Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or anti-Semites?
Allan Matthews
revisionist who isn't a neo-Nazi or anti-Semite would have come forward
and said "Here I am!"
But, no. It appears that there just aren't any such revisionists around.
Based on their past posting history, the few bozos who have bothered to
claim that they aren't neo-Nazis or anti-Semites were, upon examination
of their claims, clearly lying. Of course, given the general behavior of
revisionists, this lack of honesty isn't surprising in the least.
However, just in case some revisionist scholars have missed my question
to date, here it is again:
Where are the revisionists who aren't neo-Nazis or anti-Semites?
It's a fair question. Afterall, how can revisionsists hope to be taken
seriously if they all have such apparent biases, agendas and axes to
grind?
So, then, if Holocaust revisionism is an intellectually honest endevour,
where are the revisionists who aren't neo-Nazis or anti-Semites?
allan
--
======================================
allan_m...@bigfoot.com
======================================
"If you bring forth what is within you,
what you have will save you."
======================================
http://www2.shore.net/~matthews/
======================================
Debunks
>anti-Semites?
>From: allan_m...@nospam.bigfoot.com (Allan Matthews)
>Date: 11/26/98 0:17 AM EST
>Message-id: <MPG.10c6ae88d...@news.ne.mediaone.net>
>
>Gee, you'd think that after many weeks of posting this at least one
>revisionist who isn't a neo-Nazi or anti-Semite would have come forward
>and said "Here I am!"
>
>But, no. It appears that there just aren't any such revisionists around.
HERE I AM!!!!
Allan Matthews
deb...@aol.com says...
>>From: allan_m...@nospam.bigfoot.com (Allan Matthews)
>>Message-id: <MPG.10c6ae88d...@news.ne.mediaone.net>
>>
>>Gee, you'd think that after many weeks of posting this at least one
>>revisionist who isn't a neo-Nazi or anti-Semite would have come forward
>>and said "Here I am!"
>>
>>But, no. It appears that there just aren't any such revisionists around.
>
>HERE I AM!!!!
ROTFL!! That's the funniest one I've heard today, B/F/D/T/B! You not an
anti-Semite? What a riot!
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Subject: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >anti-Semites?
> >From: allan_m...@nospam.bigfoot.com (Allan Matthews)
> >Date: 11/26/98 0:17 AM EST
> >Gee, you'd think that after many weeks of posting this at least one
> >revisionist who isn't a neo-Nazi or anti-Semite would have come forward
> >and said "Here I am!"
> >But, no. It appears that there just aren't any such revisionists around.
> HERE I AM!!!!
And thereby Matthews point is perfectly proven. You are a notorious
anti-Semite.
"hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
.well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about me i
am a female."
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >anti-Semites?
> >From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
> >Date: 11/26/98 6:12 AM EST
> >Message-id: <365dc...@news3.enter.net>
> SNIP
Here's what Bellinger snipped:
And thereby Matthews point is perfectly proven. You are a notorious
anti-Semite.
> There is your anti-semite for you. He is the worst enemy the Jewish people
> could possibly have.
Poor Jew-hating Joe. Nowe this vicious bigot pretends to care about
Jews. After gleefully justifying the murder of women and children for no other reason
than their Jewish heritage, he pretrends to speak for them.
You are a foul excretion.
And you know it.
Debunks
>anti-Semites?
>Date: 11/26/98 3:54 PM EST
>Message-id: <MPG.10c78a073...@news.ne.mediaone.net>
>
>In article <19981126145618...@ng-fr1.aol.com>,
>deb...@aol.com says...
>>>From: allan_m...@nospam.bigfoot.com (Allan Matthews)
>>>
>>>Gee, you'd think that after many weeks of posting this at least one
>>>revisionist who isn't a neo-Nazi or anti-Semite would have come forward
>>>and said "Here I am!"
>>>
>>>But, no. It appears that there just aren't any such revisionists around.
>>
>>HERE I AM!!!!
>
>anti-Semite? What a riot!
>
>allan
>--
No. Some of my best friends and worst enemies are Jews.
Debunks
>anti-Semites?
>Date: 11/26/98 6:12 AM EST
>Message-id: <365dc...@news3.enter.net>
SNIP
There is your anti-semite for you. He is the worst enemy the Jewish people
could possibly have.
Dan Parker
sentiment after learning that Jews were making fraudulent claims with their
Holocaust Story.
Somewhere, either before, during or subsequent to discovering revisionism,
the revisionist, or would be revisionist is very likely to learn of the
Jewish role in the slaughter of scores of millions of Russian Christians
under Judaeo-Communism. Moreover, they are also going to learn of the Jewish
domination of the media (if they didn't already know), and how the Jews use
that to conduct their fraud upon the West and upon the Arabs, while
contributing mightily to the detriment of the non-Jews amongst whom they
live.
It is just unrealistic to expect that many, if not most, who learn much
about Jews, their history, their beliefs, their hatred of non-Jews and
things not Jewish, aren't going to develop anti-Jewish feelings as a
consequence. It is a very old, nevertheless fallacious, notion that if one
says anything negative about Jews, or expresses a disbelief in any Jewish
claim, does so because he is anti-Jewish. Most likely, he has become
anti-Jewish because he has learned that Jews are lying, betraying,
corrupting, stealing, murdering or engage in some other enterprise or
movement which most non-Jews would find either detrimental to them, or that
they are being used by Jews toward Jewish ends.
The argument that only neo-Nazis are revisionists is patently absurd. Bill
Smith of CODOH is not a national socialist and he is a revisionist.
Furthermore, he is not a White Nationalist.
Being a national socialist does not require that the Holocaust Story be
debunked. Do you think that Pat Buchanan is a national socialist? He has
expressed a disbelief in some of the claims made in the Holocaust Story. If
you think he is, then state your case. I require more proof than that he
doesn't buy the Holohoax Story lock, stock and receiver.
You continue to throw out this "challenge" as though it was some great proof
of the veracity of the Holohoax Story. It is not. It's a rather childish, if
not desperate effort to keep this fraud afloat. You are clearly attacking
nothing more than the revisionists themselves, and not their arguments at
all.
The holohoax story does not stand up on its own. It must be propped up by
more lies and intimidation. No one argues that Sherman didn't raze the South
on his ignominious march from Atlanta to the coast. And the northern forces
have told many lies before, during and after that event to thoroughly
demonize the Confederacy. There are still people who so hate the Confederacy
and what they believe it stood for, that they would try to espouse such a
lie, but to my knowledge no one is. It is simply too preposterous and no one
would believe them. If they could, they would no doubt lie and claim that
Sherman did no such thing. Who would believe them? And what kinds of
techniques would they have to employ to sustain such a claim?
Wouldn't they look very similar to the tactics employed by the proponents of
the Holohoax Story? This story, the Holocaust Story, is largely a fraud,
Matthews. The Germans did kill Jews, many Jews. But no where near 6 million,
nor did they gas them to death, nor were the Germans guilty of many of the
things of which the Jews have charged them. There is simply to much
compelling evidence, the convergence of which rises to refute and render as
malicious lies, far too many of the horrible claims comprising the Holocaust
Story.
When someone begins to suspect the truth of that, they are inevitably going
to develop anti-Jewish feelings, where often, none whatsoever existed
before. I know, because this describes my own experience. I have no reason
to lie about this. I've pretty honestly and openly expressed my feelings
about Jews in this forum. I have no reservations whatsoever in admitting
that I hold anti-Jewish feelings. Apart from the Holohoax Story, I have
plenty of good reasons for feeling the way I do about Jews. I could just as
easily justify these sentiments by citing a number of other things which
honestly have contributed to how I feel about Jews--communism and the
slaughter of some 60 million Russian Christians under Jewish Bolshevism.
But, I do not believe far too many of the claims of the holohoaxers. And
what little that hoax might contribute to my anti-Jewish feelings is
insignificant next to how I feel about their communism and the slaughter it
has brought to so many. It might even be less than watching Jews slaughter
Palestinians while trying to portray themselves as being innocent vicitims.
Just that last thing alone is enough to inspire a very strong anti-Jewish
attitude. What can inspire animosity more than a murderer lying to me and
trying to convince me that he is the one being persectued?
Try to find some realistic balance, Matthews. Your argument is not only
baseless, it is nothing but hot air. It is virtually meaningless, even if
your claim were true. But it isn't. Revisionism isn't the search for a
justifiable reason to dislike Jews. Nor is it a necessary step to reviving
national socialism.
You claim is just one more absurd lie to try to tie all the lies of the
Holocaust Story together and keep it from disintegrating. But it is
disintegrating right in front of your eyes. And your absurd claim is
evidence, not only of that fact, but that you are running out of ideas for
keeping the fraud alive.
Dan Parker
Allan Matthews wrote in message ...
>Gee, you'd think that after many weeks of posting this at least one
>revisionist who isn't a neo-Nazi or anti-Semite would have come forward
>and said "Here I am!"
>
>But, no. It appears that there just aren't any such revisionists around.
>
>Based on their past posting history, the few bozos who have bothered to
>claim that they aren't neo-Nazis or anti-Semites were, upon examination
>of their claims, clearly lying. Of course, given the general behavior of
>revisionists, this lack of honesty isn't surprising in the least.
>
>However, just in case some revisionist scholars have missed my question
>to date, here it is again:
>
>Where are the revisionists who aren't neo-Nazis or anti-Semites?
>
>It's a fair question. Afterall, how can revisionsists hope to be taken
>seriously if they all have such apparent biases, agendas and axes to
>grind?
>
>So, then, if Holocaust revisionism is an intellectually honest endevour,
>where are the revisionists who aren't neo-Nazis or anti-Semites?
Allan Matthews
says...
>Matthews, I personally know of half a dozen people who developed anti-Jewish
>sentiment after learning that Jews were making fraudulent claims with their
>Holocaust Story.
So you say. You are, however, a proven liar. Your word is worthless.
BTW, just what "fraudulent" claims were those?
[Pvt. Dan's usual paranoid anti-Semitic drivel snipped]
Yale F. Edeiken
> Matthews, I personally know of half a dozen people who developed anti-Jewish
> sentiment after learning that Jews were making fraudulent claims with their
> Holocaust Story.
made including those in your posting on Kristallnacht:
From: Dan Parker <dpa...@intrstar.net>
Subject: Kristalnacht Clear
Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 3:48 AM
>It's wailing time again!
And this miserable excuse for a scholar decided to wail a
bit.
>The reason malarkey flourishes is simply because most people are
>simply too damned lazy to check up on anything -- and the manure
>spreaders and gossip peddlers know that.
And, in apparent belief in this canard, the author spreads
enough malarkey to fertilize every rose garden in New York State.
Apparently he hopes no one will check up on him.
He was wrong.
>I wrote the following about 6 years ago, when FAEM was a paper,
>and it is still timely -- as most everything I write is:
Only for connoisseurs of intellectual dishonesty -- as most
everything you write is. The discerning reader will note that
this author did not provide a single place where his "facts" can
be checked. There is a good reason for this, to most people the
imagination of a bigot is hardly an authoritative source.
CRYSTAL NUTS or the
NIGHT OF THE BROKEN BEER BOTTLES
>November 10, 1938 was a day that will go down in infamy, Jewish
>infamy, that is. What was a few hours of vandalism in Nazi
>Germany became kosherized into an event which surpassed Watts,
>Los Angeles, Detroit
Which, as anyone familiar with the facts knows, is correct.
The discerning reader will note the interesting propaganda
technique employed by the author. He states conclusions based
upon his bigoted assumptions first. The hope here is that after
his version of Kristalnacht is dismissed as the nonsense it is,
the impression he attempted to create will linger.
>look up the New York Times for November 11-14, 1938. You'll find
>out what the reporters said happened which is very much
>different from what the Jews said happened decades after the
>fact.
Note that the author fails to point out that a secret
investigation was held by the Nazis on November 12, 1938. The
explicit findings by Goering and others is accurately reflected
by the accounts which this author disparages.
>Contrary to what you've been told, Nazi Germany was open to
>American reporters and the Germans were fond of showing off to
>the world the depression they weren't in.
Now we encounter the first outright lie. Note that the
author does not cite a single source which makes such a claim.
Perhaps he has never heard of "Berlin Diary" by William Shirer.
> Even Col. Charles Lindberg travelled extensively
>throughout the country, happily reporting about the miracle of
>Nazi Germany.
Don't you just love the word "even" which begins this. The
author uses it to imply that there was some reason Lindberg would
not be welcome. Lindberg was a sympathizer with Nazi doctrine
who accepted a medal from Hitler personally. His wife was a
convinced Nazi.
>A world famous reporter, Louis Lochner, was on hand to see all
>of the whoopee which commenced about 2:00 AM on that Thursday
>morning.
The author left out, for some reason, the manner in which it
commenced. On November 9, Goebbels was addressing a meeting of
gaulieters where he announced that the time for "revenge" against
Jews had arrived. With his explicit approval the gaulieters
rushed to phones and started the SA on the road to Kristallnacht.
For some reason the author fails to note the direct participation
of the Nazi hierarchy with Kristallnacht. [report from Walter
Buch, chief judge of the Nazi party, to Goering, February 13,
1939] This failure totally demolishes his comparison of
Kristallnacht with urban riots. The former was initiated by the
government; the latter were not.
>Until the New York Times was subverted into being a salesman for
>the bagel industry,
The author is apparently unaware that the ownership of the
New York Times has never changed. It has been owed by the same
family since that time.
> it was a decent paper which reported the following:
Note that no references to where these "facts" appear. Nor
is there one bit of reference to later reporting which makes hash
of these statements.
>(1) When the news of the outbreak of vandalism reached the
>proper authorities, police were immediately dispatched to put an
>end to it. By 10:00 AM that morning, about 8 hours after it
>began, the police had everything under control and the violence
>was stopped.
Rubbish. First, it was the "proper authorities" who
initiated the violence. On November 10, 1939, Goebbels later
wrote, "He [Hitler] decides demonstrations should be allowed to
continue. The police should be withdrawn." [quoted in
Friedlander "Nazi Germany and the Jews" 1997; page 272]
Second, Heydrich's orders to the police was not to end the
violence. It's primary objective was to prevent the violence
spreading to German businesses. [Heydrich's order can be found at
IMT, Vol 31; Exhibit PS-3051]. The explicit orders were that no
arrests were to be made for destroying Jewish property; arrests
were to be made only for looting. Further an order was issues at
the same time to round up Jews-- "especially rich ones."
>(2) There were no uniforms observed except those worn by the
>arresting police.
Garbage. Many of the S.A. wore their uniforms. [Report of
David Buffam, American Counsel General in Leipzig, who witnessed
the violence, November 21, 1938] Likewise there are eyewitness
accounts cited in Martin Gilbert's "The Holocaust" indicating
that uniforms were worn.
>(3) No one was killed. The only person who died from violence
>that morning was a Pole, living in Berlin, who got into a tangle
>with a burglar.
Baloney. According to Goering's report on November 12, 91
Jews were murdered during the violence [IMT Vol 28; Exhibit PS-1816]. Hedrich's
initial report on November 11, gave the death
toll as 36. This was later corrected in the report cited above.
The death of a Polish Jew was reported directly to Goebbels
at 2:00 a.m. His response was, according to Buch in terms of
"not getting upset because of a dead Jew."
This death toll does not count the 2,000 Jews who died in
Dachau after being kidnapped and held for ransom after
Krystallnachtl.
>(4) Many Germans were arrested along with a handful of Jews.
Horse manure. Not once but twice.
The arrests were only for looting. By letter of the
Ministry of Justice only cases of looting or where the damage or
violence was done for "selfish" reasons. [Buch report]
The "handful" of Jews arrested was 30,000. The arrests
continued until, at least November 23. Why 30,000? Heydrich's
instructions [cited above] was that as many Jews were to be
arrested as could be held in existing facilities. 2,000 of those
Jews were never released. They died in the two months it took to
raise their ransom.
>(5) At least 8 Germans were convicted and sentenced to 2 years
>in jail and others were sentenced to 6 months in a concentration
>labor camp.
Bat guano. All prosecutions were for looting. The Ministry
of Justice [cited above] states that unless there was a motive
other than personal gain, destruction of Jewish property or
violence against Jews was not to be prosecuted. [Buch Report]
Further it should be noted that during the violence 7,500
businesses were vandalized and 267 synagogues destroyed [Buch
Report]. Considering this scale of destruction, EIGHT
convictions of looters is hardly evidence of a serious
prosecution.
>(6) Of the Jews who were arrested, none were convicted of
>anything and all were released shortly after Hanukkah (before
>Christmas).
Drivel. Start with the obvious. Why the hell should any
have been arrested at all? They were the VICTIMS of the
violence. Not all were released. 2,000 died while under
"arrest."
The real lie, however, is in the purpose of the brutal
incarceration. It was extortion. A meeting was held on November
12, where the financial matters were discussed in light of
Hitler's direct order that the Jews were to bear all costs. At
the meeting it was decided that the 30,000 Jews held hostage
would be released on the payment of 1,000,000,000 marks. They
were released only upon the payment of this ransom. [the full
text of this meeting can be found at IMT vol. 28, page 499 ff.]
>(7) All damaged Jewish property was HEAVILY insured.
At last the author gets something right. The German
businessmen followed normal business practices. It seems to come
as a surprise to this author. Nevertheless, after a string of
fraudulent misrepresentations, it is heartening to see that he
got SOMETHING right.
Unfortunately the something is a lie by omission. The
majority of those insured were "Aryans."
>(8) ALL insurance companies paid off the beneficiaries FAR IN
>EXCESS of the actual value.
An outright lie. As decided at the November 12 meeting, the
insurance companies were required to pay losses. They did not,
however, pay the beneficiaries per Hitler's direct order that the
Jews were to bear all costs of the damage. The money was paid
directly to the Nazi party. [source cited above] Thus now
damages were paid to Jewish insureds. The only ones who could
have received this alleged overpayments were "Aryans."
>Like the proverbial fish that got away, Krystallnacht stories
>get longer by the decade.
Since the facts the author ignores, almost without
exception, cited from Nazi party documents prepared within a year
of the event and established at the Nuremberg trial in 1946, it
is significant that the damage done by this officially sanctioned
violence has remained constant over the year. The fact that the
author can cite no examples, is a sure indication that the only
thing that is growing is his nose.
> The lesson to be learned, from the above, is that when business
>is bad, why depend upon Jewish-lightning when you could have a
>Krystallnacht?
The real lesson to be learned is the paucity of honesty and
lack of competence as a researcher of the author. He makes eight
statements about Kristallnacht. Of them, seven are demonstrably
false and the remaining one a commonplace assertion that
businessmen buy insurance.
Other than the observations that this bigoted author has no
credibility and that his account was created out of whole cloth,
it reflects the utter lack of rational basis for his anti-Semitism. He does not rely on
fact or history, preferring to
base his hatred on misrepresentations, distortions, and outright
lies.
It is risible that he expects his venom to be taken
seriously.
I wonder what sort of ignorami were convinced by arguments so
factually incorrect.
PHILNANCY
Mr. Parker wrote:
This post has little to do with the Holocaust. On the other hand, it serves
as useful evidence of the underlying anti-semitism of many of the Holocaust
Deniers. So much for the honest pursuit of revisionist truth .
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant
than would take even a little trouble to acquire it." Samuel Johnson
Joel Rosenberg
Dan Parker wrote in message ...
>Matthews, I personally know of half a dozen people who developed
anti-Jewish
>sentiment after learning that Jews were making fraudulent claims with their
>Holocaust Story.
Horseshit.
You still peddling your sister's ass, Porker?
Debunks
>anti-Semites?>Date: 11/26/98 1:53 PM EST
>Message-id: <365e3...@news3.enter.net>
>
>> deb...@aol.com (Debunks) writes:
>> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>> >anti-Semites?
>> >From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
>> >Date: 11/26/98 6:12 AM EST
>> >Message-id: <365dc...@news3.enter.net>
>
>> SNIP
>
>
> And thereby Matthews point is perfectly proven. You are a notorious
>anti-Semite.
>
>
>people
>> could possibly have.
>
>Jews. After gleefully justifying the murder of women and children for no
>other reason
>than their Jewish heritage, he pretrends to speak for them.
>
> You are a foul excretion.
>
> And you know it.
>
> "hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
> .well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about
>me i
> am a female."
>
> --YFE
Pity this poor, psychologically discturbed individual so full of hate against
others and himself. He is the worst enemy Jews could possibly have.
Mark Van Alstine
wrote:
> > deb...@aol.com (Debunks) writes:
> > >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> > >anti-Semites?
> > >From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
> > >Date: 11/26/98 6:12 AM EST
> > >Message-id: <365dc...@news3.enter.net>
>
> > SNIP
>
> Here's what Bellinger snipped:
>
> And thereby Matthews point is perfectly proven. You are a notorious
> anti-Semite.
>
>
> > There is your anti-semite for you. He is the worst enemy the Jewish people
> > could possibly have.
>
> Poor Jew-hating Joe. Nowe this vicious bigot pretends to care about
> Jews. After gleefully justifying the murder of women and children for
no other reason
> than their Jewish heritage, he pretrends to speak for them.
>
> You are a foul excretion.
>
> And you know it.
>
> "hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
> .well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more
about me i
> am a female."
>
Subject: sex
From: jbel...@sprynet.com
Date: 1996/07/21
Message-ID: <4ss34r$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>
Organization: Sprynet News Service
Newsgroups: alt.teens
<begin quote>
why is everything [almost] about sex ? e- mail me sometime 14/F i always
write back
<end quote>
Mark
--
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line seperating 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"
Yale F. Edeiken
> > And thereby Matthews point is perfectly proven. You are a notorious
> >anti-Semite.
> >> There is your anti-semite for you. He is the worst enemy the Jewish
> >people
> >> could possibly have.
> >
> > Poor Jew-hating Joe. Nowe this vicious bigot pretends to care about
> >Jews. After gleefully justifying the murder of women and children for no
> >other reason
> >than their Jewish heritage, he pretrends to speak for them.
> > You are a foul excretion.
> > And you know it.
> > "hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
> > .well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about
> >me i
> > am a female."
> Pity this poor, psychologically discturbed individual so full of hate against
> others and himself.
No Jew-hating Joe, I fail to pity a psychologically disturbed individual such as
you. Others might, but I think the arrogant hate that you peddle is basically evil.
> He is the worst enemy Jews could possibly have.
You mistyped again, Jew-hating Joe. The sentence should have begun "I
want to be"
"hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
.well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about me i
am a female."
--YFE
Debunks
>anti-Semites?
>From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
>Message-id: <365f1...@news3.enter.net>
An evil, hate-filled wretch, this yale. A bigger anti-Semite is not to be
found with in this NG. My advice: Stay away. You are doing revisionism more
good than you could ever possibly imagine in that narrow little cesspit of
yours you call a mind.
Debunks
>anti-Semites?
>Date: 11/27/98 4:11 PM EST
>Message-id: <mvanalst-271...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>
SNIP
Two sick beasts.
Mark Van Alstine
(Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >anti-Semites?
Subject: sex
From: jbel...@sprynet.com
Date: 1996/07/21
Message-ID: <4ss34r$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>
Organization: Sprynet News Service
Newsgroups: alt.teens
<begin quote>
why is everything [almost] about sex ? e- mail me sometime 14/F i always
write back
For those interested in proof of Boger's irrelevant Nazi apologia,
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/b/bellinger.joseph
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/lies
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.0996
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1096
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1196
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/blackmore.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/tutu101.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/fafner13.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/anyone-out-there-12-1
Mark Van Alstine
(Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >anti-Semites?
> >From: mvan...@no-spam.netmail.home.com (Mark Van Alstine )
> >Date: 11/27/98 4:11 PM EST
> >Message-id: <mvanalst-271...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>
> >
> >In article <365e3...@news3.enter.net>, ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
> >wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> Two sick beasts.
For those interested in proof of Boger's irrelevant Nazi apologia,
Debunks
>anti-Semites?
>From: mvan...@no-spam.netmail.home.com (Mark Van Alstine )
>Message-id: <mvanalst-271...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>
>
>In article <19981127175103...@ng116.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>(Debunks) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>> >anti-Semites?
REMEMBER: THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
Debunks
>anti-Semites?
>From: mvan...@no-spam.netmail.home.com (Mark Van Alstine )
>Date: 11/27/98 6:12 PM EST
>Message-id: <mvanalst-271...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>
SNip Alstin'e filth
From: The Avengers, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Hawthorn Books, 1968:
One day at the end of May 1945 an army convoy was winding its way up a mountain
road in the north of Italy. It had crossed the river Po and the Venetian plain
and was heading for the Alps. There was something unusual about this convoy.
The leading vehicles were flying blue and white flags bearing the Star of
david, and on the sides of other vehicles were painted more six pointed Stars
and caustic remarks such as Deutschland Kaputt! And Kein Volk, kein Reich, kein
Fuehrer! And also 3 significant words:
DIE JUDEN KOMMEN!-----THE JEWS ARE COMING!
Suddenly another convoy appeared from the opposite direction—jeeps of military
police, a few open Volkswagens carrying German officers, then a long file of
army trucks crammed with German soldiers. It was a German Army unit being
conducted to a POW camp in Italy.
