
neighbor your only escape is never to let
them find out."
"Man can be chained, but he cannot be domesticated. "
"No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law"
"Progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things. "
"If you pray hard enough, water will run uphill. How hard? Why, hard
enough to make water run uphill, of course! "
"Yield to temptation; it may not pass your way again. "
--Robert A Heinlein
Paul Boomer
Electronic Labyrinth THX-1138:4EB wrote:
>
> What exactly are you trying to prove with all this?
>
> Just because some people who founded the Communist Party were Jewish
> does not condemn all Jews to being "commie pinkos."
You have a very valid point and I will make the point hat not all Jewry
was\is behind communism. I'll stick to the figures that Lucy Dawidowicz
made in her book- The War Against Jews which said 2\3rds of Jewry backed
Social Democrats who interpreted every thing from a Marxist view. That
means if there are 15,000,000 Jews then may be 10,000,000 of them have a
Marxist or socialist leaning!
I state the evidence for my 2\3rds claim:
THE WAR
AGAINST THE JEWS1933-1945 by Bantam Books Incorporated (#13084-6,
1979 ed). The book's "Acknowledgements" starts with: "This book
had its genesis in a course I developed at the suggestion of Rabbi
David Mirsky, Dean of Stern College for Women, Yeshiva University
[New York, New York 10033-3201] (I added the address- it was not
in the original text). ...I am indebted to the Yivo Institute for
Jewish Research, the Blaustein Library of the American Jewish
Committee..." On page xxvi Ms. Dawidowicz declares: "Consistently,
I have used Jewish sources as the lenses through which to view the
Jewish community and to analyze Jewish behavior."
On page 55, Ms. Dawidowicz
declares: "In 1890, the first election after the expiration of
(Germany's) Bismarck's anti-socialist law the Social Democrats
amassed over 1.4 million votes... the ideology of the Social
Democratic movement interpreted all economic, social, and political
phenomena in terms of an all encompassing Marxist theory." We also
see that the majority of Jews were allied with this movement
on page 228: "... about 2/3rds of the Jews voted for the Social
Democrats. Every democratic party received electoral and financial
support from the Jews, the Social Democrats getting the greatest
share."
All work and research by Jewish sources!
> Besides, those that
> founded the Communist Party could have in no way been aware what a
> failure it would become due to individual corruption (in many people,
> not just Jews).
You have no idea that communism started with blood shed! Read about the
Bolshevik Revolution man and see! How could communism have been good
when it started out with the assassination of the Czar and his family,
all the bloody riots, Christian churches being destroyed etc.?
I also still stand by my resouces and my post:
Communism which has caused more death and misery than Nazism has at its
core one common denominator and the following will show what it is:
Among the Jews who remained in Russia, which then
included Lithuania, Ukraine (A History of Ukraine,
Michael Hrushevsky, Yale University Press, 1941,
passim), and much of Poland, were the founders of
the Russian Bolshevik party:
In 1897 was founded the Bond, the union of Jewish
workers in Poland and Lithuania. . . They engaged
in revolutionary activity upon a large scale, and
their energy made them the spearhead of the Party
(Article on "Communism" by Harold J. Laski, Encyc.
Brit., Vol. III, pp 824-827).
The name Bolsheviki means majority (from Russian
Bolshe, the larger) and commemorates the fact that
at the Brussels-London conference of the party in
late 1902 and early 1903, the violent Marxist
program of Lenin was adopted by a 25 to 23 vote,
the less violent minority or "Mensheviki"
Marxists fading finally from the picture after
Stalin's triumph in October, 1917. It has been also
stated that the term Bolshevik refers to the
"larger" or more violent program of the majority
faction. After (1918) the Bolsheviki called their
organization the Communist Party.
[I would say that declares that Jews founded communism
wouldn't you? Tavish]
> Communism was an ideal that sounded good on paper. It just didn't work
> too well when put into practice with real, corruptible humans.
>
> Don't blame the Jews. Blame human nature.
Communism at its core was virulently anti-Christian and anti-Gentile.
It's whole organization was founded upon a Jewish Commisar elite and a
Gentile kulak servant society.
Tavish
Anthony Sabatini
shogun <sho...@na.com> wrote in article <331F6E...@na.com>...
> Anthony Sabatini wrote:
> >
> > > >I don't really have a "list", as you call it. The above is just a
> > sampling.
> > >
> > "Nizkorites"
> > > you'd like to see jailed simply for their public statements?
> >
> > No, not for "their public statements", but for re-producing my posts
on
> > their site. In any case, the comment which you (and others) are so
fond of
> > repeating is not to be taken seriously.
>
> reproducing 'your' posts on a particular site. Usenet posts are
public
> domain. If you have a problem with this, I suggest that you'd have an
> axe to grind with sites like dejanews then as well.
Sorry, but I was referring to the _reason_ I had in mind when I made
that ill-fated post. This is necessary because some twits here claim
that the reason I made that comment (about wanting the Nizkorites in
jail) was because of disagreeing opinions; this is totally false. In any
case, I've stated publicly many (many!) times that that particular post
was bluster and actually a play on words on "interrogate". Someone asked
the Nizkorites if they would 'interrogate' the people they had files
on...
> [rest of post snipped]
>
> Besides, I'm curious; why does Nizkor's reproduction of your public
> domain comments bother you?
First, they are easy to misconstrue. Second, it is the context in which
they are archived (with alleged "Nazis", "anti-Semites", etc.) that I
have a problem with.
Anthony Sabatini
Rajiv K. Gandhi <gan...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<gandhi-0603...@vcta01m04-67.bctel.ca>...
> In article <01bc2a36$b3f3c830$4a7213cc@server>, "Anthony Sabatini"
> <anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I have visited DejaNews on numerous occasions, and have yet to
discover
> >> the articles.
> >
> >Just take a look at Van Alstine's .sig whenever he replies to one of
my
> >posts. In the case of Keren, read some of his recent posts.
>
> I have, and I have found nothing to indicate that you have been
slandered.
> Please provide specific examples, as I have asked.
What?!?!?!? Please explain what you call Van Alstine's description of me
-- that of a "Nazi", "anti-Semite", et. al -- if not slander. Mr.
Ghandi, I anxiously await your answer.
> [snip]
>
> >> >Mr. Gandhi, I realize you are trying to defend your 'buddies' in
front of
> >> >the lurkers, but your attempts are just too transparent. Do a
little
> >> >research at Deja News and you will see that your 'buddies' are not
the
> >> >angels they want to portray, as I am fairly certain you well know.
> >>
> >> Oh please. I'm not trying to defend anybody.
> >
> >Uh-huh.
> >
> >> I'd simply like you to
> >> provide some sort of evidence with respect to your accusation of
slander.
> >
> >Mr. Gahndi, is seems to me as if you are spoiling for a fight with
me. Is
> >this the case?
>
> Hardly, although I'm beginning to wonder why, if you are being
slandered
> as you claim, you seem unable to provide a specific example ? This
would
> now constitute the fourth time I have asked you for some evidence to
> support this assertion, yet, you have thus far failed to do so.
The odds of you not seeing this slander are so miniscule that I am
honestly beginning to believe you are merely playing dumb for the
benefit of the lurkers...
[.sig snipped]