"Germans!" was the cry that swept along the Jewish convoy—but in Hebrew. And
in each vehicle bearing the Star of David the soldiers grabbed whatever came to
hand—tins of meat, iron bars, tools, bronze statuettes bought as souvenirs in
Florence. They hurled these at the German prisoners as the other convoy passed
and cries resounded across the roadway—cries of pain and cries of hate.
Page20.
COMMENT: We have discussed allegations of Jewish brutality toward Germans many
times in this forum and the claim is flippantly dismissed by the Nizkor
supporters. However, what will follow in this series of posts shall be quite
difficult to ignore, though they shall undoubtedly do their best to do so,
considering that the sources for what will follow are all Jewish criminals
living and protected in Israel, where they will never be brought before a court
of justice to answer for their numerous crimes and atrocities against the
German people. Consider the above—Nizkor supporters wail and howl that torture
was rarely used against germans after the war—yet here is just one
situation—relatively insignificant in itself compared to the greater crimes
committed by these cowardly villains-which shows that abuse of Germans was the
rule rather than the exception. Have you ever been struck with a tin of meat?
An iron bar? Tools? How about a hammer? A wrench? Or a bronze statuette?
Such was the hate which filled the hearts of these Jews who threw these
murderous weapons at hundreds of innocent people. Is this hateful behavior
against the innocent in the least bit defensible? But this is rather tame
compared with what shall follow. Let’s continue with our quotes:
A few days before this incident, the Jewish Brigade was at Brisighella, near
Bologna, when a rumor spread rapidly among the men—"We’re going to be sent to
join the army of occupation in Germany!" These volunteers from Palestine were
well aware that the British Command had been very hesitant about letting them
come into contact with Germans, either military or civilians. Indeed there was
fear that the desire for revenge would be stronger in Jewish soldiers than
their sense of discipline. But now they were going to Germany! The men
discusse dthe news with great excitement—it was too good to be true!
"Give us just one month there, only a month," they told each other. "We’ll
give THEM something to remember us by forever. They’ll have REAL reasons for
hating us now. We’ll have just one pogrom—in round numbers we’ll burn down a
thousand houses, kill 500 people, and rape 100 women." And more than one
youngster was heard to say: "I must kill a German in cold blood. I MUST. And
I must rape a German girl. I don’t care what happens afterwards. (They need
not have worried…they are all scot free and living under Israeli protection
today—DEBUNKS)…The Germans must have a name to remember too—the name of a town
that we have burned to the ground, wiped from the face of the earth (As in the
Old Testament?--DEBUNKS) That’s our war aim---REVENGE. (Caps DEBUNKS)…Not
Roosevelt’s 4 freedoms or the greater glory of the British Empire or Stalin’s
ideology. But vengeance—Jewish vengeance."
Comment: Bear in mind that it was members of this "Jewish Brigade" who
captured both HEINRICH HIMMLER and RUDOLF HOESS, whose "confession" they
obtained by threat, beating and torture.. One of the captors of Himmler turned
out to be Chaim Herzog, later to become President of Israel.
But let’s continue:
The day before the Brigade was to proceed to Germany, the units were paraded.
Standing under their flag, a corporal read out the "Commandments of the Jewish
soldier on German soil.":
1. Remember thy 6 million brethern killed." (How did they POSSIBLY have this
figure at this early date!?--DEBUNKS)
2. Thou shalt always hate thy people’s oppressors.
3. Remember that thou art entrusted with a mission by a combatant people.
4. Remember that the Jewish Brigade is a Jewish force of occupation in
Germany.
5. Remember that our arrival as a Brigade, with our emblem and our flag is in
itself a vengeance.
6. Remember that blood revenge is the revenge of the whole community, and that
any irresponsible act is detrimental to our community. (This is a reliance on
the Talmud and it’s teachings. Note that there is no concern whatsoever for
the German people here—DEBUNKS)
7. Behave as a Jew who is proud of his race and of his flag. (I thought the
Jews were only a RELIGION?--DEBUNKS
8. Thou shalt not dishonor thyself by mixing with Germans. (Jewish
racism-DEBUNKS)
9. Thou shalt not listen to their words and neither shalt thou enter their
houses.
10. Cursed are they, they and their wives and their children, their goods and
all that is theirs; cursed are they forever.
11. Remember that thy mission is to rescue Jews, the emigration to Israel, and
the liberation of the homeland. (So here is an implicit avowal of assisting in
the ILLEGAL emigration of millions of Jews to Israel and other countries……and
the "liberation" of the "homeland?" Surely they jest. –DEBUNKS
12. Thy duty is in devotion, loyalty, and love toward those who have escaped
death, the survivors from the concentration camps. (This would be the Jewish
equivalent of an SS oath.—DEBUNKS
The soldiers of the Jewish Brigade stood stiffly at attention and listened in
silence. Within them surged a hatred mingled with a fierce joy…….
The author quotes one who was present---the Israeli novelist Hanoch Bartov:
"We would avenge our people. We would not take any pleasure in it or acquire a
taste for it, but we would avenge them! We would become known forever as the
implacable enemies of our people’s torturers. (Did those German army men whom
they threw iron bars at "torture" their "people?"==DEBUNKS…..And each one of us
was thinking, "Tomorrow! Tomorrow I’ll be in Germany!"
COMMENT: Thus we can read from the lips of the participants themselves the
sort of policy they had in mind when they reached Germany. Unfortunately for
the Brigade, their marching orders were temporarily rescinded, but this would
not deter them to spilling the blood they were so thirsty to devour in a
holocaust of murder as self-appointed judges of the German people. Their day
would yet come.
END Part One...Part Two Upcoming
David Gehrig
(Debunks) wrote:
<< snip >>
>REMEMBER: THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
Jöe's panic-mantra. This one only pops up when he's been caught doing
something incredibly stupid, and can't even attempt to bluff his way
out. It's sort of the equivalent of a pinball machine's "tilt" light.
@%<
ORAC
<dpa...@intrstar.net> wrote:
>Matthews, I personally know of half a dozen people who developed anti-Jewish
>sentiment after learning that Jews were making fraudulent claims with their
>Holocaust Story.
LOL!
Starting out this way, you're doing an exceedingly poor job of refuting
Allan's suggestion that most revisionists are anti-Semitic or, at the very
least, have anti-Semitic tendencies.
>Somewhere, either before, during or subsequent to discovering revisionism,
>the revisionist, or would be revisionist is very likely to learn of the
>Jewish role in the slaughter of scores of millions of Russian Christians
>under Judaeo-Communism. Moreover, they are also going to learn of the Jewish
>domination of the media (if they didn't already know), and how the Jews use
>that to conduct their fraud upon the West and upon the Arabs, while
>contributing mightily to the detriment of the non-Jews amongst whom they
>live.
ROTFL!
If you're trying to argue that revisionists like yourself are not
anti-Semitic, this is not going to convince any reasonable person of
anything other than your anti-Semitism.
>It is just unrealistic to expect that many, if not most, who learn much
>about Jews, their history, their beliefs, their hatred of non-Jews and
>things not Jewish, aren't going to develop anti-Jewish feelings as a
>consequence. It is a very old, nevertheless fallacious, notion that if one
>says anything negative about Jews, or expresses a disbelief in any Jewish
>claim, does so because he is anti-Jewish. Most likely, he has become
>anti-Jewish because he has learned that Jews are lying, betraying,
>corrupting, stealing, murdering or engage in some other enterprise or
>movement which most non-Jews would find either detrimental to them, or that
>they are being used by Jews toward Jewish ends.
ROTFLMAO!
You know, you're demonstrating perfectly Allan's point about how
revisionists tend towards anti-Semitism very well. In fact, you're turning
into the poster boy for anti-Semitism around a.r.
>The argument that only neo-Nazis are revisionists is patently absurd. Bill
>Smith of CODOH is not a national socialist and he is a revisionist.
>Furthermore, he is not a White Nationalist.
You'll note that Allan did NOT say that only neo-Nazis are revisionists.
He merely put out a call for people to identify revisionists who are not
neo-Nazis or anti-Semites. (Granted, I've never encountered a neo-Nazi who
isn't an anti-Semite, but I have encountered lots of anti-Semites who are
NOT neo-Nazis.) In any event, so far, no revisionist with a track record
free of blatant anti-Semitism has yet responded to Allan's post.
>Being a national socialist does not require that the Holocaust Story be
>debunked. Do you think that Pat Buchanan is a national socialist? He has
>expressed a disbelief in some of the claims made in the Holocaust Story.
I have a pretty intense dislike of Pat Buchanan and his politics most of
the time, but in the interests of fairness, I have to request that you
please point out exactly where I can find writings, speeches, or
interviews by Pat Buchanan in which he "expressed a disbelief in some of
the claims made in the Holocaust Story." I would like to know exactly
WHICH parts of the Holocaust Pat Buchanan supposedly doubts and his
reasons for doing so. If you can't produce such references, I have to
assume that Buchanan made no such claims and that therefore you either
don't know what you're talking about or you're lying outright.
>If
>you think he is, then state your case. I require more proof than that he
>doesn't buy the Holohoax Story lock, stock and receiver.
And I require more proof than your word that Buchanan has "expressed a
disbelief in some of the claims made in the Holocaust Story," along with
exactly what he supposedly said.
>You continue to throw out this "challenge" as though it was some great proof
>of the veracity of the Holohoax Story. It is not. It's a rather childish, if
>not desperate effort to keep this fraud afloat. You are clearly attacking
>nothing more than the revisionists themselves, and not their arguments at
>all.
How can you say this challenge fails, when you have not been able to
produce this mythical beast, the Holocaust revisionist who is neither an
anti-Semite nor a neo-Nazi? You yourself certainly don't qualify because
you are both.
[Remainder of Parker's anti-Semitic drivel snipped]
--
THE ABOVE E-MAIL ADDRESS ONLY ACCEPTS MAIL FROM FAMILY
AND FRIENDS. TO E-MAIL ME, USE: dgorski[at]xsite[dot]net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ORAC |"A statement of fact cannot be
a.k.a. David Gorski | insolent." ORAC
Chicago, IL |
Allan Matthews
This, of course, is not the argument being made. Pvt. Dan is either too
stupid or too dishonest (or both most likely) to recognize that fact.
>Bill Smith of CODOH is not a national socialist and he is a revisionist.
>Furthermore, he is not a White Nationalist.
These points are debatable. However, Mr. Smith is an anti-Semite.
>Being a national socialist does not require that the Holocaust Story be
>debunked. Do you think that Pat Buchanan is a national socialist? He has
>expressed a disbelief in some of the claims made in the Holocaust Story.
Mr. Buchanan is a well-known anti-Semite. Some would argue that he, like
his father, is a Nazi as well.
Debunks
>Date: 11/28/98 10:50 AM EST
>Message-id: <73p5sp$5e2$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>
>In article <19981128000434...@ng-ce1.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>(Debunks) wrote:
>
><< snip >>
>
>>REMEMBER: THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
>
>something incredibly stupid, and can't even attempt to bluff his way
>out. It's sort of the equivalent of a pinball machine's "tilt" light.
>
>@%<
>
>
>
>
>
Funny that you have not one word to say about the defecation which spews out of
the holes of Alstine and Edeiken. Wadda hypocrite!
DeppityBob
>>REMEMBER: THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
>
>J=F6e's panic-mantra. This one only pops up when he's been caught doing
>something incredibly stupid, and can't even attempt to bluff his way
>out. It's sort of the equivalent of a pinball machine's "tilt" light.
>
>@%<
>
Funny that you have not one word to say about the defecation which spews out of
the holes of Alstine and Edeiken. Wadda hypocrite!<<
*sigh* Well, as tremendously obvious as this is, let me say it: usually,
Booger, one doesn't make a point of trashing people one AGREES WITH. That's
generally why no one expects you to attack Curdles, or Private Dan (and the
rest of the Hoffieganda Sock Puppet Brigade), or Fungus McClelland, or
Sabaloney, or Alex Vange, or whomever. Only you seem to think it's unfair that
we don't attack people with whom we are in general, and often specific,
agreement.
Dep
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember."
--David Mamet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Van Alstine
(Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
> >Date: 11/28/98 10:50 AM EST
> >Message-id: <73p5sp$5e2$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
> >
> >In article <19981128000434...@ng-ce1.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
> >(Debunks) wrote:
> >
> ><< snip >>
> >
> >>REMEMBER: THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
> >
> >J=F6e's panic-mantra. This one only pops up when he's been caught doing
> >something incredibly stupid, and can't even attempt to bluff his way
> >out. It's sort of the equivalent of a pinball machine's "tilt" light.
> >
> >@%<
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Funny that you have not one word to say about the defecation which spews
out of
> the holes of Alstine and Edeiken. Wadda hypocrite!
If this is the "defecation," Boger speaks of, remember that the words are
_verbatim_ HIS.
Subject: sex
From: jbel...@sprynet.com
Date: 1996/07/21
Message-ID: <4ss34r$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>
Organization: Sprynet News Service
Newsgroups: alt.teens
<begin quote>
why is everything [almost] about sex ? e- mail me sometime 14/F i always
write back
<end quote>
Glad to hear that Boger realizes he's nothing more than a fruitcake with a
sewer-mouth.
David Gehrig
>>Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>>Date: 11/28/98 10:50 AM EST
>>Message-id: <73p5sp$5e2$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>>
>>In article <19981128000434...@ng-ce1.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>>(Debunks) wrote:
>>
>><< snip >>
>>
>>>REMEMBER: THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
>>
>>J=F6e's panic-mantra. This one only pops up when he's been caught doing
>>something incredibly stupid, and can't even attempt to bluff his way
>>out. It's sort of the equivalent of a pinball machine's "tilt" light.
>>
>>@%<
>
>Funny that you have not one word to say about the defecation which spews out of
>the holes of Alstine and Edeiken. Wadda hypocrite!
van Alstine and Edeiken don't slander my religion the way you do, Debunks.
Face up to it. If you weren't constantly letting loose your huge fogbanks
of antisemitic stupidity, then I'd disappear from your life. Punkt. But
since you _do_ think it's a nice little hobby to demonstrate the Eeeevil
ways of the Wikked Hebrooooo, and buttress your argument with material
you clearly don't understand and simply connot place in any kind of
context that doesn;t have the Third Reich stamp of approval, well, gee,
I'm gonna blow the whistle on it. Don't tell me, out of one side of
your mouth, "Your religion is inherently racist," and then out of the
other side of your mouth, "don't say rude things." There more kinds of
rudeness than just scatology, dude, and you're the poster child for
antisemitic slander.
Why did I nail you to the wall on the "Jewish Currents" thing? Was it just
to show how poor a scholar you are? You don't need my help for that.
No, I was responding to a _significant_ and _slanderous_ charge -- that the
Jewish religion is inherently racist, and that their treatment of
converts demonstrates this.
Mind you, from your initial comments on the topic I could tell that you
were clearly unfamiliar with the way a Jewish convert is embraced --
literally -- within the Jewish community. And you were never quite
willing to put your spine where your keyboard was on that question,
"Do you or I know more about how a convert is treated?" a question
you left unanswered.
The fact that, in pure Bellinger fashion, you then tried to back up
your point with an article even you admit you can't prove you've
seen -- since you can't offer the month and date of the article,
which has been for literally centuries the standard way of documenting
an article's existence -- well, that's just collateral damage, just
another way of showing, at root, how revisionism relies on pseudo-
scholarship rather than the real "article" (so to speak).
But pseudoscholarship is a comparatively minor charge -- especially when
it's of the self-documenting variety, like yours, where you prove on
damn near a daily basis that you wouldn't last a week in a grad
history program -- and that alone isn't enough to get me to post.
The world is full of crackpots, most of them much more amusing than
you.
The reason you get my attention, Joe, is that you combine pseudo-
scholarship with the antisemitism you deny but are completely
inept at disguising. Your claim that Judaism is inherently racist
is simply wrong, Joe. Yes, there are some racist Jews, but the
fact that there was a Meir Kahane doesn't change the fact that,
say, there were a disproportionate number of Jews marching for
civil rights at Selma -- including a rabbi who used to live here
in C-U. How do you explain that, Joe, if you claim that Judaism
is inherently racist?
@%<
Debunks
>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>Message-id: <73rqve$82q$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>
>In article <19981128230232...@ng-cf1.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>(Debunks) wrote:
>
>
>>>Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>>>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>>>Date: 11/28/98 10:50 AM EST
>>>Message-id: <73p5sp$5e2$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>>>
>>>In article <19981128000434...@ng-ce1.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>>>(Debunks) wrote:
>>>
>>><< snip >>
>>>
>>>>REMEMBER: THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
>>>
>>>J=F6e's panic-mantra. This one only pops up when he's been caught doing
>>>something incredibly stupid, and can't even attempt to bluff his way
>>>out. It's sort of the equivalent of a pinball machine's "tilt" light.
>>>
>>>@%<
>>
>>Funny that you have not one word to say about the defecation which spews out
>of
>>the holes of Alstine and Edeiken. Wadda hypocrite!
>
>van Alstine and Edeiken don't slander my religion the way you do
This is rather irrelevant, though you don't seem to think so/. Many Jews have
also slandered MY religion.
>Face up to it. If you weren't constantly letting loose your huge fogbanks
>of antisemitic stupidity, then I'd disappear from your life.
Then disappear, because I am not an anti-semite.
> But
>since you _do_ think it's a nice little hobby to demonstrate the Eeeevil
>ways of the Wikked Hebrooooo, and buttress your argument with material
>you clearly don't understand and simply connot place in any kind of
>context that doesn;t have the Third Reich stamp of approval, well, gee,
>I'm gonna blow the whistle on it.
You are paranoid.
>Don't tell me, out of one side of
>your mouth, "Your religion is inherently racist," and then out of the
>other side of your mouth, "don't say rude things."
There certainly IS a strong undercurrent of racism in Orthodox Jewry.
>There more kinds of
>rudeness than just scatology, dude, and you're the poster child for
>antisemitic slander.
I think you ought to go in search of greener pastures...I am sure there are
many vicious anti-semites who would be pleased to oblige you. You simply
concentrate onme because I question your version of the holocaust. It is so
much easier to call names, though, isn't it?
>Why did I nail you to the wall on the "Jewish Currents" thing?
You didn't. Until you research these articles you just as well might have
nailed a fart to the wall.
> Was it just
>to show how poor a scholar you are?
This has nothing to do with scholarship in any sense of the word. It was a
mere point of trivia referring to something I read in a Jewish magazine close
20 years ago.
>No, I was responding to a _significant_ and _slanderous_ charge -- that the
>Jewish religion is inherently racis
The ORTHODOX. Will you try and dispute that?>
>and that their treatment of
>converts demonstrates this.
>
I can think of no other way to express this, considering all that I have read
re the Orthodox. And I know a numnber of Jews, friends of mine--who always
ridicule and speak scathingly of the fanatic Orthodox Jews.
>Mind you, from your initial comments on the topic I could tell that you
>were clearly unfamiliar with the way a Jewish convert is embraced --
>literally --
That would depend on the type of Jews involved. I even have a female cousin
who converted to Judaism--and then married a Russian Jew. However, she was
always fascinated from childhood with the "holy trinity"--Judaism, Communism,
and Russia.
>And you were never quite
>willing to put your spine where your keyboard was on that question,
Well, what do you expect from me?
>"Do you or I know more about how a convert is treated?"
Depends.
>
>The fact that, in pure Bellinger fashion, you then tried to back up
>your point with an article even you admit you can't prove you've
>seen --
If I did not SEE it, why would I post on it? Stop talking foolishness here.
>ince you can't offer the month and date of the article,
No I cannot, but I read it.
>which has been for literally centuries the standard way of documenting
>an article's existence -- well, that's just collateral damage, just
>another way of showing, at root, how revisionism relies on pseudo-
>scholarship rather than the real "article" (so to speak).
This side issue is basically quite petty and has nothing to do with
revisionism.
>
>But pseudoscholarship is a comparatively minor charge -- especially when
>it's of the self-documenting variety, like yours, where you prove on
>damn near a daily basis that you wouldn't last a week in a grad
>history program --
That shows how little you know, fellow. I was always at the top of my history
classes.
>The world is full of crackpots, most of them much more amusing than
>you.
Then go respond to them. I wish you luck and a jolly good time.
>
>The reason you get my attention, Joe, is that you combine pseudo-
>scholarship with the antisemitism you deny but are completely
>inept at disguising.
You are paranoid. I am not anti-semitic.
In fact, YOU aren't even a Semite.
>Your claim that Judaism is inherently racist
>is simply wrong, Joe.
ORTHODOX JUDAISM IS INHERENTLY RACIST.
>Yes, there are some racist Jews, but the
>fact that there was a Meir Kahane
And he was ORTHODOX, wasn't he?
>doesn't change the fact that,
>say, there were a disproportionate number of Jews marching for
>civil rights at Selma --
So? How did the Orthodox rabbis treat the Falasha students in Israel? This is
hypocrisy.
>ncluding a rabbi who used to live here
>in C-U.
That is ONE rabbi.
>How do you explain that, Joe, if you claim that Judaism
>is inherently racist?
Orthodox Judaism.
>@%<
Why do you always end your posts with a curse?
Debunks
>From: deppi...@aol.com.org.net (DeppityBob)
>Date: 11/29/98 2:35 AM EST
>Message-id: <19981129023512...@ng06.aol.com>
>
>>>
>>>REMEMBER: THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
>>
>>J=F6e's panic-mantra. This one only pops up when he's been caught doing
>>something incredibly stupid, and can't even attempt to bluff his way
>>out. It's sort of the equivalent of a pinball machine's "tilt" light.
>>
>>@%<
>>
>
>Funny that you have not one word to say about the defecation which spews out
>of
>the holes of Alstine and Edeiken. Wadda hypocrite!<<
>
>Booger, one doesn't make a point of trashing people one AGREES WITH.
So you agree with their filthy spewings. That is all I wanted to know.
Debunks
>generally why no one expects you to attack Curdles, or Private Dan (and the
>rest of the Hoffieganda Sock Puppet Brigade), or Fungus McClelland, or
>Sabaloney, or Alex Vange, or whomever. Only you seem to think it's unfair
>that
>we don't attack people with whom we are in general, and often specific,
>agreement.
>
>Dep
>
PS: If any of the above ever behaved the way Alstine and Edeiken do in this
NG, I surely would condemn those tactics publicly, and I think enough people in
this NG know me well enough to verify this...then again, I might be worng...I
don't like to try and speak for other people in this group.
Debunks
>Message-id: <mvanalst-291...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>
>
>In article <19981128230232...@ng-cf1.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>(Debunks) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>> >From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>> >Date: 11/28/98 10:50 AM EST
>> >Message-id: <73p5sp$5e2$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>> >
>> >In article <19981128000434...@ng-ce1.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>> >(Debunks) wrote:
>> >
>> ><< snip >>
>> >
>> >
>> >J=F6e's panic-mantra. This one only pops up when he's been caught doing
>> >something incredibly stupid, and can't even attempt to bluff his way
>> >out. It's sort of the equivalent of a pinball machine's "tilt" light.
>> >
>> >@%<
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Funny that you have not one word to say about the defecation which spews
>out of
>> the holes of Alstine and Edeiken. Wadda hypocrite!
>
>_verbatim_ HIS.
>
>Subject: sex
>From: jbel...@sprynet.com
>Date: 1996/07/21
>Message-ID: <4ss34r$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>
>Organization: Sprynet News Service
>Newsgroups: alt.teens
>
><begin quote>
>
>why is everything [almost] about sex ? e- mail me sometime 14/F i always
>write back
>
><end quote>
>
>Glad to hear that Boger realizes he's nothing more than a fruitcake with a
>sewer-mouth.
>
>Mark
>
You are such a piece of trash....the DPW wouldn't even pick you up.
Mark Van Alstine
(Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
> >Date: 11/29/98 11:01 AM EST
> >Message-id: <73rqve$82q$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
[snip]
> >Face up to it. If you weren't constantly letting loose your huge fogbanks
> >of antisemitic stupidity, then I'd disappear from your life.
>
> Then disappear, because I am not an anti-semite.
On thre contrary! Boger has proven himself time and time again to be a
anti-Semitic lying scumbag Nazi apologist.
For those interested in proof of Boger's irrelevant Nazi apologia,
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/b/bellinger.joseph
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/lies
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.0996
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1096
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1196
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/blackmore.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/tutu101.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/fafner13.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/anyone-out-there-12-1
[snip]
David Gehrig
In article <19981129231056...@ng96.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
(Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: A little education for Joe
>>From: deppi...@aol.com.org.net (DeppityBob)
>>Date: 11/29/98 2:35 AM EST
>>Message-id: <19981129023512...@ng06.aol.com>
>>
>>>>
>>>>REMEMBER: THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
>>>
>>>J=F6e's panic-mantra. This one only pops up when he's been caught doing
>>>something incredibly stupid, and can't even attempt to bluff his way
>>>out. It's sort of the equivalent of a pinball machine's "tilt" light.
>>>
>>>@%<
>>>
>>
>>Funny that you have not one word to say about the defecation which spews out
>>of
>>the holes of Alstine and Edeiken. Wadda hypocrite!<<
>>
>>*sigh* Well, as tremendously obvious as this is, let me say it: usually,
>>Booger, one doesn't make a point of trashing people one AGREES WITH.
Joe tries to wave away the difference between substance and style,
ignoring the possibility that Deppity Bob (or I or anyone) could
agree with one but disagree with the other.
>So you agree with their filthy spewings. That is all I wanted to know.
Somehere, Joe, there may be someone dumb enough to accept your "reasoning"
here. Are you honestly suggesting that every post which I don't condemn
has my tacet approval? Because if you follow that silly principle, I
can pull together quite a list of whoppers you didn't publicly disagree
with -- and claim, using that same principle, that you _do_ agree with
them, because there's no evidence to the contrary. It's an incredibly
cheap and duplicitous way to score points. Don't tell me you're going
to go for it.
@%<
B. Smith
You shouldn't be so quick to assert that all who do not
unquestioningly accept the Jewish version of history are
"anti-semetic". Unless you want to debase "anti-semetic"
in meaning only someone who doesn't agree with a Jew.
The fact is zionist jews have been acting very Nazi in
palistine for many decades now and average americans like
me are just waking up from the lullaby of Jewish propoganda.
It is jewish lies and bad faith, bad actions in the modern
day that opens a window of doubt regarding all jewish
sacred cows, even the Holocaust.
If you all would stop covering/supporting/apologizing
for the zionazis in palastine then your credibility would
go up among average americans and we would be less likely
to doubt other things you say.
Its like you go on endlessly trying to make us all feel
guilty about how 5 million jews died during a time when
over 50 million other people died. It was a horrible thing
but no excuse for all the arrogant, chest-thumping, ungodly,
rape, murder, pillage, kidnapping, extortion, assasination,
brainwashing, etc. the Zionists (Heartily supported by
average jews), have perpetrated in palastine and around
the world in the past century.
Get a clue. It isn't anti-semitism to be hostile to
zionism or quite wary of jews who support that. It is
good sense. Just ask any survivor of the palastinian
holocaust, or any victim of zionists in lebanon, or the
relatives of any of the united states citizens israel
has murdered or of the people kidnapped and assasinated
by mossad. Or the UN and British Officials murdered, etc. etc.
Or of the people who have seen the hand of
jewish money taint american politics.
If jews would stop pretending that they are superior beings
and above the law, then regular people would like them better.
Simple human relations.
You just cant keep running around doing fascist stuff and
pretending it is okay because you are "god's chosen people".
If jews are gods chosen people I'll bet god is disappointed!
I'll also bet that if the crimes of the zionazis were stopped
and punished, and the palastinians restored a fair share of
the land and the weapons / US support to defend themselves,
then the world would be a lot more tolerant of jewish
holocaust hubris, and a lot less interested in questioning
your peoples losses.
If you refuse to stop your bad behavior (in palastine & the world),
there is a certain logic in going after your excuse for that
bad behavior (the "holocaust"). Maybe you should consider that
what average people really want is not so much to debase your
sacred holocaust but to stop the palastinian holocaust and the
other various zionist crimes.
Just a regular guy, cutting through the Hyperbole.
--
Brian Smith -- Remove "damnspam-" to reply, thanks.
Joel Rosenberg
B. Smith wrote in message <36631F03...@dnai.com>...
>Mark, (and other hyperbolic "anti-semitism" screamers)
>
>You shouldn't be so quick to assert that all who do not
>unquestioningly accept the Jewish version of history are
>"anti-semetic". Unless you want to debase "anti-semetic"
>in meaning only someone who doesn't agree with a Jew.
>
*yawn* You lot do play this forged card a lot, don't you? Anti-Semitism
(note correct spelling) means, and always has meant, jew-hating. The term
was coined as a supposedly-polite euphemism for jewhating -- a purpose that
"anti-zionism" has now been drafted for.
From the Brittanica:
anti-Semitism,
hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial
group. The
term "anti-Semitism" was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr
to
designate the anti-Jewish campaigns underway in central Europe at that time.
Anti-Semitism has existed to some degree wherever Jews have settled outside
of
Palestine. In the ancient Greco-Roman world, religious differences were the
primary
basis for anti-Semitism. In Hellenistic times, for instance, Jews' social
segregation
and their refusal to acknowledge the gods worshiped by other peoples aroused
resentment among pagans, particularly in the 1st century BC-1st century AD.
Similarly, Jews' refusal to participate in emperor worship was seen as a
lack of
patriotism in the Roman Empire.
As Christianity spread, most Jews continued to reject that religion. As a
consequence, by the 4th century AD, Christians tended to regard Jews as the
crucifiers of Christ and as an alien people who, because of their
repudiation of Christ
and his church, had lost their homeland and were condemned to perpetual
migration. When the Christian church became dominant in the Roman Empire,
its
leaders inspired many laws by Roman emperors designed to segregate Jews from
Christian believers and to curtail Jews' religious rights when they appeared
to
threaten Christian religious domination.
In much of Europe during the Middle Ages, Jews were denied citizenship and
its
rights, barred from holding posts in government and the military, and
excluded from
membership in guilds and the professions. The ritual-murder canard, or
blood
libel--i.e., Jews' alleged sacrifice of Christian children at Passover in
order to obtain
blood for unleavened bread--was first made in the 12th century. The legend
was
revived sporadically in eastern Europe and Poland and, in the 1930s, became
part of
Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda, as did another instrument of 12th-century
anti-Semitism--the compulsory yellow badge, which identified the wearer as a
Jew.
The practice of segregating the Jewish populations of towns and cities into
ghettos
also dates from the Middle Ages and lasted until the 19th and early 20th
centuries in
much of Europe. (See ghetto.)
As European commerce grew in the late Middle Ages, some Jews became
prominent
in trade, banking, and moneylending, and the Jews' economic and cultural
successes tended to arouse the envy of the populace. This economic
resentment,
allied with traditional religious prejudice, prompted the forced expulsion
of Jews
from several countries or regions, including England (1290), France (14th
century),
Germany (1350s), Portugal (1496), Provence (1512), and the Papal States
(1569).
Intensifying persecutions by the Inquisition in Spain culminated in 1492 in
the forced
expulsion of that country's large and old-established Jewish population.
Only Jews
who had converted to Christianity were allowed to remain. The result of
these mass
expulsions was that the centres of Jewish life shifted from western Europe
and
Germany to Turkey and then to Poland and Russia.
The end of the Middle Ages brought no major changes in Jews' position in
Europe,
and the Counter-Reformation renewed anti-Jewish legislation and reinforced
the
system of ghetto segregation in Roman Catholic countries. Jews remained
subject to
occasional massacres, such as those that occurred during wars between
Eastern
Orthodox Ukrainians and Roman Catholic Poles in the mid-17th century, which
rivaled the worst massacres of Jews by crusaders in the Middle Ages.
Periodic
persecutions of Jews continued until the late 18th century, when the
Enlightenment
and the French Revolution brought Europe a new religious freedom. At this
time
Jews began to gain civil rights in France and other western European
countries.
Jewish assimilation was followed by economic and cultural successes that
once
again aroused resentment and hostility, however, and with the emergence of
nationalism as the defining factor in European society in the 19th century,
anti-Semitism acquired a racial rather than a religious character, as
ethnically
homogeneous peoples decried the existence in their midst of "alien" Jewish
elements. Pseudo-scientific theories asserting that the Jews were inferior
to the
so-called Aryan races gave anti-Semitism new respectability and popular
support,
especially in countries where existing social or political grievances could
be blamed
on the Jews. In Germany and Austria in the late 19th century, anti-Semitism
became an organized movement with its own political parties.
The Russian Empire had restricted Jews to western regions known as the Pale
of
Settlement ever since the final partitions of Poland (1790s) had brought
large
numbers of Jews under Russian rule. (See pale.) The empire's May Laws of
1882,
enacted after widespread anti-Jewish riots, or pogroms, had broken out in
the
Russian Pale the previous year, stripped Jews of their rural landholdings
and
restricted them to the towns and cities within the Pale. These measures,
which
crippled many Jews' activities as rural traders and artisans, spurred the
emigration
of several million Jews to the United States in the next four decades.
Another result
was a somewhat smaller emigration of Jews into the countries of western
Europe,
where anti-Semitic agitators exploited xenophobic sentiments against them.
(See
also pogrom.)
In France the Dreyfus affair became a focal point for anti-Semitism. In
1894
Alfred Dreyfus (q.v.), a highly placed Jewish army officer, was falsely
accused of
treason. His vindication was hampered by the French military and the
bitterly
anti-Semitic French press, and the controversy that ensued damaged the
cohesion
of French political life.
During the first decade of the 20th century, there was a period of moderate
decline
in anti-Semitic tensions except in Russia, where serious pogroms occurred in
Kishinyov (now Chisinau, Moldova) in 1903 and 1905, and where the Russian
secret
police published a forgery entitled Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
that, as
the supposed blueprint for a Jewish plot to achieve world domination,
furnished
propaganda for subsequent generations of anti-Semitic agitators. The
widespread
economic and political dislocations caused by World War I notably
intensified
anti-Semitism in Europe after the war. In addition, the many Jewish
Bolshevik
leaders in the Russian Revolution of November 1917 gave anti-Semites a new
focus
for their prejudices in the threat of "Jewish Bolshevism." In postwar
Germany,
anti-Semites joined forces with revanchist nationalists in attempting to
blame the
Jews for that country's defeat. In eastern Europe, anti-Semitism became
widespread in Poland, Hungary, and Romania in the interwar period.
The storm of anti-Semitic violence that was let loose by Nazi Germany under
the
leadership of Adolf Hitler in 1933-45 not only reached a terrifying degree
in Germany
itself but also inspired anti-Jewish movements elsewhere. Anti-Semitism was
promulgated in France by the Cagoulards (French: "Hooded Men"), in Hungary
by
the Arrow Cross, in England by the British Union of Fascists, and in the
United
States by the German-American Bund and the Silver Shirts.
The novelty of the Nazi brand of anti-Semitism was that it crossed class
barriers. The idea of Aryan racial superiority appealed both to the masses
and to
economic and hereditary elites. In Germany anti-Semitism became official
government policy--taught in the schools and elaborated in "scientific"
journals,
research institutes, and by a huge, highly effective organization for
international
propaganda. In 1941 the liquidation of European Jewry became official party
policy.
An estimated 6,000,000 Jews were exterminated in such death camps as
Auschwitz,
Chelmno, Belzec, Majdanek, and Treblinka during World War II. (See
Holocaust.)
After the Nazi defeat in 1945, anti-Semitism lost ground in western Europe
and the
United States, but developments in the Soviet Union and the Middle East gave
it new
significance in those areas. The Soviet leader Joseph Stalin died in 1953
before he
could instigate a persecution of the Jews, but anti-Semitic discrimination
remained a
feature of Soviet society from that time onward.
For many centuries, Islamic societies had tolerated Jews but had made them
pay
special taxes, wear identifying clothing, and live in specified areas. Jews
were thus
treated much as other nonbelievers were in Muslim societies. But the
emigration of
large numbers of Jews to Palestine in the 20th century and the creation of
the state
of Israel (1948) aroused new currents of hostility within the Arab world.
Because the
Arabs are Semitic, their hostility to the state of Israel has been primarily
political (or
anti-Zionist) and religious rather than racial. Whatever the designation,
however,
the result was the adoption of many anti-Jewish measures throughout the
Muslim
countries of the Middle East. In response, most of those countries' Jews
emigrated
to Israel in the decades after the latter's founding.
Related Propaedia Topics
The social effects of racial and ethnic prejudice
The modern era from c. mid-18th century: developments in modern Judaism
Copyright (c) 1996 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved
B. Smith
>
> B. Smith wrote in message <36631F03...@dnai.com>...
> >Mark, (and other hyperbolic "anti-semitism" screamers)
> >
> >You shouldn't be so quick to assert that all who do not
> >unquestioningly accept the Jewish version of history are
> >"anti-semetic". Unless you want to debase "anti-semetic"
> >in meaning only someone who doesn't agree with a Jew.
> *yawn* You lot do play this forged card a lot, don't you? Anti-Semitism
> (note correct spelling) means, and always has meant, jew-hating. The term
> was coined as a supposedly-polite euphemism for jewhating -- a purpose that
> "anti-zionism" has now been drafted for.
See what I mean Rosey: Arrogant, Unresponsive, Clue-less.
Now let me lead you by the hand to the the logical step you are not
willing to take:
Anti-semitesm (oh my god check my spelling!), means Jew hating... okay.
Questioning a historical detail of the holocaust = ?
= Jew hating?
Nope.
historical inquiry is historical inquiry, it might indeed be
motivated by hatred, but is not itself hatred.
Indeed, the willy nilly application of the term "jew hater" anti-semete
might isself be motivated by the hatred of the jew for the non jew.
it really an old standard tactic, this labeling thing, nobody
but fools are fooled.
My point is, some day the Jewish/Zionist trick of labeling
everyone who disagrees or wants to stop jewish/zionist bad
action an "anti-semete" will no longer be effective.
You all are guilty of a lot of nasty stuff in the middle east,
Regular people aren't gonna hate you cause you're a jew, they're
gonna hate you because you scream poor poor me all the time while
you are whacking the palistinians each day.
Is it some kind of game where jew-zionists can simply never
admit they are wrong?
The whole world has wept for the Holocaust jews, including me.
But that doesn't mean the world an I will overlook
all that nasty zionazi behavior!!
Every time a jew oppresses a palistinian he may as well be
pissing on a holocaust grave.
Well anyway I don't expect a rational answer from our tired
friend J Rose...
But I think that these questions like at the heart of the
matter if we are ever going to have a world both safe FOR
the Jews and safe FROM the jews.
Shalom!
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Subject: A little education for Joe
> >From: deppi...@aol.com.org.net (DeppityBob)
> >Date: 11/29/98 2:35 AM EST
> >Message-id: <19981129023512...@ng06.aol.com>
> >>>REMEMBER: THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
>
> >>J=F6e's panic-mantra. This one only pops up when he's been caught doing
> >>something incredibly stupid, and can't even attempt to bluff his way
> >>out. It's sort of the equivalent of a pinball machine's "tilt" light.
> >Funny that you have not one word to say about the defecation which spews out
> >of the holes of Alstine and Edeiken. Wadda hypocrite!<<
Here's Jew-jhating Joe complaining again. Whose foul little fingers typed
this and sent it to newsgroups for teenaged boys:
"hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
.well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about me i
am a female."
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
Joel Rosenberg
B. Smith wrote in message <36632A29...@dnai.com>...
>Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>>
>> B. Smith wrote in message <36631F03...@dnai.com>...
>> >Mark, (and other hyperbolic "anti-semitism" screamers)
>> >
>> >You shouldn't be so quick to assert that all who do not
>> >unquestioningly accept the Jewish version of history are
>> >"anti-semetic". Unless you want to debase "anti-semetic"
>> >in meaning only someone who doesn't agree with a Jew.
>
>> *yawn* You lot do play this forged card a lot, don't you? Anti-Semitism
>> (note correct spelling) means, and always has meant, jew-hating. The
term
>> was coined as a supposedly-polite euphemism for jewhating -- a purpose
that
>> "anti-zionism" has now been drafted for.
>
You should have saved "Arrogant, Unresponsive, Clue-less" for your
signature, Bubie.
>
>Now let me lead you by the hand to the the logical step you are not
>willing to take:
>
>Anti-semitesm (oh my god check my spelling!), means Jew hating... okay.
>
>Questioning a historical detail of the holocaust = ?
>
> = Jew hating?
>
Depends, I suppose, on what's being questioned and why, eh, Bubbie? Real
historians question historical details of the holocaust all the time -- but
they, unlike the revisionazis, do so in a spirit of honest inquiry.
See the difference between that and what your lot does?
I didn't think so: you are, after all, "Clue-less."
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Subject: A little education for Joe
> >From: deppi...@aol.com.org.net (DeppityBob)
> >Date: 11/29/98 2:35 AM EST
> >Message-id: <19981129023512...@ng06.aol.com>
> >>>REMEMBER: THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
>
> >>J=F6e's panic-mantra. This one only pops up when he's been caught doing
> >>something incredibly stupid, and can't even attempt to bluff his way
> >>out. It's sort of the equivalent of a pinball machine's "tilt" light.
> >*sigh* Well, as tremendously obvious as this is, let me say it: usually,
> >Booger, one doesn't make a point of trashing people one AGREES WITH. That's
> >generally why no one expects you to attack Curdles, or Private Dan (and the
> >rest of the Hoffieganda Sock Puppet Brigade), or Fungus McClelland, or
> >Sabaloney, or Alex Vange, or whomever. Only you seem to think it's unfair
> >that
> >we don't attack people with whom we are in general, and often specific,
> >agreement.
> PS: If any of the above ever behaved the way Alstine and Edeiken do in this
> NG, I surely would condemn those tactics publicly,
Liar. You had your opportunity and failed.
> and I think enough people in this NG know me well enough to verify this...then again, I
might be worng...I
Then again, anybody who agreed with this would be very wrong.
> don't like to try and speak for other people in this group.
Like you just did?
B. Smith
> You should have saved "Arrogant, Unresponsive, Clue-less" for your
> signature, Bubie.
Pretty lame response dude. I have been VERY responsive!
Perhaps even (dare i admit it), long winded!
> Depends, I suppose, on what's being questioned and why, eh, Bubbie? Real
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah and you are to be the arbiter of this judgement!
> historians question historical details of the holocaust all the time -- but
> they, unlike the revisionazis, do so in a spirit of honest inquiry.
> See the difference between that and what your lot does?
my lot, what would that be? come on show your anti-goyimism!
sheesh!
I really am just an average american who finally noticed
the disconnect between jewish propoganda and reality.
But there you are rosenberg, proving my point that any one
who disagrees with you/jews is evil/nazi/blah blah blah
my turn to *yawn*
> I didn't think so: you are, after all, "Clue-less."
You didn't think, I'll grant you that.
Hey does anyone on this news group ever discuss
Jewish revisionism of the Palistinian holocaust?
<ducking before rosenberg nails me with another
clever witticism>
Ciao!
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
> >>>>REMEMBER: THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
>
> >>>J=F6e's panic-mantra. This one only pops up when he's been caught doing
> >>>something incredibly stupid, and can't even attempt to bluff his way
> >>>out. It's sort of the equivalent of a pinball machine's "tilt" light.
> >>Funny that you have not one word to say about the defecation which spews out
> >of
> >>the holes of Alstine and Edeiken. Wadda hypocrite!
> >van Alstine and Edeiken don't slander my religion the way you do
> This is rather irrelevant, though you don't seem to think so/. Many Jews have
> also slandered MY religion.
The tenets of which you do not accpet. You have slandered you religion
more by claiming it as your own, than any anti-Catholic has ever done.
> >Face up to it. If you weren't constantly letting loose your huge fogbanks
> >of antisemitic stupidity, then I'd disappear from your life.
> Then disappear, because I am not an anti-semite.
Jew-hating Joe repeats his usual lie.
> > But
> >since you _do_ think it's a nice little hobby to demonstrate the Eeeevil
> >ways of the Wikked Hebrooooo, and buttress your argument with material
> >you clearly don't understand and simply connot place in any kind of
> >context that doesn;t have the Third Reich stamp of approval, well, gee,
> >I'm gonna blow the whistle on it.
> You are paranoid.
No. But you are an anti-Semite.
> >Don't tell me, out of one side of
> >your mouth, "Your religion is inherently racist," and then out of the
> >other side of your mouth, "don't say rude things."
> There certainly IS a strong undercurrent of racism in Orthodox Jewry.
So far to demonstrate that you have cited:
1. an article that does not exist:
2. the existence of the Kach party which was banned in Israel for its racist
platform.
Thank you for proving once more you are a liar with an open agenda of
anti-Semitic propagandizing.
.
> >There more kinds of
> >rudeness than just scatology, dude, and you're the poster child for
> >antisemitic slander.
> I think you ought to go in search of greener pastures...I am sure there are
> many vicious anti-semites who would be pleased to oblige you. You simply
> concentrate onme because I question your version of the holocaust. It is so
> much easier to call names, though, isn't it?
No. I concentrate on you because you are an anti-Semite.
> >Why did I nail you to the wall on the "Jewish Currents" thing?
> You didn't. Until you research these articles you just as well might have
> nailed a fart to the wall.
I did. I called "Jewish Currents." They checked their database for articles on
"passports" and "converts." They could not find your "article."
> > Was it just
> >to show how poor a scholar you are?
> This has nothing to do with scholarship in any sense of the word. It was a
> mere point of trivia referring to something I read in a Jewish magazine close
> 20 years ago.
Which the editors of that magazine cannot find. Further we have Jew-hating
Joe's usual two step. It was not a point of trivia. It was something you cited in one of
your foul smears about Jews. Second, you only started this 20 years bullshit when you
were called on it. When you first delivered this particular lie, you not only stated that it
was current practice but called people "liars" who told you it was not.
> >No, I was responding to a _significant_ and _slanderous_ charge -- that the
> >Jewish religion is inherently racis
> The ORTHODOX. Will you try and dispute that?>
Yes.
> >and that their treatment of
> >converts demonstrates this.
> I can think of no other way to express this, considering all that I have read
> re the Orthodox. And I know a numnber of Jews, friends of mine--who always
> ridicule and speak scathingly of the fanatic Orthodox Jews.
You have no Jewish "friends."
> >Mind you, from your initial comments on the topic I could tell that you
> >were clearly unfamiliar with the way a Jewish convert is embraced --
> >literally --
> That would depend on the type of Jews involved. I even have a female cousin
> who converted to Judaism--and then married a Russian Jew. However, she was
> always fascinated from childhood with the "holy trinity"--Judaism, Communism,
> and Russia.
Jew-hating Joe responds with his usual smear tactics.
> >And you were never quite
> >willing to put your spine where your keyboard was on that question,
> Well, what do you expect from me?
Your usual gutless anti-Semitic behavior. You did not disappoint.
> >"Do you or I know more about how a convert is treated?"
> Depends.
Translation: "No."
> >The fact that, in pure Bellinger fashion, you then tried to back up
> >your point with an article even you admit you can't prove you've
> >seen --
> If I did not SEE it, why would I post on it? Stop talking foolishness here.
Because you're a liar.
> >ince you can't offer the month and date of the article,
> No I cannot, but I read it.
Nor can the editors of the magazine.
> >which has been for literally centuries the standard way of documenting
> >an article's existence -- well, that's just collateral damage, just
> >another way of showing, at root, how revisionism relies on pseudo-
> >scholarship rather than the real "article" (so to speak).
> This side issue is basically quite petty and has nothing to do with
> revisionism.
But it has to do with the basic dishonesty of your methods.
> >But pseudoscholarship is a comparatively minor charge -- especially when
> >it's of the self-documenting variety, like yours, where you prove on
> >damn near a daily basis that you wouldn't last a week in a grad
> >history program --
> That shows how little you know, fellow. I was always at the top of my history
> classes.
> >The world is full of crackpots, most of them much more amusing than
> >you.
> Then go respond to them. I wish you luck and a jolly good time.
> >The reason you get my attention, Joe, is that you combine pseudo-
> >scholarship with the antisemitism you deny but are completely
> >inept at disguising.
> You are paranoid. I am not anti-semitic.
> In fact, YOU aren't even a Semite.
Neither is William Buckley. Unlike you he is a good Catholic who has tried to
come to grips with anti-Semitism.
Try again Jew-hating Joe.
> >Your claim that Judaism is inherently racist
> >is simply wrong, Joe.
> ORTHODOX JUDAISM IS INHERENTLY RACIST.
THAT wasn't your claim. Nor is it true.
> >Yes, there are some racist Jews, but the
> >fact that there was a Meir Kahane
> And he was ORTHODOX, wasn't he?
And he was rejected by the Orthodox rabbinical association and well as all
other Jews. In a typical exercise of his bigotry Jew-hating Joe attributes the opinions of
a rejected outsider to those who rejected him.
> >doesn't change the fact that,
> >say, there were a disproportionate number of Jews marching for
> >civil rights at Selma --
> So? How did the Orthodox rabbis treat the Falasha students in Israel? This is
> hypocrisy.
Utter nonsense to refer to this as "racism."
> >ncluding a rabbi who used to live here
> >in C-U.
> That is ONE rabbi.
So is Kahane -- and his ideas were rejected by other rabbis. But you insist
upon ascribing his views to them as well.
> >How do you explain that, Joe, if you claim that Judaism
> >is inherently racist?
> Orthodox Judaism.
Another lie made to because his original lie was so thoroughly trounced.
> Why do you always end your posts with a curse?
Because it's all you deserve.
Yale F. Edeiken
> Mark, (and other hyperbolic "anti-semitism" screamers)
> You shouldn't be so quick to assert that all who do not
> unquestioningly accept the Jewish version of history are
> "anti-semetic". Unless you want to debase "anti-semetic"
> in meaning only someone who doesn't agree with a Jew.
In this case Jew-hating Joe has proven his qualifications as an
anti-Semite frequently. Not only is his writing specifically anti-Semitic but his
methodology is that of a bigot.
That is he takes one example ans ascribes it to an entire group whether
it is relevant or not. In this case dishonestly. He labels Jews (he now changes this
to "Orthodox Jews") as racist based on the teachings of Mier Kahane (who was
assassinated for speaking his mind). He does not note that Kahane's party was
outlawed in Israel with the vote of the Orthodix parties based on its racist platform
and his teaching rejected by the association of American Orthodox rabbis.
That is bigotry. There is no other word to describe it.
But you should know.
Remainder of the justification for hiws own anti-Semitism snipped.
David Gehrig
(Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>>Date: 11/29/98 11:01 AM EST
>>Message-id: <73rqve$82q$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>>
<< snip >>
>
>>No, I was responding to a _significant_ and _slanderous_ charge -- that the
>>Jewish religion is inherently racis
>
>The ORTHODOX. Will you try and dispute that?>
Joe's new tactic. Instead of trying to pass outrageous lies against Jewish
theology as a whole, he instead decides to limit himself to outrageous lies
against just the Orthodox Jews.
This is not a terribly convinving way to exonerate yourself of the
charge of antisemitism, Joe.
<< snip >>
>
>>And you were never quite
>>willing to put your spine where your keyboard was on that question,
>
>Well, what do you expect from me?
Certainly not a spine.
>>"Do you or I know more about how a convert is treated?"
>
>Depends.
Case in point. I asked you about your backbone, Joe, not
your undergarments.
>>The fact that, in pure Bellinger fashion, you then tried to back up
>>your point with an article even you admit you can't prove you've
>>seen --
>
>If I did not SEE it, why would I post on it? Stop talking foolishness here.
Because you're an idiot?
>>ince you can't offer the month and date of the article,
>
>No I cannot, but I read it.
>
>>which has been for literally centuries the standard way of documenting
>>an article's existence -- well, that's just collateral damage, just
>>another way of showing, at root, how revisionism relies on pseudo-
>>scholarship rather than the real "article" (so to speak).
>
>This side issue is basically quite petty and has nothing to do with
>revisionism.
Translation: "Run away! Run away!!"
>>But pseudoscholarship is a comparatively minor charge -- especially when
>>it's of the self-documenting variety, like yours, where you prove on
>>damn near a daily basis that you wouldn't last a week in a grad
>>history program --
>
>That shows how little you know, fellow. I was always at the top of my history
>classes.
... changing the light bulbs, presumably.
<< snip >>
>You are paranoid. I am not anti-semitic.
"I am not a crook." -- Richard SOB Nixon.
>In fact, YOU aren't even a Semite.
Really? Do tell. _Why_ do you think I'm not a Semite?
>>Your claim that Judaism is inherently racist
>>is simply wrong, Joe.
>
>ORTHODOX JUDAISM IS INHERENTLY RACIST.
Writing your argument in bigger letters doesn't make it weigh
more, Joe.
>>Yes, there are some racist Jews, but the
>>fact that there was a Meir Kahane
>
>And he was ORTHODOX, wasn't he?
And Eichmann was German, but you don't see me using him as a pretext
to slander all Germans, do you?
>>doesn't change the fact that,
>>say, there were a disproportionate number of Jews marching for
>>civil rights at Selma --
>
>So? How did the Orthodox rabbis treat the Falasha students in Israel? This is
>hypocrisy.
>
>>ncluding a rabbi who used to live here
>>in C-U.
>
>That is ONE rabbi.
That means that, in the late '80s, one third of the rabbis in my
town had marched at Selma. That strikes me as pretty goddamn
impressive. How many "Holocaust revisionists" marched at Selma,
Joe -- not counting the ones in the Klan outfits, of course?
>>How do you explain that, Joe, if you claim that Judaism
>>is inherently racist?
>
>Orthodox Judaism.
If you think this little dodge redeems you from the charge of
antisemitism, becuase you've decided to limit your lies to only
one branch of Jewish religion, it's not particularly convincing,
Joe. It's a bit like saying, "No, I don't have an irrational
seething hatred of the Beatles -- I only hate people named
Ringo."
>>@%<
>
>Why do you always end your posts with a curse?
It's not a curse, it's a blessing, especially the quartets. Although
I'm also a fan of the late symphonies -- from, say, 10 on, excepting
the disastrous 12th which even the composer disavowed.
@%<
Joel Rosenberg
B. Smith wrote in message <36633894...@dnai.com>...
>Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>> You should have saved "Arrogant, Unresponsive, Clue-less" for your
>> signature, Bubie.
>
>Pretty lame response dude. I have been VERY responsive!
>
>Perhaps even (dare i admit it), long winded!
>
Bubbie, you're being "Clue-less", again. You've been both.
Debunks
>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>Message-id: <73vjip$hih$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>
>In article <19981129222448...@ng96.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>(Debunks) wrote:
>
>
>>>Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>>>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>>>Date: 11/29/98 11:01 AM EST
>>>Message-id: <73rqve$82q$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>>>
>
><< snip >>
>
>>
>>>No, I was responding to a _significant_ and _slanderous_ charge -- that the
>>>Jewish religion is inherently racis
>>
>>The ORTHODOX. Will you try and dispute that?>
>
>Joe's new tactic. Instead of trying to pass outrageous lies against Jewish
>theology as a whole, he instead decides to limit himself to outrageous lies
>against just the Orthodox Jews.
>
>This is not a terribly convinving way to exonerate yourself of the
>charge of antisemitism, Joe.
>
>
I do not need to "exonerate" myself against a charge which is not true. When I
wrote these posts it was ALWAYS the ORTHODOX which I had in mind and you
claiming to be a Jew, should immediately have known this.
>
><< snip >>
>
>>
>>>And you were never quite
>>>willing to put your spine where your keyboard was on that question,
>>
>>Well, what do you expect from me?
>
>Certainly not a spine.
Well, what do you expect from me?
>
>>>"Do you or I know more about how a convert is treated?"
>>
>>Depends.
>
>Case in point. I asked you about your backbone, Joe, not
>your undergarments.
Stop trivializing and discuss the issues. If you do not want to discuss these
issues, do not respond to my posts.
>
>>>The fact that, in pure Bellinger fashion, you then tried to back up
>>>your point with an article even you admit you can't prove you've
>>>seen --
>>
>>If I did not SEE it, why would I post on it? Stop talking foolishness here.
>
>Because you're an idiot?
I think your current post shows who is the idiot here.
>>>ince you can't offer the month and date of the article,
>>
>>No I cannot, but I read it.
>>
>>>which has been for literally centuries the standard way of documenting
>>>an article's existence -- well, that's just collateral damage, just
>>>another way of showing, at root, how revisionism relies on pseudo-
>>>scholarship rather than the real "article" (so to speak).
>>
>>This side issue is basically quite petty and has nothing to do with
>>revisionism.
>
>Translation: "Run away! Run away!!"
We do not need your translation from English to Thinglish. The situation is as
I described.
>
>>>But pseudoscholarship is a comparatively minor charge -- especially when
>>>it's of the self-documenting variety, like yours, where you prove on
>>>damn near a daily basis that you wouldn't last a week in a grad
>>>history program --
>>
>>That shows how little you know, fellow. I was always at the top of my
>history
>>classes.
>
>... changing the light bulbs, presumably.
>
><< snip >>
Someone has to shed light in the darkness.
>You are paranoid. I am not anti-semitic.
>
>"I am not a crook." -- Richard SOB Nixon.
Does that mean I am J. SOB Bellinger? Another non response.
>>In fact, YOU aren't even a Semite.
>
>Really? Do tell. _Why_ do you think I'm not a Semite?
>
You said you were a convert. Is that a lie?
>>Your claim that Judaism is inherently racist
>>>is simply wrong, Joe.
>>
>>ORTHODOX JUDAISM IS INHERENTLY RACIST.
>
>Writing your argument in bigger letters doesn't make it weigh
>more, Joe.
Perhaps it will make an impression on you since you seem to have a problem
understanding simply sentences.
>>Yes, there are some racist Jews, but the
>>>fact that there was a Meir Kahane
>>
>>And he was ORTHODOX, wasn't he?
>
>And Eichmann was German, but you don't see me using him as a pretext
>to slander all Germans, do you?
>
I do not slander Germans-YOU do. And you did not answer my question re Kahane.
>>>doesn't change the fact that,
>>>say, there were a disproportionate number of Jews marching for
>>>civil rights at Selma --
>>
>>So? How did the Orthodox rabbis treat the Falasha students in Israel? This
>is
>>hypocrisy.
>>
>>>ncluding a rabbi who used to live here
>>>in C-U.
>>
>>That is ONE rabbi.
>
>That means that, in the late '80s, one third of the rabbis in my
>town had marched at Selma. That strikes me as pretty goddamn
>impressive. How many "Holocaust revisionists" marched at Selma,
>Joe -- not counting the ones in the Klan outfits, of course?
I do not see where the march on Selma has anything to do with revisionism. And
whay ask me about the Ku Klux Klowns? I am Catholic.
>Orthodox Judaism.
>
>If you think this little dodge redeems you from the charge of
>antisemitism, becuase you've decided to limit your lies to only
>one branch of Jewish religion,
This was ALWAYS the case. The reference was to the ORTHODOX and always had
been. As you know, I have had and still do have a number of Jewish friends and
acquaintances. In fact, I once gave an old Jewish rabbi a ride when he was
stranded--and he made it home in the same condition as when he entered my
car!!! He thanked me for performing what he called a "Mitzvah."
>it's not particularly convincing,
>Joe.
Nothing would be to you for you project your own fantasies on to people who
dispute the holocaust as you describe it.
>It's a bit like saying, "No, I don't have an irrational
>seething hatred of the Beatles -- I only hate people named
>Ringo."
In fact, I happen to like the Beatles--including Ringo, who is half Jewish.
>>@%<
>>
>>Why do you always end your posts with a curse?
>
>It's not a curse, it's a blessing, especially the quartets. Although
>I'm also a fan of the late symphonies -- from, say, 10 on, excepting
>the disastrous 12th which even the composer disavowed.
>
>@%<
>
Well, hopefully in the future you will have a civil discourse with
me--especially when you yourself invite it.
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
> >Date: 11/30/98 9:19 PM EST
> >Message-id: <73vjip$hih$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
> >In article <19981129222448...@ng96.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
> >(Debunks) wrote:
> >>>No, I was responding to a _significant_ and _slanderous_ charge -- that the
> >>>Jewish religion is inherently racis
> >>The ORTHODOX. Will you try and dispute that?>
> >Joe's new tactic. Instead of trying to pass outrageous lies against Jewish
> >theology as a whole, he instead decides to limit himself to outrageous lies
> >against just the Orthodox Jews.
> >This is not a terribly convinving way to exonerate yourself of the
> >charge of antisemitism, Joe.
> I do not need to "exonerate" myself against a charge which is not true.
In this case you do noit even try becasue the charge is true.
> When I wrote these posts it was ALWAYS the ORTHODOX which I had in mind and
>you claiming to be a Jew, should immediately have known this.
That's an utter lie. You referred to ALL Jews and one of the items of proof you
presented was a fraudulent misrepresentation of the policies of the the state of Israel.
> >>>And you were never quite
> >>>willing to put your spine where your keyboard was on that question,
> >>Well, what do you expect from me?
> >Certainly not a spine.
> Well, what do you expect from me?
Dishonstly. Incompetent scholarship. Fraudulent claims. Bigotry.
And we are never disappointed.
> >>>"Do you or I know more about how a convert is treated?"
> >>Depends.
> >Case in point. I asked you about your backbone, Joe, not
> >your undergarments.
> Stop trivializing and discuss the issues. If you do not want to discuss these
> issues, do not respond to my posts.
Jew-hating Joe projecting again. Having made an outrageous and
unsupported smear, he now wishes to "discuss" it. As all kniow by now "discussion"
with Jew-hating Joe is impossible. He creates his wild accusations and then refguses to
support them.
> >>>The fact that, in pure Bellinger fashion, you then tried to back up
> >>>your point with an article even you admit you can't prove you've
> >>>seen --
> >>If I did not SEE it, why would I post on it? Stop talking foolishness here.
> >Because you're an idiot?
> I think your current post shows who is the idiot here.
Considering that the editors of the magazine in question cannot even locate
the article in question which Jew-hating Joe now claims states something other than
what he originally claimed, The idiot is anyone who takes Jew-hating Joe seriously.
> >>>ince you can't offer the month and date of the article,
> >>
> >>No I cannot, but I read it.
> >>>which has been for literally centuries the standard way of documenting
> >>>an article's existence -- well, that's just collateral damage, just
> >>>another way of showing, at root, how revisionism relies on pseudo-
> >>>scholarship rather than the real "article" (so to speak).
>
> >>This side issue is basically quite petty and has nothing to do with
> >>revisionism.
> >Translation: "Run away! Run away!!"
> We do not need your translation from English to Thinglish. The situation is as
> I described.
No. The situation is that you are running away from your lie.
> >>>But pseudoscholarship is a comparatively minor charge -- especially when
> >>>it's of the self-documenting variety, like yours, where you prove on
> >>>damn near a daily basis that you wouldn't last a week in a grad
> >>>history program --
> >>That shows how little you know, fellow. I was always at the top of my
> >history classes.
Yes, most teachers put "researchers" who interpolate their own words in the
middle of a "quotation" at the front of the class. Then they put a dunce cap on their
head.
> >You are paranoid. I am not anti-semitic.
> >"I am not a crook." -- Richard SOB Nixon.
> Does that mean I am J. SOB Bellinger? Another non response.
Another relevant response that went over the head of Jew-hating Joe. But try
this one on for size: "Watch what we do and not what we say." John SOB MItchell.
> >>In fact, YOU aren't even a Semite.
> >Really? Do tell. _Why_ do you think I'm not a Semite?
> You said you were a convert. Is that a lie?
Jew-hating Joe's weird racist theories come to the fore again.
> >>Your claim that Judaism is inherently racist
> >>>is simply wrong, Joe.
> >>ORTHODOX JUDAISM IS INHERENTLY RACIST.
> >Writing your argument in bigger letters doesn't make it weigh
> >more, Joe.
> Perhaps it will make an impression on you since you seem to have a problem
> understanding simply sentences.
He understands it perfectly. He knows that it was neither your original
statement nor is it true.
> >>Yes, there are some racist Jews, but the
> >>>fact that there was a Meir Kahane
> >>And he was ORTHODOX, wasn't he?
> >And Eichmann was German, but you don't see me using him as a pretext
> >to slander all Germans, do you?
> I do not slander Germans-YOU do.
Jew-hating Joe lies again.
> And you did not answer my question re Kahane.
Becasue it is irrelevant unless you are willing to state that Kahane's teachings
were typical of Orthodox Judaism. In fact, they were rtejected by the American
association of Orthodox Rabbis, the leading Orthodox yeshiva, and such other Orthodox
figures as the then chief rabbi of the U.K. Jew-hating Joe's ploy is just that: a ploy. He
wishes to attribute the ideas of a lone outsider to those who directly repudiated them.
> >>>doesn't change the fact that,
> >>>say, there were a disproportionate number of Jews marching for
> >>>civil rights at Selma --
> >>So? How did the Orthodox rabbis treat the Falasha students in Israel? This
> >is
> >>hypocrisy.
> >>>ncluding a rabbi who used to live here
> >>>in C-U.
> >>That is ONE rabbi.
> >That means that, in the late '80s, one third of the rabbis in my
> >town had marched at Selma. That strikes me as pretty goddamn
> >impressive. How many "Holocaust revisionists" marched at Selma,
> >Joe -- not counting the ones in the Klan outfits, of course?
> I do not see where the march on Selma has anything to do with revisionism. And
> whay ask me about the Ku Klux Klowns? I am Catholic.
But it has quite a bit to do with your lying smear. And you claium of being a
"Catholic" is in doubt since you openly reject important teachings of that church.
> >Orthodox Judaism.
> >If you think this little dodge redeems you from the charge of
> >antisemitism, becuase you've decided to limit your lies to only
> >one branch of Jewish religion,
> This was ALWAYS the case. The reference was to the ORTHODOX and always
had been.
That is a lie and always will be.
> As you know, I have had and still do have a number of Jewish friends and
> acquaintances.
No. Her doesn't know it. For one thing you have demonstrated that you have
no idea what a Jew is.
> In fact, I once gave an old Jewish rabbi a ride when he was
> stranded--and he made it home in the same condition as when he entered my
> car!!! He thanked me for performing what he called a "Mitzvah."
Did you regal him with jokes about Auschwitz or the anti-Semitic verses you
traded with Harold Covington?
> >it's not particularly convincing,
> >Joe.
> Nothing would be to you for you project your own fantasies on to people who
> dispute the holocaust as you describe it.
As every member of the AHA and OAH describe it.
> >It's a bit like saying, "No, I don't have an irrational
> >seething hatred of the Beatles -- I only hate people named
> >Ringo."
> In fact, I happen to like the Beatles--including Ringo, who is half Jewish.
Jew-hating Joe plays his favorite game "Spot the Jew." The usual
qualification is that Jew-hating Joe wants to call someone a Jew. He once labelled the
nephew of a cardinal who was onew of the pope's closest advisors as a "Jew."
Another person he so labelled was the deacon of a Southern Baptist church.
> Well, hopefully in the future you will have a civil discourse with
> me--especially when you yourself invite it.
To have "civil discourse" with you requires that the slimiest lies and the
filthiest smears be treated as the discourse of decent people.
You do not qualify.
"hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
.well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about me i
am a female."
--YFE
Debunks
>Date: 11/30/98 3:05 PM EST
>Message-id: <36638...@news3.enter.net>
>
SNIP Yale's trash
In fact, y0u are beneath trash, Yale. If you were a hooker standing on a
street corner, even the DPW wouldn't pick you up.
Debunks
>Message-id: <36633...@news3.enter.net>
>
> I did. I called "Jewish Currents." They checked their database for
>articles on
>"passports" and "converts." They could not find your "article."
So who is lying? You, or the Currents? My bet is on you.
Mark Van Alstine
> Mark, (and other hyperbolic "anti-semitism" screamers)
>
> You shouldn't be so quick to assert that all who do not
> unquestioningly accept the Jewish version of history
And what might this version of history be?
> are "anti-semetic". Unless you want to debase "anti-semetic"
> in meaning only someone who doesn't agree with a Jew.
From _Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language_:
anti-Semitism n. discrimination against or prejudice or hostility towards Jews.
anti-Semite n. a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced or
hostile towards Jews.
Those or the definitions I go by.
Mark Van Alstine
> Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> >
> > B. Smith wrote in message <36631F03...@dnai.com>...
> > >Mark, (and other hyperbolic "anti-semitism" screamers)
> > >
> > >You shouldn't be so quick to assert that all who do not
> > >unquestioningly accept the Jewish version of history are
> > >"anti-semetic". Unless you want to debase "anti-semetic"
> > >in meaning only someone who doesn't agree with a Jew.
>
> > *yawn* You lot do play this forged card a lot, don't you? Anti-Semitism
> > (note correct spelling) means, and always has meant, jew-hating. The term
> > was coined as a supposedly-polite euphemism for jewhating -- a purpose that
> > "anti-zionism" has now been drafted for.
>
> See what I mean Rosey: Arrogant, Unresponsive, Clue-less.
>
> Now let me lead you by the hand to the the logical step you are not
> willing to take:
>
> Anti-semitesm (oh my god check my spelling!)...
Somebody had better! It's anti-Semitism. That's s-e-m-i-t-i-s-m.
> ...means Jew hating... okay.
>
> Questioning a historical detail of the holocaust = ?
>
> = Jew hating?
>
>
> Nope.
Denying the historical details of the Holocaust, especially with malice
against the victims (and survivors) of Nazi persecution and genocide, can
indeed be viewed as anti-Semitic.
> historical inquiry is historical inquiry,
And Holocaust denial is not "historical inquiry."
> it might indeed be
> motivated by hatred, but is not itself hatred.
Holocaust denial is the expression of hatred.
> Indeed, the willy nilly application of the term "jew hater" anti-semete
> might isself be motivated by the hatred of the jew for the non jew.
Or, more reasonably, it is applied in recognition that a person is an
anti-Semite. That has generally been the case here in alt.revisonism where
anti-Semites flock to deny the Holocaust.
> it really an old standard tactic, this labeling thing, nobody
> but fools are fooled.
Correct, nobody is fooled by your foolery.
> My point is, some day the Jewish/Zionist trick of labeling
> everyone who disagrees or wants to stop jewish/zionist bad
> action an "anti-semete" will no longer be effective.
Spoken like a true anti-Semite.
[anti-=Semitic swill snipped]
Yale F. Edeiken
And anyone can call and get the same answer I got. They know of no
such article.
And you can't produce it.
The liar is Jew-hating Joe.
As always.
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
> >Message-id: <36638...@news3.enter.net>
> SNIP Yale's trash
Proved to be a liar again, Jew-hating Joe resorts to his usual mode of
response. Snip it and pretend it never happened. Just as he pretends this never
happened:
Jeffrey G. Brown
(Little Joe Bellinger, Liar) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>>From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
>>Date: 11/30/98 9:39 AM EST
>>Message-id: <36633...@news3.enter.net>
>
>>
>> I did. I called "Jewish Currents." They checked their database for
>>articles on
>>"passports" and "converts." They could not find your "article."
>
>So who is lying? You, or the Currents? My bet is on you.
You're lying, Bellinger. The article you claim to have read doesn't exist.
JGB
=====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jeff_...@bigfoot.com
"What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'
David Gehrig
(Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>>Date: 11/30/98 9:19 PM EST
>>Message-id: <73vjip$hih$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>>
>>In article <19981129222448...@ng96.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>>(Debunks) wrote:
<< Joe's neener-neener snipped >>
>>>>"Do you or I know more about how a convert is treated?"
<< snip >>
>Stop trivializing and discuss the issues. If you do not want to discuss these
>issues, do not respond to my posts.
I'm asking a simple, simple question, Joe. If you don't want to answer
a simple question on the topic of Jewish conversion, even though that's
the topic under discussion, just say so.
<< Joe-s neener-neener snipped >>
>You said you were a convert. Is that a lie?
I'm 100% Jew and have been for nearly two decades.
That's why I'm so deeply amused when you try to tell
me how terribly Jews treat Jewish converts.
>>>Your claim that Judaism is inherently racist
>>>>is simply wrong, Joe.
>>>
>>>ORTHODOX JUDAISM IS INHERENTLY RACIST.
>>
>>Writing your argument in bigger letters doesn't make it weigh
>>more, Joe.
>
>Perhaps it will make an impression on you since you seem to have a problem
>understanding simply sentences.
Too lovely to snip.
<< snip >>
>>That means that, in the late '80s, one third of the rabbis in my
>>town had marched at Selma. That strikes me as pretty goddamn
>>impressive. How many "Holocaust revisionists" marched at Selma,
>>Joe -- not counting the ones in the Klan outfits, of course?
>
>I do not see where the march on Selma has anything to do with revisionism.
And what did it have to do with Judaism, except as a way of demonstrating
the basic Jewish opposition to racism in all its forms?
<< snip >>
@%<
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
> >Message-id: <74270f$e0a$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
> >I'm 100% Jew and have been for nearly two decades.
> >That's why I'm so deeply amused when you try to tell
> >me how terribly Jews treat Jewish converts.
> You can be amused all you like, but if you are a convert you are far from being
> a 100% Jew--as you term it.
Strangely enough the Jews disagree. But this never bothers Jew-hating Joe.
> >>Perhaps it will make an impression on you since you seem to have a problem
> >>understanding simple sentences.
> >Too lovely to snip.
> What ? a typo from a bad keyboard sends thrills up and down your spine?
> >>That means that, in the late '80s, one third of the rabbis in my
> >>>town had marched at Selma. That strikes me as pretty goddamn
> >>>impressive. How many "Holocaust revisionists" marched at Selma,
> >>>Joe -- not counting the ones in the Klan outfits, of course?
> >>I do not see where the march on Selma has anything to do with revisionism.
> >And what did it have to do with Judaism, except as a way of demonstrating
> >the basic Jewish opposition to racism in all its forms?
> Undoubtedly some Jews are anti-Racist.
> Undoubtedly some Jews are virulent racists.
And those who are racist are doing so in contravention of the teachings of
Judaism. You have claimed differently.
Debunks
>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>Date: 12/1/98 9:03 PM EST
>Message-id: <74270f$e0a$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>I'm 100% Jew and have been for nearly two decades.
>That's why I'm so deeply amused when you try to tell
>me how terribly Jews treat Jewish converts.
>
You can be amused all you like, but if you are a convert you are far from being
a 100% Jew--as you term it.
>>
Debunks
>From: jeff_...@bigfoot.com (Jeffrey G. Brown)
>Date: 12/1/98 7:19 AM EST
>Message-id: <jeff_brown-01...@sdn-ar-001ohcincp252.dialsprint.net>
>>>Date: 11/30/98 9:39 AM EST
>>>Message-id: <36633...@news3.enter.net>
>>
>>>
>>> I did. I called "Jewish Currents." They checked their database for
>>>articles on
>>>"passports" and "converts." They could not find your "article."
>>
>>So who is lying? You, or the Currents? My bet is on you.
>
>You're lying, Bellinger. The article you claim to have read doesn't exist.
>
>JGB
>
It does. it is the truth which does not exist whenever you post.
Debunks
>From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
>Message-id: <3663f...@news3.enter.net>
SNip
Faygela.
Yale F. Edeiken
> Faygela.
Prove it, liar.
DeppityBob
> >I'm 100% Jew and have been for nearly two decades.
> >That's why I'm so deeply amused when you try to tell
> >me how terribly Jews treat Jewish converts.
> You can be amused all you like, but if you are a convert you are far from
being
> a 100% Jew--as you term it.<<
Only Booger, the unremittingly dishonest antisemite, could *possibly* think he
knows more about Judaism and being a Jew than someone who actively went through
the conversion process--and who has been Jewish for almost 20 years. Of course,
Booger *is* employing the Nazi definition of "Jew" and not the Jewish
definition, so that could explain a bit!
Dep
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember."
--David Mamet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DeppityBob
>>>From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
>>>Message-id: <36633...@news3.enter.net>
>>
>>>
>>> I did. I called "Jewish Currents." They checked their database for
>>>articles on
>>>"passports" and "converts." They could not find your "article."
>>
>>So who is lying? You, or the Currents? My bet is on you.
>
>You're lying, Bellinger. The article you claim to have read doesn't exist.
>
>JGB
>
It does. it is the truth which does not exist whenever you post.<<
What *is* it with you, Booger? Do you have some twisted idea that actually
giving in to requests--now demands--that you substantiate your claims is some
kind of defeat? I don't understand that. When you have the trump card, you play
it--and that's a triumph. You're acting like being cornered to play your trump
card to win is the same as being defeated.
If you don't want to play your trump, then don't. But realize that so far,
every hand that has been played has been won by your opposition. We've done the
research, and Yale has even called Currents to ask them about it. Now's the
time to play your trump card, because otherwise, you have lost your game.
Jeffrey G. Brown
(Little Joe Bellinger, Liar) wrote:
>>Subject: Joe Bellinger continues his lying ways
>>From: jeff_...@bigfoot.com (Jeffrey G. Brown)
>>Date: 12/1/98 7:19 AM EST
>>Message-id: <jeff_brown-01...@sdn-ar-001ohcincp252.dialsprint.net>
>>
>>In article <19981201015045...@ng93.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>>(Little Joe Bellinger, Liar) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>>>>From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
>>>>Date: 11/30/98 9:39 AM EST
>>>>Message-id: <36633...@news3.enter.net>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did. I called "Jewish Currents." They checked their database for
>>>>articles on
>>>>"passports" and "converts." They could not find your "article."
>>>
>>>So who is lying? You, or the Currents? My bet is on you.
>>
>>You're lying, Bellinger. The article you claim to have read doesn't exist.
>>
>>JGB
>>
>
>It does.
Then cite it, liar.
David Gehrig
(Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>>Date: 12/1/98 9:03 PM EST
>>Message-id: <74270f$e0a$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>
>>I'm 100% Jew and have been for nearly two decades.
>>That's why I'm so deeply amused when you try to tell
>>me how terribly Jews treat Jewish converts.
>>
>
>You can be amused all you like, but if you are a convert you are far from being
>a 100% Jew--as you term it.
Because Joe Says So. And, not so incidentally, Because Hitler Says So.
But not because the Jews say so, because the Jewish tradition is
pretty darn clear on this one. But, since that part of the Jewish
tradition never showed up in the Hoffieganda and Freedman screeds
from which you apparently get the majority of your "information"
about Judiasm, I'm not surprised that this little bit of info
has eluded you.
>>>Perhaps it will make an impression on you since you seem to have a problem
>>>understanding simple sentences.
>>
>>Too lovely to snip.
>>
>
>What ? a typo from a bad keyboard sends thrills up and down your spine?
A typo you silently repaired above, I notice. Let me remind you, Joe,
that I'm not the one who has such trouble reading and comprehending
simple declarative sentences. Let me remine also that I'm the one whose
person experiences -- including experiences with Orthodox Jews --
puts the lie to your essentially Nazi criterion of Jewish identity.
Yet you're perfectly willing to attribute our difference of opinion
to the supposed fact that I cannot read.
I suppose that MA diploma they gave me in English lit was a typo too, eh?
>>>That means that, in the late '80s, one third of the rabbis in my
>>>>town had marched at Selma. That strikes me as pretty goddamn
>>>>impressive. How many "Holocaust revisionists" marched at Selma,
>>>>Joe -- not counting the ones in the Klan outfits, of course?
>>>
>>>I do not see where the march on Selma has anything to do with revisionism.
>>
>>And what did it have to do with Judaism, except as a way of demonstrating
>>the basic Jewish opposition to racism in all its forms?
>>
>>
>
>Undoubtedly some Jews are anti-Racist.
>Undoubtedly some Jews are virulent racists.
And some Catholics are pro-choice, but that doesn't make pro-choice
a Catholic teaching.
You have tried to tell us that racism is a Jewish teaching, and used
some examples of racist Jews to try to prove it. This is a logical
fallacy so basic they don't come any more basic than that.
But you're apparently just as willing to twist logic as you are to
twist fact, as long as your goal is to cast aspersions on Jews,
either one on one or as a group.
@%<
Debunks
>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>Message-id: <743kn7$s50$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>Because Joe Says So.
No, because the Old Testament says so. If you are not of the seed of Abraham
and Jacob you are not a 100% Jew and never will be regardless of your own
[personal fantasies about this. Refer to Shahak re rabbinical teachings.
Undoubtedly in the eyes of Liberal and Reform Jews you are a Jew, but not in
the eyes of the Ultra-Orthodox.
>And, not so incidentally, Because Hitler Says So.
I have never spoken with Hitler.
>But not because the Jews say so,
Which Jews?
>because the Jewish tradition is
>pretty darn clear on this one
Depends on the tradition.
>But, since that part of the Jewish
>tradition never showed up in the Hoffieganda and Freedman screeds
>from which you apparently get the majority of your "information"
>about Judiasm,
Please. I do not refer to Mr. Hoffman for my information, nor am I aware of
who Freedman is--but he was mentioned in this same context months ago. I am
unfamiliar with his writings.
>I'm not surprised that this little bit of info
>has eluded you.
I don't believe anything has eluded me.
>
>>>>Perhaps it will make an impression on you since you seem to have a problem
>>>>understanding simple sentences.
>>>
>>>Too lovely to snip.
>>>
>>
>>What ? a typo from a bad keyboard sends thrills up and down your spine?
>
>A typo you silently repaired above, I notice.
Well, of course.
>Let me remind you, Joe,
>that I'm not the one who has such trouble reading and comprehending
>simple declarative sentences.
I know you are trying to imply that I have such a problem, but the fact is I do
not and never have. At any rate, I would certainly not have a problem
understanding anything you might wish to post in the group.
>Let me remine also that I'm the one whose
>person experiences -- including experiences with Orthodox Jews --
>puts the lie to your essentially Nazi criterion of Jewish identity.
The criteria I refer to is Jewish, not Nazi-unless you are maintaining that
Orthodox Jews, Zionists, and Nazis are alike in many ways.
You have your own personal experiences, which is fine. I also have mine.
>Yet you're perfectly willing to attribute our difference of opinion
>to the supposed fact that I cannot read.
>
Why not? You attempted to use that lame argument against me. Hypocrite.
>I suppose that MA diploma they gave me in English lit was a typo too, eh?
>
Not my concern. My English instructor referred to my composition as "genius"
quality.
>>>>That means that, in the late '80s, one third of the rabbis in my
>>>>>town had marched at Selma. That strikes me as pretty goddamn
>>>>>impressive. How many "Holocaust revisionists" marched at Selma,
>>>>>Joe -- not counting the ones in the Klan outfits, of course?
>>>>
>>>>I do not see where the march on Selma has anything to do with revisionism.
>
>>>
>>>And what did it have to do with Judaism, except as a way of demonstrating
>>>the basic Jewish opposition to racism in all its forms?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Undoubtedly some Jews are anti-Racist.
>>Undoubtedly some Jews are virulent racists.
>
>And some Catholics are pro-choice, but that doesn't make pro-choice
>a Catholic teaching.
If they are pro-choice then they are excommunicated and no longer Catholics.
However, Catholics are not of the "Seed" of Jesus Christ.
>You have tried to tell us that racism is a Jewish teaching, and used
>some examples of racist Jews to try to prove it.
The proffered quotes are a proof of this contention.
>This is a logical
>fallacy so basic they don't come any more basic than that.
>
So you say, but your opinion is not in accord with the facts.
>But you're apparently just as willing to twist logic as you are to
>twist fact, as long as your goal is to cast aspersions on Jews,
>either one on one or as a group.
>
>@%<
I refer to what Jews themselves wrote and you
accuse me of "twisting logic" and casting aspersions on the Jews. Typical.
Which Jews, by the way?
Debunks
>Message-id: <3664c...@news3.enter.net>
>
>> deb...@aol.com (Debunks) writes:
>> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>> >Message-id: <3663f...@news3.enter.net>
>
>> Faygela.
>
> Prove it, liar.
>
>
>
> "hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
> .well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about
>me i
> am a female."
>
> --YFE
>
Prove I wrote the above, Fagela.
Debunks
>Message-id: <jeff_brown-02...@sdn-ar-001ohcincp295.dialsprint.net>
>
>In article <19981201231023...@ng-fr1.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>(Little Joe Bellinger, Liar) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Joe Bellinger continues his lying ways
>>>From: jeff_...@bigfoot.com (Jeffrey G. Brown)
>>>Date: 12/1/98 7:19 AM EST
>>>Message-id:
><jeff_brown-01...@sdn-ar-001ohcincp252.dialsprint.net>
>>>
>>>In article <19981201015045...@ng93.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>>>(Little Joe Bellinger, Liar) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
>>>>>Message-id: <36633...@news3.enter.net>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did. I called "Jewish Currents." They checked their database
>for
>>>>>articles on
>>>>>"passports" and "converts." They could not find your "article."
>>>>
>>>>So who is lying? You, or the Currents? My bet is on you.
>>>
>>>You're lying, Bellinger. The article you claim to have read doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>JGB
>>>
>>
>>It does.
>
>Then cite it, liar.
>
>JGB
>
I tell you what--When you "sight" it--You "cite" it.
Debunks
>Date: 12/2/98 5:02 AM EST
>Message-id: <19981202050227...@ng143.aol.com>
>If you don't want to play your trump, then don't. But realize that so far,
>every hand that has been played has been won by your opposition. We've done
>the
>research, and Yale has even called Currents to ask them about it. Now's the
>time to play your trump card, because otherwise, you have lost your game.
>
>Dep
>
The empty words of the desperate.
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
> >Message-id: <3664c...@news3.enter.net>
> >> Faygela.
> > Prove it, liar.
> > "hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
> > .well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about
> >me i
> > am a female."
> Prove I wrote the above, Fagela.
I can prove that you lied outrageously about it.
"hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
.well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about me i
am a female."
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
Yale F. Edeiken
lies about Jews:
> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
> >Date: 12/2/98 10:03 AM EST
> >Message-id: <743kn7$s50$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
> >Because Joe Says So.
> No, because the Old Testament says so. If you are not of the seed of Abraham
> and Jacob you are not a 100% Jew and never will be regardless of your own
> [personal fantasies about this.
Funny. Most normal peopel think that Ruth is part of the Bible. For an
alleged ex-seminarian Jew-hating Joe shows a surprising ignorance of that particular
book.
>And, not so incidentally, Because Hitler Says So.
> I have never spoken with Hitler.
Only in your dreams.
> >But not because the Jews say so,
> Which Jews?
All Jews.
> >because the Jewish tradition is
> >pretty darn clear on this one
> Depends on the tradition.
Nope. It doesn't. Ruth is quite clear. Unfortunately Jew-hating Joe has as
little knowledge of Judaism as he does of the rel;igion he claims as his own.
> >But, since that part of the Jewish
> >tradition never showed up in the Hoffieganda and Freedman screeds
> >from which you apparently get the majority of your "information"
> >about Judiasm,
> Please. I do not refer to Mr. Hoffman for my information, nor am I aware of
> who Freedman is--but he was mentioned in this same context months ago. I am
> unfamiliar with his writings.
As you are with the Bible.
> >I'm not surprised that this little bit of info
> >has eluded you.
> I don't believe anything has eluded me.
Then you are deluded.
> >Let me remine also that I'm the one whose
> >person experiences -- including experiences with Orthodox Jews --
> >puts the lie to your essentially Nazi criterion of Jewish identity.
> The criteria I refer to is Jewish, not Nazi-unless you are maintaining that
> Orthodox Jews, Zionists, and Nazis are alike in many ways.
No. He's maintinaing that you're a Jew-hating liar. He's right.
> You have your own personal experiences, which is fine. I also have mine.
and you have your lies as well.
> >Yet you're perfectly willing to attribute our difference of opinion
> >to the supposed fact that I cannot read.
> Why not? You attempted to use that lame argument against me. Hypocrite.
It's a proven fact about you.
> >I suppose that MA diploma they gave me in English lit was a typo too, eh?
> Not my concern. My English instructor referred to my composition as "genius"
> quality.
Considering the general quality of your work, she needed a urine test.
> >You have tried to tell us that racism is a Jewish teaching, and used
> >some examples of racist Jews to try to prove it.
> The proffered quotes are a proof of this contention.
Liar.
> So you say, but your opinion is not in accord with the facts.
It most certainly is.
> >But you're apparently just as willing to twist logic as you are to
> >twist fact, as long as your goal is to cast aspersions on Jews,
> >either one on one or as a group.
> I refer to what Jews themselves wrote and you
> accuse me of "twisting logic" and casting aspersions on the Jews. Typical.
> Which Jews, by the way?
About the level of lying one expects from Jew-hating Joe.
Jeffrey G. Brown
(Little Joe Bellinger, Liar) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Joe Bellinger continues his lying ways
>>From: jeff_...@bigfoot.com (Jeffrey G. Brown)
>>Date: 12/2/98 6:56 AM EST
>>Message-id: <jeff_brown-02...@sdn-ar-001ohcincp295.dialsprint.net>
>>
>>In article <19981201231023...@ng-fr1.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>>(Little Joe Bellinger, Liar) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Joe Bellinger continues his lying ways
>>>>From: jeff_...@bigfoot.com (Jeffrey G. Brown)
> [...deletia...]
>>>>You're lying, Bellinger. The article you claim to have read doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>>JGB
>>>>
>>>
>>>It does.
>>
>>Then cite it, liar.
>>
>>JGB
>>
>
>I tell you what--When you "sight" it--You "cite" it.
I'm not the one claiming to have read it.
Cite the article, liar.
David Gehrig
(Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>>Date: 12/2/98 10:03 AM EST
>>Message-id: <743kn7$s50$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>
>>Because Joe Says So.
>
>No, because the Old Testament says so.
Checked out the Book of Ruth lately, Joe? Or does your
special Hitler-approved edition of the text have Ruth
say, "Your God will be less than 100% my God, and your
people less than 100% my people"?
If you are not of the seed of Abraham
>and Jacob you are not a 100% Jew and never will be regardless of your own
>[personal fantasies about this.
Talk about personal fantasies. Here's Joe the self-proclaimed and
self-anointed "foremost expert" on Judaism, defending a position which
is diametrically opposed to the Jewish position, and trying to argue that
it _is_ the Jewish position except the Jews don't know it. And he has
a personal fantasy that pulling something that stupid doesn't make him
look like a horse's ass.
>Refer to Shahak re rabbinical teachings.
>Undoubtedly in the eyes of Liberal and Reform Jews you are a Jew, but not in
>the eyes of the Ultra-Orthodox.
You are correct, I am not Jewish in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox,
and I don't need Shahak to tell me that -- I've known it for nearly
two decades.
This is not a big secret by any means. However, were I to decide to
become Orthodox and go through an orthodox conversion, then --
surprise! -- I _would_ be fully Jewish in their eyes too.
That's the part you're having problems fathoming, and that's where
your argument hits the brick wall. See, the issue isn't about _race_
(although, being essentially racist yourself, that's how you naturally
see it) but _denomination_. You yourself have commented on the
testiness between Jewish denominations. And this is another example.
The only one putting any kind of racial spin on it is you.
And it is _because_ you're putting a racial spin on it, which is
completely unrelated to the true nature of the discussion, that you
demonstrate your essentially Nazi viewpoint on the topic of Jewish
identity, while trying unsuccessfully to portray that as the Jewish
viewpoint as well, which it patently ain't.
>>And, not so incidentally, Because Hitler Says So.
>
>I have never spoken with Hitler.
Presumably you'll have the proverbial chance in Hell.
>>But not because the Jews say so,
>
>Which Jews?
Any Jew who follows the traditional Jewish definition of Jewish
identity.
>>because the Jewish tradition is
>>pretty darn clear on this one
>
>Depends on the tradition.
Joe, you so-called "leading expert," perhaps you'd like to cite
any rabbinic ruling of any kind saying that person X cannot
convert to Judaism because he is descended from Y?
C'mon, Joe, let's see that "leading expertise" in action.
Or rather, let's see another one of your desperation punts.
>>But, since that part of the Jewish
>>tradition never showed up in the Hoffieganda and Freedman screeds
>>from which you apparently get the majority of your "information"
>>about Judiasm,
>
>Please. I do not refer to Mr. Hoffman for my information, nor am I aware of
>who Freedman is-
Oh, now this is outright bullshit, Joe, and you know it.
As I made painfully aware to you, Freedman is the man whose
"Facts is Facts" hate literature you plagiarized from the
last time you tried to assert your "expertise" in Jewish
theology. Just look for the post titled "Joe's Hand Caught in
the Neo-Nazi Cookie Jar" to refresh your suddenly Bill-Gatesian
memory.
-but he was mentioned in this same context months ago. I am
>unfamiliar with his writings.
Other than the fact that you grabbed a slab of it to post
several dozen times in this very newsgroup. Yeah, Joe,
very convincing.
>>I'm not surprised that this little bit of info
>>has eluded you.
>
>I don't believe anything has eluded me.
That's pretty clear from your posts. It's also clear from
your posts that quite a bit has eluded you, not just the
date of the Jewish Currents article.
<< snip >>
>I know you are trying to imply that I have such a problem, but the fact is I do
>not and never have. At any rate, I would certainly not have a problem
>understanding anything you might wish to post in the group.
>
>
>
>>Let me remine also that I'm the one whose
>>person experiences -- including experiences with Orthodox Jews --
>>puts the lie to your essentially Nazi criterion of Jewish identity.
>
>The criteria I refer to is Jewish, not Nazi-unless you are maintaining that
>Orthodox Jews, Zionists, and Nazis are alike in many ways.
The Jewish criterion is exactly as I and many others have described
it -- either born of a Jewish mother or having undergone a Jewish
conversion. Different denominations of Judaism have different opinions
about what's involved in such a conversion, but all of them agree
that such a conversion is possible for _anyone_, regardless of ethnic
background, and that such a conversion renders the convert _completely_
Jewish.
>You have your own personal experiences, which is fine. I also have mine.
Hahahaha! They wouldn't by any change include being Jewish for nearly
two decades, now would they?
<< snip >>
>Not my concern. My English instructor referred to my composition as "genius"
>quality.
Judging from your posts here, I'd suspect that the teacher actually
wrote "disingenuous" but you've ignored the letters you didn't like
and rearranged the ones you did.
<< snip >>
>>You have tried to tell us that racism is a Jewish teaching, and used
>>some examples of racist Jews to try to prove it.
>
>The proffered quotes are a proof of this contention.
The proffered quotes are proof of your ineptitude and bigotry.
>>This is a logical
>>fallacy so basic they don't come any more basic than that.
>>
>
>So you say, but your opinion is not in accord with the facts.
No, you dope, this is simple Aristotelian logic.
The statement "Some Jews are racist" does not imply "Judiasm teaches
racism." Similarly, "Some Jews drive Nissans" does not imply
"Judaism teaches Nissan driving."
Like I said, this is as basic as logical argument gets, and if
your hatred of Jews has your brain so tied up in knots that you
can;t even think something _that_ simple through, then there's
simply no point in pretending that your position is rational at
all.
>>But you're apparently just as willing to twist logic as you are to
>>twist fact, as long as your goal is to cast aspersions on Jews,
>>either one on one or as a group.
>>
>>@%<
>
>I refer to what Jews themselves wrote
... either in a distorted way or in purely Magic Rabbit articles ...
>and you accuse me of "twisting logic" and casting aspersions on the Jews. Typical.
>Which Jews, by the way?
Any Jew who feels honored to be a part of the long history of the Jewish
people. Myself included.
@%<
Debunks
>Message-id: <3665d...@news3.enter.net>
>
SNIp
Fagela--How about this?--
Though the Jewish Brigade expressed bitter disappointment at not being given
orders to proceed directly to Germany, they soon were consoled by the fact that
their new destination, Tarvisio, held a number of people of German and Austrian
nationality. Thus, their yearning for blood-letting was soon to be satiated,
for not only were there remnants of Waffen-SS Divisions (Which had no part in
Anti-Jewish measures), but also Fascists from many countries throughout Europe,
among them Belgian, Romanian, Hungarian, Slovakian, Croatian and Italian
Fascists. More than enough bodies to permit blood-letting on the vast scale
envisioned by members of the Jewish Brigade. According to the text on page 23:
Soon after the Jewish Brigade arrived at Tarvisio a number of incidents
occurred in the town. Germans were assaulted, houses belonging to
(allegedly-Debunks) known Nazis were set on fire, and several cases of rape
were reported. The culprits were never found, but the staff officers of the
Jewish Brigade, who were affiliated with Haganah, became uneasy.
Comment: Thus it can be seen that the Brigade followed through on their unholy
oath of vengeance against ALL Germans….burning down homes, beating civilians in
the streets, and raping women in an orgy of violence which one would ordinarily
expect from members of the Ku Klux Klan. Burning down homes people worked a
lifetime to provide for themselves and their families—raping WOMEN—who had
nothing to do with the Jewish measures of the Third Reich, and so on and so on.
After all, had not the hateful members of the Brigade vowed:
"Give us just a month there, only a month…..We’ll give them something to
remember us by forever. They’ll have REAL reasons for hating us now. We’ll
have just one pogrom---in round numbers, we’ll burn down a thousand houses,
kill 500 people, and rape 100 women." Op cit, p. 21.
Returning to the text on page 23:
The overwhelming desire for vengeance animating ALL the Jewish soldiers at
Tarvisio had to be channeled. To this end the Haganah leaders decided to grant
a small group of selected, disciplined men to shed blood on behalf of all the
Jewish people.
COMMENT: Note that the author maintains that the desire for vengeance animated
ALL the Jewish soldiers in the Brigade. And one might ask, Who commissioned
the leaders of the Haganah to authorize a small group of murderous conspirators
to shed blood on behalf of ALL the Jewish people? Imagine if the early
Christians formed themselves into similar conspiratorial groups of rapists and
assassins during the great eras of persecution undertaken by the Roman Empire!
If such had been the case, the Christians would have ceased being both martyrs
as well as saints, and by such demonic actions would have been deserving of
every epithet uttered against them by anti-Christian Romans at the time! We
all hear in this NG how revisionists are lambasted by exterminationists who
claim they are paranoid conspiracy nuts—but what is the above if not a
murderous conspiracy? A conspiracy every bit as foul and shocking as the
allegation that certain Jews had at one time decided to poison the wells of
Europe! Was the accusation true?
Returning to the text:
In his memoirs, Colonel Israel Karmi, now head of the Israeli military police,
wrote….."We entered upon this new task with great zest."
COMMENT: And Colonel Karmi was not understating or exaggerating the situation,
for another member of the hit squad, Shalon Gil’ad, wrote in a secret report
now in the Haganah archives:
"When I enlisted in the Jewish Brigade, I was not a member of Haganah. I was
approached by Israel Karmi, head of the special group, who explained the secret
plan to me. The group consisted of men from the 2nd battalion. They were
Karmi (whose superior in the secret, inner council of Haganah, was Shlomo
Shamir, alias "Fistouk," who became a general in the Israeli Army), Chiam
Laskov (later Commander in Chief of the Israeli Army, from 1957-1960),
Lieutenant Zarodinski, known as Zaro, (later General Meir Zorea), Moshe
Korpovitz, Marcel Tobias (later a renowned lieutenant colonel commanding
Israeli paratroopers), Doc Cohen (a member of the terrorist organization Etzel,
he was killed a few years later when, disguised as a British officer, he took
part in the sensational attack on the prison at St. Jean-d’Acre, and helped a
number of Jewish internees to escape), and a few others."
COMMENT: One might think we are reading about the Dillinger Gang or the Mafia
here…..assassins, Capi di Tutti Capi, terrorists, jail-breakers, and so
on….Cohen apparently was the Jewish terrorist hanged in Syria for his crimes.
Returning to the text:
One of the group was a tall, fair hair young fellow, very Aryan in appearance,
who gave his name as Klaus (Should have been Laus. He was very useful to the
group because he spoke fluent German--DEBUNKS).
Returning to the text:
Secrecy was the prime rule of this little task force. Its activities had to be
kept from the thousands of other soldiers in the Jewish Brigade, (They were to
get their day later—Debunks) and obviously from the British Army Command to
which the Brigade was attached (this meant that the attacks had to be carried
out unknown to the British Officers attached to the Brigade). Secrecy had to
be observed within the group too, each man knowing no more than was absolutely
necessary for his own particular task, each not even knowing beforehand who
would be with him. Each member of the group was given a code name or
pseudonym.
COMMENT: In short, the classic conspiratorial scenario! Secrecy was the rule
because these men knew perfectly well that they were acting outside of the law
and feared retribution for their planned crimes. Back to page 24:
"Another member of the group, now a general in the Israeli Army, has said: "In
Palestine, I and other members of the Haganah were given missions to steal
weapons, raid British Army Camps, and carry out defensive actions. When I went
to Europe to join the group, it was in obedience to orders. (!-DEBUNKS) Our
mission there was one of revenge."
COMMENT: Well, what more could one ask for? Here is a quite candid admission,
ala the men who dictated Eichmann’s "confession" that they were just "following
orders." And as to the origin of the orders?---ISRAEL. Thus, the conspiracy
is traced directly to the Israelis themselves. Thus, the crime was devised,
planned, and executed in and by Israelis or soon to be Israelis, later
promoted with generalships for their bloody work. Lists were compiled of those
to be "whacked." And where and how did these assassins obtain their
information:
"Among the personnel of….Intelligence units were some British and American Jews
and even a few Palestinian Jews. "Those were the people who, unknown to their
superior officers, regularly supplied us with information."
Israel Karmi has written:
We also closely interrogated all the Germans we held, especially those who had
been in the SS or the Gestapo. These interrogations proved very fruitful.
COMMENT: I daresay they were, considering the Mafia like methods utilized by
these rapists and murderers to obtain information, whether true or false—The
problem with obtaining confessions by torture is that innocent people will
frequently be named simply to please the interrogators and stop the torture,
thus dragging more innocents into the net. Furthermore, when sent on a
legitimate investigative assignment bytheir British superiors, these Jews
simply withheld any information which they intended to use to murder people
without trial. According to the text:
During the following weeks and months, SS officers, heads of the Gestapo, and
high Nazi officials mysteriously disappeared from Klagenfurt, Innsbruck, and
places in the Alto Adige and the Austrian Tirol, many of them a hundred miles
or more from where the Jewish Brigade was stationed. Sometimes the corpses of
these men were found, but more often they seemed to have simply vanished. Even
today, the relatives of some of these Nazis still do not know what became of
them. The avengers kept their activities secret for 20 years, and only
recently did some of the survivors agree to talk.
COMMENT: In other words, they were systematically wiping out witnesses or any
people who could have shed any truth on the details of the so-called "Final
Solution." Considering that these actions were ordered directly by the Haganah
on behalf of the future Israeli Government, one would not at all be speaking
irrationally by making the suggestion that these conspirators had proceeded to
an as yet unpublicized policy determined by the fanatical Zionists, determined
to forge a new state for themselves, extort financial favors from foreign
countries and spin an elaborate myth around the so-called "Final Solution"
supported by false and spurious "documentation" emanating directly from
Stalin’s Soviet Jewish Anti-Fascist League. The task of the Brigade was to
locate and eliminate any informed German witnesses who might have shed any
knowledge on the actual policies enacted by the German Government during the
war. Continuing with the excerpt:
"I’ll tell you one of our actions," General X (Author deliberately conceals the
name of this murderer, living footloose and fancy free in Israel today-DEBUNKS)
said to me at a place not far from Tel Avib. "We left Tarvisio one evening,
about 10 of us, in an army utility truck. This was in the summer of 1945. We
had been careful to put false license tags on the truck. We crossed into
Austria and drove to a village near Klagenfurt, where we stopped outside the
house of the man we were looking for. Some of us stayed outside to keep watch,
the others entered the house and ordered all the people into one room. We were
wearing our British Army uniforms, but we had taken off our Jewish Brigade
patches and sewn on those of another formation. We questioned the family, and
then searched the house and found some rifles, revolvers, and field glasses.
We also found the man we were looking for. We had to use force to get the man
into the truck. It was dark when we left. Once on the road, we revealed our
true identity to the prisoner. "We’re Jews, " we told him, "and we’re going to
punish you for your crimes." Then we read out the charges we had drawn up
against him and told him, "We are going to execute you…..We stopped near a wood
on a lonely road and made him get out of the truck….Then one of us put a bullet
through his head. We didn’t hide the body, and we didn’t bury it. We just
left it there by the side of the road."
COMMENT: Sounds like a Martin Scorcese movie to me! If I did not know better,
I would swear I was reading about the infamous Jewish Crime-Murder
Syndicate—"The Purple Gang." However, I am grateful to this Jewish participant
for honestly baring his blackened soul and monstrous crimes to his fellow
countryman In particular I find the tactics employed by these villains
particularly illuminating. The methods closely resemble those usually employed
by common criminals: Stationing a "look-out", having a "get-a-way vehicle,
ransacking and plundering a home like common thieves, kidnapping, changing the
plates on the vehicles, and altering their dress so as to divert suspicion on
to the innocent for their own crimes—and finally, of course, outright murder.
On page 28, yet another participant speaks:
"We usually had no difficulty. The man (Or woman-—Remember that these people
were also guilty of murdering dozens of German adolescents who happened to be
campign by a lake in Bavaria, according to their own admission—which I posted
in my earlier "Avenger" posts.—DEBUNKS)…….would go with us, unsuspecting who we
really were. When we were outside of the town or village, we turned to the
"Nazi" (Quotation marks DEBUNKS) and read out the list of his (Alleged-DEBUNKS)
crimes, then the death sentence pronounced on him by HAGANAH. (!) And then we
carried out the sentence.
The witness describes a typical act of murder on page 28:
"Experience enabled us to perfect speedy, silent, and efficient ways of
dispatching the Nazi "criminals" (DEBUNKS) we captured."
COMMENT: In other words, these murders were so numerous that, like their
Purple Gang counter-parts in the United States, they perfected the art of
murder. One will not fail to be struck by the Mafia Style method of murder
described below. One can also recognize a similarity with the methods used by
the murderous THUGEE Cult in India as well:
"It was a covered truck that we were using, and we put mattresses on the floor.
To get in at the back, you had to put a foot on the bumper, part the
tarpaulin, and thrust your head in first. The moment the German’s head
appeared inside, one of us seized him by the throat and jerked him forward,
falling back on the mattress as we did so. In this way, the German performed a
somersault, and since he was still gripped around the neck, the action was
usually enough to strangle him or break his neck. And so each man died without
a word and often without a cry."
Then, again, there were those who didn’t. The perpetrator describes another
incident:
"One evening we knocked at the door of a house where an SS officer was living.
His wife opened the door. As usual, Klaus stated that we had come to take her
husband to the British military authorities. The woman was frightened and said
that she would not let him leave. "Go ionto the kitchen and kae some coffee,"
Klaus said peremptorily, "and your husband will be back before it is ready."
"The German came out and his wife went with him to the truck. He put a foot on
the bumper, parted the tarpaulin, and disappeared inside. If he had been able
to utter a word or a cry, his wife would have started to scream and that might
have had serious consequences for us. I was at the wheel, and as soon as the
German was inside I let in the clutch and off we went. The woman watched us
go. It could never have occurred to her that her husband was already dead when
the truck moved off…."
COMMENT: SO what does this little narration tell us? Number one, that another
witness lied yet again when he told us that Germans were always informed of
"charges" and then "sentenced." This account makes it clear that many were
murdered without having been given the least attempt to utter a word. And so,
within seconds, a man NEVER even accused, much less convicted of homicidal
crimes in a court of law, was murdered by a gang of Ku Klux Klan-like THUGS,
his wife widowed, and his children orphaned.
Continuing with the account on page 29:
On orders from Haganah, a SECOND group of Avengers was formed from members of
the Jewish Brigade. Neither groups knew of the other'’ existence; only the
leaders were fully informed. Both groups used basically the same methods. Lt.
Col. Marcel Tobias, who as a young volunteer had belonged to the 2nd group,
told an Israeli journalist in 1964:
"Our covered truck would stop at the address given and we would take away the
Ss officer on the pretext of a "routine enquiry." In the back of the truck
were 3 military policemen, who said not a word. When we arrived at a lake or a
river, the SS man was strangled; a large stone was tied to the body and it was
thrown into the water. On the way back, I would get out of the truck about a
mile from our camp and return on foot, to avoid arousing suspicion."
The relatives of Nazis who had mysteriously disappeared went to the British
authorities to ask what had become of their father or their husband who had
been taken away for questioning by military police. A few bodies had been
found by villagers or by army patrols on the edge of a wood or by the roadside.
A corpse had been recovered from a lake. Patients in tarvisio hospital who
had little wrong with them died mysteriously (Now WHERE have we all heard this
before??? Do the names Stangl, Baer, and Jaeger ring a bell?--DEBUNKS) and
Nazis being held in prison by the British had "escaped." (As Rudolf Hess
committed "suicide?"—DEBUNKS)….And EACH TIME A SOLDIER OF THE JEWISH BRIGADE
HAD BEEN ON GUARD DUTY.-----(CAPS-DEBUNKS).
"We ordered out man who was on guard duty to tell the British that the prisoner
had escaped," General X told me. "We executed the German and hid his body….(As
Moses hid the body of the slain Egyptian-DEBUNKS)…..Then our man reported the
escape to the British and took the subsequent punishment—stoppage of pay or
confinement to barracks—without a murmur."
COMMENT: And did these obvious ploys REALLY fool the British? The author of
the Avengers concurs with my appraisal, for he writes:
The British investigations produced no results, officially. But it is
difficult to believe that British Headquarters never suspected the truth. Most
likely, the investigating officers preferred to look the other way.
COMMENT: But one cannot escape their karma so easily, for it would not be long
before the British themselves would soon become victims and corpses at the
hands of these same Jewish Haganah assassins in Palestine. Now, amazingly, the
author confirms yet another previous point I made in this same essay! On page
30 he writes:
Dealing out vengeance was not the only clandestine activity entrusted to the
Jewish Brigade. In the eyes of its leaders, who were all members of Haganah,
the main task was to organize emigration to Palestine.
GAME, SET, MATCH!
He continues:
The news soon spread that a Jewish military formation was stationed in Italy, a
few miles away from the Austrian frontier, and the Brigade became a magnet for
all the Jews who had survived the concentration camps. Thousands of them,
undergoing great personal risk (How so?--DEBUNKS) reached Tarvisio, exhausted
and in rags. (This is not what British General Morgan said of them. He said
they were all well-dressed, fat, healthy, had lots of money and a "plan" to
get out of Europe.—DEBUNKS)…Routes were secretly organized for these men and
women to reach Palestine. P. 31.
Summing up, I will refer to one last vignette offered by the author:
A woman SS officer (There were no women SS, much less SS officers—DEBUNKS) had
escaped from a prison camp and succeeded in getting into the (Jewish) transit
camp. She passed herself off as a Jewess and said that she came from
Hungary….We made a check among the refugees and easily identified the
woman…(Yet she is never NAMED—DEBUNKS)…..We didn’t arrest her, and we did
nothing which might have made her suspect that her true identity had been
discovered. We sent one of our men to talk to her. He spoke in German, and
she answered in Hungarian that she didn’t understand. Sp we sent someone else,
a Hungarian Jew, who said to her: "An emigrant ship is about to sail for
Palestine. Get your things together and come with us." She couldn’t very well
refuse, she had to swallow the bait. "We took her away on a truck. On that
occasion, I was in the back with Zaro, and Karmi was driving. Before we
started out, he had said, "When we are in the mountains, I’ll sound the horn as
a signal." When he did, we executed the woman."
COMMENT: Have a Happy Haganah…er…Hanukah. Now, does anyone else care to tell
the lurkers how nicely accused Germans were treated by the Jews and the Allies,
and how they were accorded all the alleged civil rights we are accustomed to in
the free world?
Debunks
>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>Date: 12/3/98 0:39 AM EST
>Message-id: <74581p$evn$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>
>In article <19981202144050...@ng94.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>(Debunks) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
>>>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>>>Date: 12/2/98 10:03 AM EST
>>>Message-id: <743kn7$s50$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>>
>>>Because Joe Says So.
>>
>>No, because the Old Testament says so.
>
>Checked out the Book of Ruth lately, Joe?
I am quite familiar with the story of Ruth and the threshing floor.
>Or does your
>special Hitler-approved edition of the text have
I wasn't aware there ever was a "Hitler-approved" version of the Old Testament.
>Ruth
>say, "Your God will be less than 100% my God, and your
>people less than 100% my people"?
>
And?
>
>If you are not of the seed of Abraham
>>and Jacob you are not a 100% Jew and never will be regardless of your own
>>[personal fantasies about this.
>Talk about personal fantasies. Here's Joe the self-proclaimed and
>self-anointed "foremost expert" on Judaism, defending a position which
>is diametrically opposed to the Jewish position,
What is the "Jewish" postion? Which Jews, specifically?
>and trying to argue that
>it _is_ the Jewish position except the Jews don't know it. And he has
>a personal fantasy that pulling something that stupid doesn't make him
>look like a horse's ass.
We will soon see about that below.
>>Refer to Shahak re rabbinical teachings.
>>Undoubtedly in the eyes of Liberal and Reform Jews you are a Jew, but not in
>>the eyes of the Ultra-Orthodox.
>
>You are correct, I am not Jewish in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox,
>and I don't need Shahak to tell me that -- I've known it for nearly
>two decades.
>
>
So what is your big beef then? Game, set, match.
>This is not a big secret by any means. However, were I to decide to
>become Orthodox and go through an orthodox conversion, then --
>surprise! -- I _would_ be fully Jewish in their eyes too.
>That's the part you're having problems fathoming, and that's where
>your argument hits the brick wall. See, the issue isn't about _race_
>(although, being essentially racist yourself, that's how you naturally
>see it) but _denomination_. You yourself have commented on the
>testiness between Jewish denominations. And this is another example.
>The only one putting any kind of racial spin on it is you.
You would NEVER be accepted by them as a "real" Jew, i.e., of the seed of
Abraham and Isaac and so on. Are you familiar with the story of Dinah?
>And it is _because_ you're putting a racial spin on
"I" didn't...the Orthodox rabbis have.
>which is
>completely unrelated to the true nature of the discussion, that you
>demonstrate your essentially Nazi viewpoint on the topic of Jewish
>identity
This is the Orthodox Jewish viewpoint, a la Kahane and the rest of his ilk.
>while trying unsuccessfully to portray that as the Jewish
>viewpoint as well, which it patently ain't.
>
Reform and liberal Jews do not subscribe to this interpretation. That is true.
>>And, not so incidentally, Because Hitler Says So.
>>
>>I have never spoken with Hitler.
>
>Presumably you'll have the proverbial chance in Hell.
I think you shall meet him before I ever will.
>
>Joe, you so-called "leading expert," perhaps you'd like to cite
>any rabbinic ruling of any kind saying that person X cannot
>convert to Judaism because he is descended from Y?
Oh, they can convert if they are insistent enough. Refer to Shahak for the
rest.
>
>C'mon, Joe, let's see that "leading expertise" in action.
>Or rather, let's see another one of your desperation punts.
I could make this very uncomfortable for you with citations. do you really
want me to do that?
>>But, since that part of the Jewish
>>>tradition never showed up in the Hoffieganda and Freedman screeds
>>>from which you apparently get the majority of your "information"
>>>about Judiasm,
>>
>>Please. I do not refer to Mr. Hoffman for my information, nor am I aware of
>>who Freedman is-
>
>Oh, now this is outright bullshit, Joe, and you know it.
No, it is YOU who does not know this. Stop with your silly imaginings already.
It is tired and old. I do not rely on either Hoffman or Freedman for my
information.
>As I made painfully aware to you, Freedman is the man whose
>"Facts is Facts" hate literature you plagiarized from the
>last time you tried to assert your "expertise" in Jewish
>theology. J
I never, NEVER plagiarized from Freedman. I had no idea who he was until you
pointed it out.
>Just look for the post titled "Joe's Hand Caught in
>the Neo-Nazi Cookie Jar" to refresh your suddenly Bill-Gatesian
>memory.
I remember that thread, and I am telling you now what I told you then.
>-but he was mentioned in this same context months ago. I am
>>unfamiliar with his writings.
>
>Other than the fact that you grabbed a slab of it to post
>several dozen times in this very newsgroup. Yeah, Joe,
>very convincing.
No, I didn't.
>
>>>I'm not surprised that this little bit of info
>>>has eluded you.
>>
>>I don't believe anything has eluded me.
>
>That's pretty clear from your posts. It's also clear from
>your posts that quite a bit has eluded you, not just the
>date of the Jewish Currents article.
>
><< snip >>
It appears that the article itself has eluded you.
>
>>I know you are trying to imply that I have such a problem, but the fact is I
>do
>>not and never have. At any rate, I would certainly not have a problem
>>understanding anything you might wish to post in the group.
>>
>
>>>Let me remine also that I'm the one whose
>>>person experiences -- including experiences with Orthodox Jews --
>>>puts the lie to your essentially Nazi criterion of Jewish identity.
>>
>>The criteria I refer to is Jewish, not Nazi-unless you are maintaining that
>>Orthodox Jews, Zionists, and Nazis are alike in many ways.
>
>The Jewish criterion is exactly as I and many others have described
>it -- either born of a Jewish mother
This is racist in and of itself.
>or having undergone a Jewish
>conversion.
One must also be of the seed of Abraham, Isacc, and the rest of the tribe.
>Different denominations of Judaism have different opinions
>about what's involved in such a conversion, but all of them agree
>that such a conversion is possible for _anyone_, regardless of ethnic
>background, and that such a conversion renders the convert _completely_
>Jewish.
>
Tell it to those Falasha kids who were manhandled by fanatic orthies.
>You have your own personal experiences, which is fine. I also have mine.
>
>Hahahaha! They wouldn't by any change include being Jewish for nearly
>two decades, now would they?
>
No, but I am Catholic and we share many religious traditions.
><< snip >>
>
>>Not my concern. My English instructor referred to my composition as
>"genius"
>>quality.
>
>Judging from your posts here, I'd suspect that the teacher actually
>wrote "disingenuous" but you've ignored the letters you didn't like
>and rearranged the ones you did.
>
><< snip >>
No, she did not write disingenuous. She did not know you at the time.
>>>You have tried to tell us that racism is a Jewish teaching, and used
>>>some examples of racist Jews to try to prove it.
>>
>>The proffered quotes are a proof of this contention.
>The proffered quotes are proof of your ineptitude and bigotry.
On the contrary.
>
>>>This is a logical
>>>fallacy so basic they don't come any more basic than that.
>>>
>>
>>So you say, but your opinion is not in accord with the facts.
>No, you dope, this is simple Aristotelian logic.
So you revert to name calling to prove your point.
>The statement "Some Jews are racist" does not imply "Judiasm teaches
>racism."
That depends upon the sect.
>Similarly, "Some Jews drive Nissans" does not imply
>"Judaism teaches Nissan driving."
>
No DUH.
>Like I said, this is as basic as logical argument gets, and if
>your hatred of Jews
I do not hate Jews, silly.
>has your brain so tied up in knots that you
My brain is free as the winds.
>can;t even think something _that_ simple through, then there's
>simply no point in pretending that your position is rational at
>all.
I do not need your advice on what constitutes rational thinking.
>
>>>But you're apparently just as willing to twist logic as you are to
>>>twist fact, as long as your goal is to cast aspersions on Jews,
>>>either one on one or as a group.
>>>
>>>@%<
>>
>>I refer to what Jews themselves wrote
>
>... either in a distorted way or in purely Magic Rabbit articles ...
>
Not so. The hateful tradition of the orthodox is quite clear.
>
>>and you accuse me of "twisting logic" and casting aspersions on the Jews.
>Typical.
>>Which Jews, by the way?
>
>Any Jew who feels honored to be a part of the long history of the Jewish
>people. Myself included.
>
>@%<
>
And no one is criticizing you for that. I am sure you make a good Jew in the
finest sense of the word.
Mark Van Alstine
(Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Joe Bellinger continues his lying ways
Yes, the desperate Boger's words _are_ empty. Like his head.
For those interested in proof of Boger's irrelevant Nazi apologia,
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/b/bellinger.joseph
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/lies
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.0996
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1096
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1196
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/blackmore.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/tutu101.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/fafner13.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/anyone-out-there-12-1
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
> >From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
> >Date: 12/3/98 0:39 AM EST
> >Message-id: <74581p$evn$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
> >In article <19981202144050...@ng94.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
> >(Debunks) wrote:
> >>>Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >>>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
> >>>Date: 12/2/98 10:03 AM EST
> >>>Message-id: <743kn7$s50$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
> >>>Because Joe Says So.
> >>No, because the Old Testament says so.
> >Checked out the Book of Ruth lately, Joe?
> I am quite familiar with the story of Ruth and the threshing floor.
That's not what he asked, Jew-hating Joe. Are you or are you not familiar with
Ruth? And if you are why are you telling lies?
> >Ruth
> >say, "Your God will be less than 100% my God, and your
> >people less than 100% my people"?
> And?
Jew-hating Joe cannot formulate an answer.
> >If you are not of the seed of Abraham
> >>and Jacob you are not a 100% Jew and never will be regardless of your own
> >>[personal fantasies about this.
> >Talk about personal fantasies. Here's Joe the self-proclaimed and
> >self-anointed "foremost expert" on Judaism, defending a position which
> >is diametrically opposed to the Jewish position,
> What is the "Jewish" postion? Which Jews, specifically?
Jew-hating Joe cannolt point to a single Jewish organization that contends
that conversion to Judaism is not possible. He substitutes hot air.
> >and trying to argue that
> >it _is_ the Jewish position except the Jews don't know it. And he has
> >a personal fantasy that pulling something that stupid doesn't make him
> >look like a horse's ass.
> We will soon see about that below.
Yep. We will see that Jew hating Joer has no case.
> >>Refer to Shahak re rabbinical teachings.
> >>Undoubtedly in the eyes of Liberal and Reform Jews you are a Jew, but not in
> >>the eyes of the Ultra-Orthodox.
> >You are correct, I am not Jewish in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox,
> >and I don't need Shahak to tell me that -- I've known it for nearly
> >two decades.
> So what is your big beef then? Game, set, match.
The beef is that you are lying and deliberately miusrepresenting the position of
the Orthodox who hold that canversion is possible and the convert becomes a
complete Jew.
> >This is not a big secret by any means. However, were I to decide to
> >become Orthodox and go through an orthodox conversion, then --
> >surprise! -- I _would_ be fully Jewish in their eyes too.
> >That's the part you're having problems fathoming, and that's where
> >your argument hits the brick wall. See, the issue isn't about _race_
> >(although, being essentially racist yourself, that's how you naturally
> >see it) but _denomination_. You yourself have commented on the
> >testiness between Jewish denominations. And this is another example.
> >The only one putting any kind of racial spin on it is you.
> You would NEVER be accepted by them as a "real" Jew, i.e., of the seed of
> Abraham and Isaac and so on. Are you familiar with the story of Dinah?
Jew-hating Joe resortws to his usual unsupported smears.
> >And it is _because_ you're putting a racial spin on
> "I" didn't...the Orthodox rabbis have.
Ditto.
> >which is
> >completely unrelated to the true nature of the discussion, that you
> >demonstrate your essentially Nazi viewpoint on the topic of Jewish
> >identity
> This is the Orthodox Jewish viewpoint, a la Kahane and the rest of his ilk.
That's an outright lie. Kahane never denied conversion was possible.
> >while trying unsuccessfully to portray that as the Jewish
> >viewpoint as well, which it patently ain't.
> Reform and liberal Jews do not subscribe to this interpretation. That is true.
Nor do Orthodox. A portion of them do insist on Orthodox conversion; many
do not. They are willing to recognize both Conservative and Reconstructionist
conversions as long as the Orthodox tenets are followed.
> >Joe, you so-called "leading expert," perhaps you'd like to cite
> >any rabbinic ruling of any kind saying that person X cannot
> >convert to Judaism because he is descended from Y?
> Oh, they can convert if they are insistent enough. Refer to Shahak for the
> rest.
Jew-hating Joe cannot answer the question so he must lie again.
> >C'mon, Joe, let's see that "leading expertise" in action.
> >Or rather, let's see another one of your desperation punts.
> I could make this very uncomfortable for you with citations. do you really
> want me to do that?
Punt!!!!!!
> >>But, since that part of the Jewish
> >>>tradition never showed up in the Hoffieganda and Freedman screeds
> >>>from which you apparently get the majority of your "information"
> >>>about Judiasm,
> >>Please. I do not refer to Mr. Hoffman for my information, nor am I aware of
> >>who Freedman is-
> >Oh, now this is outright bullshit, Joe, and you know it.
> No, it is YOU who does not know this. Stop with your silly imaginings already.
> It is tired and old. I do not rely on either Hoffman or Freedman for my
> information.
>
> >As I made painfully aware to you, Freedman is the man whose
> >"Facts is Facts" hate literature you plagiarized from the
> >last time you tried to assert your "expertise" in Jewish
> >theology. J
> I never, NEVER plagiarized from Freedman. I had no idea who he was until you
> pointed it out.
Liar.
> >Just look for the post titled "Joe's Hand Caught in
> >the Neo-Nazi Cookie Jar" to refresh your suddenly Bill-Gatesian
> >memory.
> I remember that thread, and I am telling you now what I told you then.
And it was a series of lies as he proved then.
> >-but he was mentioned in this same context months ago. I am
> >>unfamiliar with his writings.
> >Other than the fact that you grabbed a slab of it to post
> >several dozen times in this very newsgroup. Yeah, Joe,
> >very convincing.
> No, I didn't.
Jew-hating Joe has no answer. He's lying again.
> >>>I'm not surprised that this little bit of info
> >>>has eluded you.
> >>I don't believe anything has eluded me.
>
> >That's pretty clear from your posts. It's also clear from
> >your posts that quite a bit has eluded you, not just the
> >date of the Jewish Currents article.
> ><< snip >>
> It appears that the article itself has eluded you.
As it has the editors of the magazine.
> >>I know you are trying to imply that I have such a problem, but the fact is I
> >do
> >>not and never have. At any rate, I would certainly not have a problem
> >>understanding anything you might wish to post in the group.
> >>>Let me remine also that I'm the one whose
> >>>person experiences -- including experiences with Orthodox Jews --
> >>>puts the lie to your essentially Nazi criterion of Jewish identity.
> >>The criteria I refer to is Jewish, not Nazi-unless you are maintaining that
> >>Orthodox Jews, Zionists, and Nazis are alike in many ways.
> >The Jewish criterion is exactly as I and many others have described
> >it -- either born of a Jewish mother
> This is racist in and of itself.
Jew-hating Joe has no reasonable ansswer. He must resort to his usual
anti-Semitic smears.
> >or having undergone a Jewish
> >conversion.
> One must also be of the seed of Abraham, Isacc, and the rest of the tribe.
Liar.
> >Different denominations of Judaism have different opinions
> >about what's involved in such a conversion, but all of them agree
> >that such a conversion is possible for _anyone_, regardless of ethnic
> >background, and that such a conversion renders the convert _completely_
> >Jewish.
> Tell it to those Falasha kids who were manhandled by fanatic orthies.
Tell it to the judge.
> >You have your own personal experiences, which is fine. I also have mine.
> >Hahahaha! They wouldn't by any change include being Jewish for nearly
> >two decades, now would they?
> No, but I am Catholic and we share many religious traditions.
You openly reject the teachings of the Cartholic Church.
> >>>You have tried to tell us that racism is a Jewish teaching, and used
> >>>some examples of racist Jews to try to prove it.
> >>The proffered quotes are a proof of this contention.
> >The proffered quotes are proof of your ineptitude and bigotry.
> On the contrary.
Jew-hating Joe has no answer. As usual he resorts to his anti-Semitic smears.
> >>>This is a logical
> >>>fallacy so basic they don't come any more basic than that.
> >>So you say, but your opinion is not in accord with the facts.
> >No, you dope, this is simple Aristotelian logic.
> So you revert to name calling to prove your point.
An odd complaint from Jew-hating Joe whose anti-Semitic smears are
legendary.
> >The statement "Some Jews are racist" does not imply "Judiasm teaches
> >racism."
> That depends upon the sect.
Jew-hating Joe has no answer. He cannot name a sect of Jews who teach
that.
> >Similarly, "Some Jews drive Nissans" does not imply
> >"Judaism teaches Nissan driving."
> No DUH.
Then why is that the basis for your argument.
> >Like I said, this is as basic as logical argument gets, and if
> >your hatred of Jews
> I do not hate Jews, silly.
Liar.
> >has your brain so tied up in knots that you
> My brain is free as the winds.
And has about the same amount of content.
> >can;t even think something _that_ simple through, then there's
> >simply no point in pretending that your position is rational at
> >all.
> I do not need your advice on what constitutes rational thinking.
You need someone's. Why not check with your handler and your other
associates.
> >>I refer to what Jews themselves wrote
> >... either in a distorted way or in purely Magic Rabbit articles ...
> Not so. The hateful tradition of the orthodox is quite clear.
Only to a anti-Semite like you.
> >>and you accuse me of "twisting logic" and casting aspersions on the Jews.
> >Typical.
> >>Which Jews, by the way?
> >Any Jew who feels honored to be a part of the long history of the Jewish
> >people. Myself included.
> And no one is criticizing you for that. I am sure you make a good Jew in the
> finest sense of the word.
And you are an anti-Semite in the worst sense of that word.
David Gehrig
(Debunks) wrote:
<< snip >>
> >Ruth
> >say, "Your God will be less than 100% my God, and your
> >people less than 100% my people"?
> >
>
> And?
And then Ruth's descendents went on to be the kings of Israel.
So if you're going to tell me that, because I'm not 100%
Bellinger-pure Jewish, then I'll just have to settle for being
in the same category of not 100%-hood as that other David, the
one with the harp, and his kid, Solomon.
I'll have to mark that into my copy of the Book of Psalms:
"Joe Bellinger thinks King David's a goy -- and Joe's
always right, just ask him."
> >If you are not of the seed of Abraham
> >>and Jacob you are not a 100% Jew and never will be regardless of your own
> >>[personal fantasies about this.
>
> >Talk about personal fantasies. Here's Joe the self-proclaimed and
> >self-anointed "foremost expert" on Judaism, defending a position which
> >is diametrically opposed to the Jewish position,
>
> What is the "Jewish" postion? Which Jews, specifically?
As has been explained to you an astonishing number of times,
bouncing off your skull each time because you don't really
want to hear it because it deprives you of an excuse for calling
the Jews racist, the Jewish position worldwide is that a Jew is
someone (a) born of a Jewish mother or (b) who has converted to
Judaism.
Different denominations within Judaism have different
requirements for the conversion, but never in my life have
I met a Jew who believes what you're trying to tell us
"the Jews believe" -- that conversion to Judiasm doesn't make
one fully Jewish.
And in each of the articles you've mentioned supposedly
supporting your point, you've misinterpreted interdenominational
actions for interracial actions. Shoshana Miller didn't have
her passport stamped because she was a convert, she had it
stamped because she was a Reform convert. And so on.
You clearly, simply don't know what you're talking about.
> >and trying to argue that
> >it _is_ the Jewish position except the Jews don't know it. And he has
> >a personal fantasy that pulling something that stupid doesn't make him
> >look like a horse's ass.
>
> We will soon see about that below.
Yes, we will see that your incomprehension about Judaism is only
matched by your incomprehension of the English language.
> >>Refer to Shahak re rabbinical teachings.
> >>Undoubtedly in the eyes of Liberal and Reform Jews you are a Jew, but not in
> >>the eyes of the Ultra-Orthodox.
> >
> >You are correct, I am not Jewish in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox,
> >and I don't need Shahak to tell me that -- I've known it for nearly
> >two decades.
>
> So what is your big beef then? Game, set, match.
Joe, since you're such an idiot that you haven't yet caught on to
what I've been saying in excruciating detail, let's run through
this again. If the ultra-Orthodox are all as racist as you say,
then how come they would accept me as 100% Jewish, if I converted
according to their standards? What part of this simple question is
throwing you?
Here, read what I wrote below again.
> >This is not a big secret by any means. However, were I to decide to
> >become Orthodox and go through an orthodox conversion, then --
> >surprise! -- I _would_ be fully Jewish in their eyes too.
> >That's the part you're having problems fathoming, and that's where
> >your argument hits the brick wall. See, the issue isn't about _race_
> >(although, being essentially racist yourself, that's how you naturally
> >see it) but _denomination_. You yourself have commented on the
> >testiness between Jewish denominations. And this is another example.
> >The only one putting any kind of racial spin on it is you.
>
> You would NEVER be accepted by them as a "real" Jew, i.e., of the seed of
> Abraham and Isaac and so on. Are you familiar with the story of Dinah?
You mean, the one about Shechem the Goyische Rapist? Before you
try to use that as the excuse for pulling non-existent "Jewish attitudes"
to lecture us about out of your ass, ask yourself this -- what was Jacob's
attitude about the whole business? And how many of Jacob's sons
participated?
> >And it is _because_ you're putting a racial spin on
>
> "I" didn't...the Orthodox rabbis have.
No, the rabbinic viewpoint here clearly says that all races may become
Jews if they convert to Judaism. Find me _any_ book on Jewish conversion
which says, "don't bother, you'll still be a goy," Joe -- you can't.
> >which is
> >completely unrelated to the true nature of the discussion, that you
> >demonstrate your essentially Nazi viewpoint on the topic of Jewish
> >identity
>
> This is the Orthodox Jewish viewpoint, a la Kahane and the rest of his ilk.
And again you attempt to equate Kahane and the Orthodox. I know a
Jewish symphony conductor -- why not try to equate Jews and symphony
conductors while you're at it?
> >while trying unsuccessfully to portray that as the Jewish
> >viewpoint as well, which it patently ain't.
>
> Reform and liberal Jews do not subscribe to this interpretation. That is true.
And neither do the Orthodox. That is also true.
> >>And, not so incidentally, Because Hitler Says So.
> >>
> >>I have never spoken with Hitler.
> >
> >Presumably you'll have the proverbial chance in Hell.
>
> I think you shall meet him before I ever will.
Oh, are you suggesting that _you_ think Hitler's in hell? Do tell,
do tell. Presumably God built an extra wing just for him.
> >Joe, you so-called "leading expert," perhaps you'd like to cite
> >any rabbinic ruling of any kind saying that person X cannot
> >convert to Judaism because he is descended from Y?
>
> Oh, they can convert if they are insistent enough. Refer to Shahak for the
> rest.
Conversion to Judaism isn't like conversion to Christianity -- it isn't
instant gratification. Got a problem with that?
But I'm happy that you at last acknowledge that no matter what
"race" one represents, there are still no laws preventing
conversion to even the most Orthodox sect.
> >C'mon, Joe, let's see that "leading expertise" in action.
> >Or rather, let's see another one of your desperation punts.
>
> I could make this very uncomfortable for you with citations. do you really
> want me to do that?
If this goes the way it always goes when you delve into Jewish theology,
it will end with your either running away full tilt boogie or clinging
to some Magic Rabbit article.
> >>But, since that part of the Jewish
> >>>tradition never showed up in the Hoffieganda and Freedman screeds
> >>>from which you apparently get the majority of your "information"
> >>>about Judiasm,
> >>
> >>Please. I do not refer to Mr. Hoffman for my information, nor am I aware of
> >>who Freedman is-
> >
> >Oh, now this is outright bullshit, Joe, and you know it.
>
> No, it is YOU who does not know this. Stop with your silly imaginings already.
> It is tired and old. I do not rely on either Hoffman or Freedman for my
> information.
Let me repeat: as I made painfully aware to you, Freedman is the
man whose "Facts is Facts" hate literature you plagiarized.
And we all had a good, healthy laugh as you tried unsuccessfully
to twist your way out of it.
> >As I made painfully aware to you, Freedman is the man whose
> >"Facts is Facts" hate literature you plagiarized from the
> >last time you tried to assert your "expertise" in Jewish
> >theology. J
>
> I never, NEVER plagiarized from Freedman.
You most certainly did and I proved it, Blanche. Plug your ears
and shut your eyes if you want, Blanche, but I proved it.
> I had no idea who he was until you
> pointed it out.
But that didn't stop you from posting his words, without attribution,
literally dozens of times before that. As I proved.
> >Just look for the post titled "Joe's Hand Caught in
> >the Neo-Nazi Cookie Jar" to refresh your suddenly Bill-Gatesian
> >memory.
>
> I remember that thread, and I am telling you now what I told you then.
And it's just as funny! And it's just as ridiculous!
> >-but he was mentioned in this same context months ago. I am
> >>unfamiliar with his writings.
Except for the part you posted dozens of times without giving
the man credit.
> >Other than the fact that you grabbed a slab of it to post
> >several dozen times in this very newsgroup. Yeah, Joe,
> >very convincing.
>
> No, I didn't.
Poor delusional Blanche.
> >>>I'm not surprised that this little bit of info
> >>>has eluded you.
> >>
> >>I don't believe anything has eluded me.
>
> >That's pretty clear from your posts. It's also clear from
> >your posts that quite a bit has eluded you, not just the
> >date of the Jewish Currents article.
> >
> ><< snip >>
>
> It appears that the article itself has eluded you.
There's no reason to believe the article exists except for your
word. In other words, no reason at all.
<< snip >>
> >The Jewish criterion is exactly as I and many others have described
> >it -- either born of a Jewish mother
>
> This is racist in and of itself.
It would be, if it weren't for the second half of the sentence, the
one you have such trouble believing --
> >or having undergone a Jewish
> >conversion.
>
> One must also be of the seed of Abraham, Isacc, and the rest of the tribe.
Keep repeating it, Joe, somebody's bound to believe it sooner or later --
not somebody Jewish, of course, because that's not how our definition
of Jewish identity works.
> >Different denominations of Judaism have different opinions
> >about what's involved in such a conversion, but all of them agree
> >that such a conversion is possible for _anyone_, regardless of ethnic
> >background, and that such a conversion renders the convert _completely_
> >Jewish.
>
> Tell it to those Falasha kids who were manhandled by fanatic orthies.
If you had a quarter of that encyclopedic knowledge you claim you have
about all things Jewish, Joe, you'd remember that there is something
that the (very-)Orthodox wanted the Ethiopean Jews to do. Remember what
it was, Joe?
Incidentally, the term "falasha" is derogatory. That's why I don't use
it.
> >You have your own personal experiences, which is fine. I also have mine.
> >
> >Hahahaha! They wouldn't by any change include being Jewish for nearly
> >two decades, now would they?
>
> No, but I am Catholic and we share many religious traditions.
But not a common definition of Jewish identity, obviously, so your
Catholic/pseudo-Catholic upbringing means exactly zilch on this point.
<< snip >>
> >>>This is a logical
> >>>fallacy so basic they don't come any more basic than that.
> >>
> >>So you say, but your opinion is not in accord with the facts.
>
> >No, you dope, this is simple Aristotelian logic.
>
> So you revert to name calling to prove your point.
Here is my point, Joe (besides that you're a dope):
> >The statement "Some Jews are racist" does not imply "Judiasm teaches
> >racism."
>
> That depends upon the sect.
By the same argument, since the Christian Identity movement teaches
racism, and Christian Identity is a sect of Christianity, Christianity
itself must be racist. But, lo, Christianity _doesn't_ teach racism.
If there are racists out there using Judaism as a pretext to _teach_
racism, as there no doubt are, it can't be blamed on Judaism, any
more than Christian Identity racists can be blamed on Christianity.
Have I made the argument simple enough for you, Joe?
> >Similarly, "Some Jews drive Nissans" does not imply
> >"Judaism teaches Nissan driving."
>
> No DUH.
And *floof* the entire argument sails past Joe's brain.
Why do I bother?
<< snip >>
> I do not need your advice on what constitutes rational thinking.
You clearly do when you blow such simple exercises in analogous
thinking as the "Judaism teaches Nissan driving" argument.
> >>>But you're apparently just as willing to twist logic as you are to
> >>>twist fact, as long as your goal is to cast aspersions on Jews,
> >>>either one on one or as a group.
> >>
> >>I refer to what Jews themselves wrote
> >
> >... either in a distorted way or in purely Magic Rabbit articles ...
>
> Not so. The hateful tradition of the orthodox is quite clear.
Because Joe Says So.
<< snip >>
@%<
Derek Bell
If the article exists, then give as much information as neccessary to
identify it.
Of course, that assumes the article in question exists.
Derek
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie | Socrates would have loved
WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| usenet.
PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
Debunks
>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>Message-id: <747o52$bhf$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>
>Yes, we will see that your incomprehension about Judaism is only
>matched by your incomprehension of the English language.
I am far more proficent with the English language than you will ever be.
>Oh, are you suggesting that _you_ think Hitler's in hell? Do tell,
>do tell. Presumably God built an extra wing just for him.
>
So you are suggesting Hitler is in heaven? LOL!
>Oh, they can convert if they are insistent enough. Refer to Shahak for the
>> rest.
>
>Conversion to Judaism isn't like conversion to Christianity -- it isn't
>instant gratification. Got a problem with that?
>
You shoudl think about converting to Christianity. After all-Christ was your
Messiah-not the anti-Christ-for whom you and the rest of the Jews await with
eager anticipation.
>But I'm happy that you at last acknowledge that no matter what
>"race" one represents, there are still no laws preventing
>conversion to even the most Orthodox sect.
One can convert, but unless they are ofthe seed of abraham they will never be
regarded by the orthies as real Jews. After all, do not the Cohens have a
special status within Jewry?
>
>Let me repeat: as I made painfully aware to you, Freedman is the
>man whose "Facts is Facts" hate literature you plagiarized.
>And we all had a good, healthy laugh as you tried unsuccessfully
>to twist your way out of it.
And I will reinform you that I got this information from a Catholic website
with NO attribution to Freedman.
> I never, NEVER plagiarized from Freedman.
>
>You most certainly did and I proved it, Blanche. Plug your ears
>and shut your eyes if you want, Blanche, but I proved it.
You proved NOTHING, as usual, save your own impotent ignorance. Read above for
the details.
> I had no idea who he was until you
>> pointed it out.
>
>But that didn't stop you from posting his words, without attribution,
>literally dozens of times before that. As I proved.
>
Catholic website with no Freedman attribution.
Expect me to be a mind reader even if what you write IS true?
>
>> >Just look for the post titled "Joe's Hand Caught in
>> >the Neo-Nazi Cookie Jar" to refresh your suddenly Bill-Gatesian
>> >memory.
>>
>> I remember that thread, and I am telling you now what I told you then.
>
>And it's just as funny! And it's just as ridiculous!
>
>
No, YOU are the one being ridiculous-as usual.
>
>> This is racist in and of itself.
>
>It would be, if it weren't for the second half of the sentence, the
>one you have such trouble believing --
>
Oh, I see--they are HALF racists! LOL!
> >or having undergone a Jewish
>> >conversion.
>>
>> One must also be of the seed of Abraham, Isacc, and the rest of the tribe.
>
>Keep repeating it, Joe, somebody's bound to believe it sooner or later --
>not somebody Jewish, of course, because that's not how our definition
>of Jewish identity works.
>
>> >Different denominations of Judaism have different opinions
>> >about what's involved in such a conversion, but all of them agree
>> >that such a conversion is possible for _anyone_, regardless of ethnic
>> >background, and that such a conversion renders the convert _completely_
>> >Jewish.
>>
>> Tell it to those Falasha kids who were manhandled by fanatic orthies.
>
>If you had a quarter of that encyclopedic knowledge you claim you have
>about all things Jewish, Joe, you'd remember that there is something
>that the (very-)Orthodox wanted the Ethiopean Jews to do. Remember what
>it was, Joe?
I don't care WHAT it was--they had no right manhandling and degrading these
children the way they did.
>
>Incidentally, the term "falasha" is derogatory. That's why I don't use
>it.
Well, other Jewish co-religionists of yours use it quite liberally.
>No, but I am Catholic and we share many religious traditions.
>
>But not a common definition of Jewish identity, obviously, so your
>Catholic/pseudo-Catholic upbringing means exactly zilch on this point.
Your pseudo-conversion does not impress me either, thank you--nor do I imagine
it impresses Orthodox Jews either.
>
>> So you revert to name calling to prove your point.
>
>Here is my point, Joe (besides that you're a dope):
Perhaps you smoke dope?
>By the same argument, since the Christian Identity movement teaches
>racism, and Christian Identity is a sect of Christianity, Christianity
>itself must be racist. But, lo, Christianity _doesn't_ teach racism.
>
So you admit that certain Jewish sects are racist. Thanks.
>If there are racists out there using Judaism as a pretext to _teach_
>racism, as there no doubt are, it can't be blamed on Judaism, any
>more than Christian Identity racists can be blamed on Christianity.
But that LONNNNNG traditiona of racism in the Talmud....If only it weren';t for
that ole Talmud, eh?
>Have I made the argument simple enough for you, Joe?
>
Have you made it simple enough for yourself?
I have no problems with anything you write, neither would my 3 year old son.
>Not so. The hateful tradition of the orthodox is quite clear.
>
>Because Joe Says So.
>
><< snip >>
>
>@%<
>
Shall I have to start quoting from the Talmud now? You never learn save the
hard way.
DeppityBob
snipping:
>>Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 4, 1998 4:26 AM
Message-id: <747o52$bhf$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
<< snip >>
And here is some more of YOUR crap...
>>
>> So you revert to name calling to prove your point.
>
>Here is my point, Joe (besides that you're a dope):
Perhaps you smoke dope?<<
Boy, that was a great response...when I used it in recess THIRTY FUCKING YEARS
AGO.
>>By the same argument, since the Christian Identity movement teaches
>racism, and Christian Identity is a sect of Christianity, Christianity
>itself must be racist. But, lo, Christianity _doesn't_ teach racism.
>
So you admit that certain Jewish sects are racist. Thanks.<<
And you see this *where*? Booger, the more corners you get pushed into, the
more erratic you get. And right now, you're the pinkest loop in the box of
Froot Loops.
>>If there are racists out there using Judaism as a pretext to _teach_
>racism, as there no doubt are, it can't be blamed on Judaism, any
>more than Christian Identity racists can be blamed on Christianity.
But that LONNNNNG traditiona of racism in the Talmud....If only it weren';t for
that ole Talmud, eh?<<
Never, of course, substantiated by Booger....claimed, maybe, with a few out of
context quotes, but there's always someone around who knows what they're
talking about to set him to rights.
>>Have I made the argument simple enough for you, Joe?
>
Have you made it simple enough for yourself?<<
You must be Big Man on the Playground.
>>I have no problems with anything you write, neither would my 3 year old
son.<<
That the one you're still diapering? You might wanna toilet-train him before it
becomes a problem--like, say, high school.
>>Not so. The hateful tradition of the orthodox is quite clear.
>
>Because Joe Says So.
>
><< snip >>
>
>@%<
>
Shall I have to start quoting from the Talmud now? You never learn save the
hard way.<<
You might as well quote SOMETHING. You can't back yourself up anywhere else.
Charlie Chester
> >Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
> >From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
> >Date: 12/3/98 11:26 PM EST
> >Message-id: <747o52$bhf$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
> >
>
> >Yes, we will see that your incomprehension about Judaism is only
> >matched by your incomprehension of the English language.
>
> I am far more proficent with the English language than you will ever be.
>
> >Oh, are you suggesting that _you_ think Hitler's in hell? Do tell,
> >do tell. Presumably God built an extra wing just for him.
> >
>
> So you are suggesting Hitler is in heaven? LOL!
>
> >Oh, they can convert if they are insistent enough. Refer to Shahak for the
> >> rest.
> >
> >Conversion to Judaism isn't like conversion to Christianity -- it isn't
> >instant gratification. Got a problem with that?
> >
>
> You shoudl think about converting to Christianity. After all-Christ was your
> Messiah-not the anti-Christ-for whom you and the rest of the Jews await with
> eager anticipation.
>
So Mr Bellinger, you are prepared to discuss your beliefs about this Jesus
character in alt.revisionism after all. Can one take it that your declaration of
his being "off topic" was a simple evasion?
Since you've raised the subject perhaps you would care to cite what your standard
of evidence is for accepting that a) Jesus existed at all, b) that he said & did
the things your bible attributes to him, c) that he was a god/the son of a god.
Why do you say that Christ was "your Messiah" (meaning a messiah for the Jews)? I
thought xtians believed he was god/the son of god. Please show me the Jewish belief
that says they are/were awaiting the arrival of god in the shape of carpenter's son
or indeed that they are waiting for his antithesis (is there a concept of
anti-Christ in Judaism or did you just use the term to vent some more of your
hatred?). One suspects you do not understand the concept of the messiah in the
ancient Jewish religion.
Charlie Chester
Manchester - England
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
> >From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
> >Date: 12/3/98 11:26 PM EST
> >Message-id: <747o52$bhf$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
> >Yes, we will see that your incomprehension about Judaism is only
> >matched by your incomprehension of the English language.
> I am far more proficent with the English language than you will ever be.
You just lie a lot.
> >Oh, are you suggesting that _you_ think Hitler's in hell? Do tell,
> >do tell. Presumably God built an extra wing just for him.
> So you are suggesting Hitler is in heaven? LOL!
Apparently you are unaware of the traditional Jewish teachings about an
afterlife. An odd area of ignorance for someone who claims to be one of the foremost
experts on Judaism in the United States.
> >Oh, they can convert if they are insistent enough. Refer to Shahak for the
> >> rest.
> >Conversion to Judaism isn't like conversion to Christianity -- it isn't
> >instant gratification. Got a problem with that?
> You shoudl think about converting to Christianity.
Why? What's wrong with the religion he has.
> After all-Christ was your
> Messiah-not the anti-Christ-for whom you and the rest of the Jews await with
> eager anticipation.
Thank you for further proof of your anti-Semitism.
> >But I'm happy that you at last acknowledge that no matter what
> >"race" one represents, there are still no laws preventing
> >conversion to even the most Orthodox sect.
> One can convert, but unless they are ofthe seed of abraham they will never be
> regarded by the orthies as real Jews.
Typical smear from Jew-hating Joe. He seems to believe that by repeating
a lie some fool will be foolish enough to believe it.
> >Let me repeat: as I made painfully aware to you, Freedman is the
> >man whose "Facts is Facts" hate literature you plagiarized.
> >And we all had a good, healthy laugh as you tried unsuccessfully
> >to twist your way out of it.
> And I will reinform you that I got this information from a Catholic website
> with NO attribution to Freedman.
And no-one but you has ever been able to find this website. And you told
several other lies about it as well.
> > I never, NEVER plagiarized from Freedman.
> >You most certainly did and I proved it, Blanche. Plug your ears
> >and shut your eyes if you want, Blanche, but I proved it.
> You proved NOTHING, as usual, save your own impotent ignorance. Read above
for the details.
Only if you believe the lies of Jew-hating Joe.
> > I had no idea who he was until you
> >> pointed it out.
> >But that didn't stop you from posting his words, without attribution,
> >literally dozens of times before that. As I proved.
> Catholic website with no Freedman attribution.
Name it, liar.
> Expect me to be a mind reader even if what you write IS true?
If what he writes is true, there is no need for you to be a mind-reader.
If you are, as you have written, one of the foremost authorities on Judaism
in the U.S. there would have been no need for you to be a mind-reader.
> >> >Just look for the post titled "Joe's Hand Caught in
> >> >the Neo-Nazi Cookie Jar" to refresh your suddenly Bill-Gatesian
> >> >memory.
> >> I remember that thread, and I am telling you now what I told you then.
> >And it's just as funny! And it's just as ridiculous!
> No, YOU are the one being ridiculous-as usual.
Yes. Sure. Anyone is "ridiculous" who exposes Jew-hating Joe as a liar.
Which he did.
> >> This is racist in and of itself.
> >It would be, if it weren't for the second half of the sentence, the
> >one you have such trouble believing --
> Oh, I see--they are HALF racists! LOL!
Another anti-Semitic smear from Jew-hating Joe.
> > >or having undergone a Jewish
> >> >conversion.
> >> One must also be of the seed of Abraham, Isacc, and the rest of the tribe.
> >Keep repeating it, Joe, somebody's bound to believe it sooner or later --
> >not somebody Jewish, of course, because that's not how our definition
> >of Jewish identity works.
> >> >Different denominations of Judaism have different opinions
> >> >about what's involved in such a conversion, but all of them agree
> >> >that such a conversion is possible for _anyone_, regardless of ethnic
> >> >background, and that such a conversion renders the convert _completely_
> >> >Jewish.
> >> Tell it to those Falasha kids who were manhandled by fanatic orthies.
> >If you had a quarter of that encyclopedic knowledge you claim you have
> >about all things Jewish, Joe, you'd remember that there is something
> >that the (very-)Orthodox wanted the Ethiopean Jews to do. Remember what
> >it was, Joe?
> I don't care WHAT it was--they had no right manhandling and degrading these
> children the way they did.
That's not your claim, Jew-hating Joe.
> >Incidentally, the term "falasha" is derogatory. That's why I don't use
> >it.
> Well, other Jewish co-religionists of yours use it quite liberally.
Another anti-Semitic smear from Jew-hating Joe.
> >No, but I am Catholic and we share many religious traditions.
> >But not a common definition of Jewish identity, obviously, so your
> >Catholic/pseudo-Catholic upbringing means exactly zilch on this point.
> Your pseudo-conversion does not impress me either, thank you--nor do I imagine
> it impresses Orthodox Jews either.
Another anti-Semitic smear from Jew-hating Joe.
> >> So you revert to name calling to prove your point.
> >Here is my point, Joe (besides that you're a dope):
> Perhaps you smoke dope?
> >By the same argument, since the Christian Identity movement teaches
> >racism, and Christian Identity is a sect of Christianity, Christianity
> >itself must be racist. But, lo, Christianity _doesn't_ teach racism.
> So you admit that certain Jewish sects are racist. Thanks.
Another anti-Semitic smear from Jew-hating Joe.
> >If there are racists out there using Judaism as a pretext to _teach_
> >racism, as there no doubt are, it can't be blamed on Judaism, any
> >more than Christian Identity racists can be blamed on Christianity.
> But that LONNNNNG traditiona of racism in the Talmud....If only it weren';t for
> that ole Talmud, eh?
Another anti-Semitic smear from Jew-hating Joe.
> >Have I made the argument simple enough for you, Joe?
> Have you made it simple enough for yourself?
> I have no problems with anything you write, neither would my 3 year old son.
Are you raising him to be an unCatholic anti-Semite such as yourself.
> >Not so. The hateful tradition of the orthodox is quite clear.
>
> >Because Joe Says So.
> Shall I have to start quoting from the Talmud now? You never learn save the
> hard way.
Typical of Jew-hating Joe. But always remember the source.
Debunks
>Date: 12/4/98 9:13 AM EST
>Message-id: <3667EE25...@csu.ac.uk>
>So Mr Bellinger, you are prepared to discuss your beliefs about this Jesus
>character in alt.revisionism after all.
Was I discussing this with you, Charlie? BTW, it is not off topic as he
brought this issue up.
>Can one take it that your declaration of
>his being "off topic" was a simple evasion?
No, it wasn't. I need not fear anything from you people, as I have proven and
will continue to prove over and over again.
>Since you've raised the subject perhaps you would care to cite what your
>standard
>of evidence is for accepting that a) Jesus existed at all,
Not germane to this post. Sorry.
>b) that he said & did
>the things your bible attributes to him,
The Bible was not dedicated to me, Charlie. DO you believe Moses existed? If
not, better go inform the Jews about it.
>c) that he was a god/the son of a god.
Do you believe Moses was commissioned by God to lead the Jews out of bondage
and that he talked to God in the form of a burning bush?
>Why do you say that Christ was "your Messiah" (meaning a messiah for the
>Jews)?
Why do you think I said it? If anyone fits into the catagory Christ does--or
perhaps you think Bar Kokba was a better choice?
>I
>thought xtians believed he was god/the son of god
Do I need to instruct you on the beliefs of Christians?
>Please show me the Jewish belief
>that says they are/were awaiting the arrival of god in the shape of
>carpenter's son
>or indeed that they are waiting for his antithesis (is there a concept of
>anti-Christ in Judaism or did you just use the term to vent some more of your
>hatred?)
The only hatred obvious in these posts is your own. I see you prefer Bar Kokba
as the Messiah--or perhaps Rabbi Schneerson-whose vehicle strck a little black
boy in the Bronx and left him dying in the streets.
>One suspects you do not understand the concept of the messiah in the
>ancient Jewish religion.
One suspects that you are ignorant.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3667e...@news3.enter.net>
>
>> deb...@aol.com (Debunks) writes:
>> >Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
>> >From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>> >Date: 12/3/98 11:26 PM EST
>> >Message-id: <747o52$bhf$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>
>> >Yes, we will see that your incomprehension about Judaism is only
>> >matched by your incomprehension of the English language.
>
>> I am far more proficent with the English language than you will ever be.
>
> You just lie a lot.
>
>> >Oh, are you suggesting that _you_ think Hitler's in hell? Do tell,
>> >do tell. Presumably God built an extra wing just for him.
>
>> So you are suggesting Hitler is in heaven? LOL!
>
> Apparently you are unaware of the traditional Jewish teachings about an
>afterlife. An odd area of ignorance for someone who claims to be one of the
>foremost
>experts on Judaism in the United States.
What afterlife? Jews did not believe in an afterlife for centuries.
> You shoudl think about converting to Christianity.
>
> Why? What's wrong with the religion he has.
What is right with it?
>After all-Christ was your
>> Messiah-not the anti-Christ-for whom you and the rest of the Jews await
>with
>> eager anticipation.
>
> Thank you for further proof of your anti-Semitism.
>
Thank you for further proof that you are an anti-Christ.
>> One can convert, but unless they are ofthe seed of abraham they will never
>be
>> regarded by the orthies as real Jews.
>
> Typical smear from Jew-hating Joe. He seems to believe that by
repeating
>a lie some fool will be foolish enough to believe it.
>
Why not? You think it works for you...
>
>> And I will reinform you that I got this information from a Catholic
>website
>> with NO attribution to Freedman.
>
> And no-one but you has ever been able to find this website. And you
told
>several other lies about it as well.
That is YOUR problem. I have no intention of giving shits like you the URL.
>> I never, NEVER plagiarized from Freedman.
>
>> >You most certainly did and I proved it, Blanche. Plug your ears
>> >and shut your eyes if you want, Blanche, but I proved it.
>
>> You proved NOTHING, as usual, save your own impotent ignorance. Read
>above
>for the details.
>
> Only if you believe the lies of Jew-hating Joe.
If you prefer to believe a known and proven liar like Yale-be my guest. Are
there any bigger liars in the world to compete with attorneys? Not even
politicians come close to that one.
> Catholic website with no Freedman attribution.
>
> Name it, liar.
>
Not in your lifetime, fagela.
>
>
> If you are, as you have written, one of the foremost authorities on
Judaism
>in the U.S. there would have been no need for you to be a mind-reader.
It annoys you, doesn't it?
>
>> I don't care WHAT it was--they had no right manhandling and degrading
>these
>> children the way they did.
>
> That's not your claim, Jew-hating Joe.
>
Don't presume to dictate to me what my claims are, fagela. Leave that to me.
>Have you made it simple enough for yourself?
>> I have no problems with anything you write, neither would my 3 year old
>son.
>
> Are you raising him to be an unCatholic anti-Semite such as yourself.
I am raising him to not be like you.
> "hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
> .well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about
>me i
> am a female."
>
> --YFE
THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
Debunks
>Date: 12/4/98 1:36 AM EST
>Message-id: <19981204013646...@ng15.aol.com>
>
>You might as well quote SOMETHING. You can't back yourself up anywhere else.
>
>Dep
Try practicing what you preach.
Jeffrey G. Brown
(Little Joe Bellinger, Liar) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
>>From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
>>Date: 12/3/98 11:21 PM EST
>>Message-id: <3667e...@news3.enter.net>
>>
>>> deb...@aol.com (Debunks) writes:
> [...deletia...]
>>> And I will reinform you that I got this information from a Catholic website
>>> with NO attribution to Freedman.
>>
>>And no-one but you has ever been able to find this website. And you told
>>several other lies about it as well.
>
>That is YOUR problem. I have no intention of giving shits like you the URL.
Translation: Bellinger has once again lied about his sources, just as he
did in the case of the non-existent "Jewish Currents" article.
Anonymous
> >>Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
> >>Date: 12/3/98 11:21 PM EST
> >>Message-id: <3667e...@news3.enter.net>
> >>
>
> > [...deletia...]
>
> >>> And I will reinform you that I got this information from a Catholic
> >>> website with NO attribution to Freedman.
> >>
> >>And no-one but you has ever been able to find this website. And you
> >>told several other lies about it as well.
> >
> >URL.
>
> Translation: Bellinger has once again lied about his sources, just as he
> did in the case of the non-existent "Jewish Currents" article.
the simple truth is both yale f edeiken and jeffrey g brown want to perform
oral sex on bellinger -- bellinger is not homosexual but yale and jeffrey
persist in their quest to suck bellinger's cock -- will someone fix yale and
jeffrey up with a snack
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
> >From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
> >Date: 12/3/98 11:21 PM EST
> >Message-id: <3667e...@news3.enter.net>
> >> >Yes, we will see that your incomprehension about Judaism is only
> >> >matched by your incomprehension of the English language.
> >> I am far more proficent with the English language than you will ever be.
> > You just lie a lot.
> >> >Oh, are you suggesting that _you_ think Hitler's in hell? Do tell,
> >> >do tell. Presumably God built an extra wing just for him.
> >> So you are suggesting Hitler is in heaven? LOL!
> > Apparently you are unaware of the traditional Jewish teachings about an>
> >afterlife. An odd area of ignorance for someone who claims to be one of the
> >foremost experts on Judaism in the United States.
> What afterlife? Jews did not believe in an afterlife for centuries.
Thank you for admitting your comment above was just meaningless gibberish.
> > You shoudl think about converting to Christianity.
> > Why? What's wrong with the religion he has.
> What is right with it?
Lots.
> >After all-Christ was your
> >> Messiah-not the anti-Christ-for whom you and the rest of the Jews await
> >with
> >> eager anticipation.
> > Thank you for further proof of your anti-Semitism.
> Thank you for further proof that you are an anti-Christ.
Why, because I don't believe Jesus was a Messiah. Apparently you then smear
all the people in the world who do not believe in your religion. Or is it just that you are so
stupid that you don't know what the word "anti-Christ" means. Given your ignorance and
contempt for the Catholic faith, it is not surprising.
> >> One can convert, but unless they are ofthe seed of abraham they will never
> >be
> >> regarded by the orthies as real Jews.
> > Typical smear from Jew-hating Joe. He seems to believe that by
> repeating
> >a lie some fool will be foolish enough to believe it.
> Why not? You think it works for you...
Thank you for admitting you were lying about Jews.
> >> And I will reinform you that I got this information from a Catholic
> >website
> >> with NO attribution to Freedman.
> > And no-one but you has ever been able to find this website. And you
> told
> >several other lies about it as well.
> That is YOUR problem. I have no intention of giving shits like you the URL.
Which doesn't exist.
> >> I never, NEVER plagiarized from Freedman.
> >> >You most certainly did and I proved it, Blanche. Plug your ears
> >> >and shut your eyes if you want, Blanche, but I proved it.
> >> You proved NOTHING, as usual, save your own impotent ignorance. Read
> >above
> >for the details.
> > Only if you believe the lies of Jew-hating Joe.
> If you prefer to believe a known and proven liar like Yale-be my guest. Are
> there any bigger liars in the world to compete with attorneys? Not even
> politicians come close to that one.
Strange that I ahve nailed you so often, you just babble your anti-Semitic smears
and run.
> > Catholic website with no Freedman attribution.
> > Name it, liar.
> Not in your lifetime, fagela.
Of course, there is no such website.
> > If you are, as you have written, one of the foremost authorities on
> Judaism
> >in the U.S. there would have been no need for you to be a mind-reader.
> It annoys you, doesn't it?
Sure. Your brand of venomous anti-Semitism does annoy me.
> >> I don't care WHAT it was--they had no right manhandling and degrading
> >these
> >> children the way they did.
> > That's not your claim, Jew-hating Joe.
> Don't presume to dictate to me what my claims are, fagela. Leave that to me.
And you do such a great job of digging holes from which you cannopt escape.
> >Have you made it simple enough for yourself?
> >> I have no problems with anything you write, neither would my 3 year old
> >son.
> > Are you raising him to be an unCatholic anti-Semite such as yourself.
> I am raising him to not be like you.
Why won't Jew-hating Joe answer the question.
> THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
I neither smear you or fear you. Sorry that you cannot stand to have your own
words thrown back at you.
"hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
.well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about me i
am a female."
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
Yale F. Edeiken
> Debunked wrote:
> > >Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
> > >Date: 12/3/98 11:26 PM EST
> > >Message-id: <747o52$bhf$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
> > >Yes, we will see that your incomprehension about Judaism is only
> > >matched by your incomprehension of the English language.
> > I am far more proficent with the English language than you will ever be.
> > >Oh, are you suggesting that _you_ think Hitler's in hell? Do tell,
> > >do tell. Presumably God built an extra wing just for him.
> > So you are suggesting Hitler is in heaven? LOL!
> > You shoudl think about converting to Christianity. After all-Christ was your
> > Messiah-not the anti-Christ-for whom you and the rest of the Jews await with
> > eager anticipation.
> So Mr Bellinger, you are prepared to discuss your beliefs about this Jesus
> character in alt.revisionism after all. Can one take it that your declaration of
> his being "off topic" was a simple evasion?
Of course.
> Since you've raised the subject perhaps you would care to cite what your standard
> of evidence is for accepting that a) Jesus existed at all, b) that he said & did
> the things your bible attributes to him, c) that he was a god/the son of a god.
> Why do you say that Christ was "your Messiah" (meaning a messiah for the Jews)? I
> thought xtians believed he was god/the son of god. Please show me the Jewish
belief
> that says they are/were awaiting the arrival of god in the shape of carpenter's son
> or indeed that they are waiting for his antithesis (is there a concept of
> anti-Christ in Judaism or did you just use the term to vent some more of your
> hatred?). One suspects you do not understand the concept of the messiah in the
> ancient Jewish religion.
A good guess since he apparently doesn't understand his own religion.
"hello? antone out there 12-14 e-mail me. i am thirteen and . .
.well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about me i
am a female."
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
Gord McFee
GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >And some Catholics are pro-choice, but that doesn't make pro-choice
> >a Catholic teaching.
>
> If they are pro-choice then they are excommunicated and no longer Catholics.
> However, Catholics are not of the "Seed" of Jesus Christ.
I understand. Catholicism is a religion, but Judaism is a race?
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Visit the Nizkor site
http://www.nizkor.org
Gord McFee
06:31:17 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >>I have never spoken with Hitler.
> >
> >Presumably you'll have the proverbial chance in Hell.
>
> I think you shall meet him before I ever will.
Then I presume you mean he was a monster who deservedly went to Hell.
Gord McFee
> >The Jewish criterion is exactly as I and many others have described
> >it -- either born of a Jewish mother
>
> This is racist in and of itself.
No. The mother could have been a convert.
David Gehrig
>>Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
>>From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
>>Date: 12/3/98 11:21 PM EST
>>Message-id: <3667e...@news3.enter.net>
<< snip >>
>THEY ONLY SMEAR THE ONES THEY FEAR.
And Little Joe's brain flashes TILT! TILT! for the second time in a week.
If you didn't spout such utter nonsense, Joe, it wouldn't be so painful
for you to defend your own postings.
@%<
David Gehrig
(Debunks) wrote:
>
>>Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
>>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>>Date: 12/3/98 11:26 PM EST
>>Message-id: <747o52$bhf$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
Note that Joe completely snipped (without notice, natürlich)
the Book of Ruth argument which had been here.
Gee, wonder why? Didn't like being reminded that all of these
supposed racial restrictions the Jews supposedly believe
with such supposed fervor didn't keep David from the kingship,
thereby providing yet _more_ evidence that Joe doesn't know
what he's talking about?
Because the sudden Bermuda-Triangle-like disappearance of
the Ruth argument, I thought I'd check my previous post to
see what else Joe had "refuted" with his backspace key. More
below.
>>Yes, we will see that your incomprehension about Judaism is only
>>matched by your incomprehension of the English language.
>
>I am far more proficent with the English language than you will ever be.
I'll leave the question of my craftsmanship in English to those who
read these posts -- and, more specifically, the musical interludes.
And let me note in passing that I am in fact a professional technical
writer.
At any rate, Joe chopped another whole slab of my post here without
comment. So Joe "Run away! Run away!" Bellinger ran away from --
--- begin quote
Joe, since you're such an idiot that you haven't yet caught on to
what I've been saying in excruciating detail, let's run through
this again. If the ultra-Orthodox are all as racist as you say,
then how come they would accept me as 100% Jewish, if I converted
according to their standards? What part of this simple question is
throwing you?
Here, read what I wrote below again.
> >This is not a big secret by any means. However, were I to decide to
> >become Orthodox and go through an orthodox conversion, then --
> >surprise! -- I _would_ be fully Jewish in their eyes too.
> >That's the part you're having problems fathoming, and that's where
> >your argument hits the brick wall. See, the issue isn't about _race_
> >(although, being essentially racist yourself, that's how you naturally
> >see it) but _denomination_. You yourself have commented on the
> >testiness between Jewish denominations. And this is another example.
> >The only one putting any kind of racial spin on it is you.
--- end quote
And Joe's response? backspace-backspace-backspace-backspace...
Also missing is the Biblical story of Dinah (Genesis 24) and Shechem
the Goyische Rapist which Joe brought up and almost immediately
abandoned as soon as he realized that he was about to lose as badly as
he lost on the Ruth argument. So: backspace-backspace-backspace...
and that's it for Joe's Biblical arguments putatively supporting
his Nazoid theory of Jewish identity.
Also missing -- more attempts by Joe to portray all Orthodox
Jews as Kahanes, and my response:
--- begin quote
And again you attempt to equate Kahane and the Orthodox. I know a
Jewish symphony conductor -- why not try to equate Jews and symphony
conductors while you're at it?
--- end quote
And Joe's response? backspace-backspace-backspace-backspace...
>>Oh, are you suggesting that _you_ think Hitler's in hell? Do tell,
>>do tell. Presumably God built an extra wing just for him.
>
>So you are suggesting Hitler is in heaven? LOL!
See earlier comment about Joe's verbal comprehension skills.
>>Oh, they can convert if they are insistent enough. Refer to
>>Shahak for the rest.
>>
>>Conversion to Judaism isn't like conversion to Christianity -- it isn't
>>instant gratification. Got a problem with that?
>
>You shoudl think about converting to Christianity. After all-Christ was your
>Messiah-not the anti-Christ-for whom you and the rest of the Jews await with
>eager anticipation.
I'm not interested in arguing Judaism vs. Christianity, Joe; you can
rest assured that I've heard all the arguments you're likely to make.
If you want to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, then don't let me
stop you.
>>But I'm happy that you at last acknowledge that no matter what
>>"race" one represents, there are still no laws preventing
>>conversion to even the most Orthodox sect.
>
>One can convert, but unless they are ofthe seed of abraham they will never be
>regarded by the orthies as real Jews.
Because Joe Says So, not because the Jewish tradition say so.
>After all, do not the Cohens have a
>special status within Jewry?
As do the Levis. So I can't convert into being a Cohen. Neither
can most born Jews. And that's as true for Reform Jews as
Orthodox Jews. Was that the point you were trying to make,
since it shows yet another facet of Jewish life in which my
position is exactly identical to the majority of born Jews?
>>Let me repeat: as I made painfully aware to you, Freedman is the
>>man whose "Facts is Facts" hate literature you plagiarized.
>>And we all had a good, healthy laugh as you tried unsuccessfully
>>to twist your way out of it.
>
>And I will reinform you that I got this information from a Catholic website
>with NO attribution to Freedman.
Yes, the famous "Catholic website" -- which is just as much a
figment of your Magic Rabbitry as the Jewish Currents article.
In a way, your "Catholic website" dodge is even stupider than
your Jewish Currents dodge, because at least in the latter
case, you can claim memory lapse, while you never came up with
anything remotely resembling a credible reason not to post the
"Catholic website" URL -- other than the obvious fact that
it doesn't exist.
Oh, golly, what a laugh we had at your sorry revisionist
ass (redundency?) on that one.
Or will you now say you've forgotten the URL for the "Catholic
website" too, thereby completing the Jewish Currents analogy?
>> I never, NEVER plagiarized from Freedman.
By the boatload. Plagiarist.
>>You most certainly did and I proved it, Blanche. Plug your ears
>>and shut your eyes if you want, Blanche, but I proved it.
>
>You proved NOTHING, as usual, save your own impotent ignorance.
>Read above for the details.
"Neener neener," says Joe the Plagiarist, who yanked a
paragraph of Freedman's hate literature from a hate site and
posted it dozens of times in alt.revisionism, without credit,
as anybody with a web browser can confirm.
>> I had no idea who he was until you pointed it out.
>>
>>But that didn't stop you from posting his words, without attribution,
>>literally dozens of times before that. As I proved.
>
>Catholic website with no Freedman attribution.
What "Catholic website"? Please post the URL.
Oh, that's right, you've invented some reason you can't post
the site -- 'cuz you're mad at Yale, was it? Well, how about
if you just email me with it, and I promise to keep it secret
from that Wikked Wikked Yale and all those other Nizkooks who
sing so dissonantly in your nightmares?
>Expect me to be a mind reader even if what you write IS true?
I expect you to be a plagiarist, because you _are_ a plagiarist.
Do you really want your defense to take the form of "Gee, I
didn't realize it was _Freedman_ I was plagiarizing, I thought
I was ripping off someone else and posting it without
attribution, but I didn't know it was specifically _Freedman_
I was stealing from"?
>>> >Just look for the post titled "Joe's Hand Caught in
>>> >the Neo-Nazi Cookie Jar" to refresh your suddenly Bill-Gatesian
>>> >memory.
>>>
>>> I remember that thread, and I am telling you now what I told you then.
>>
>>And it's just as funny! And it's just as ridiculous!
>
>No, YOU are the one being ridiculous-as usual.
"neener NEENER," sez Joe, while snipping more of his own excuse
that, although he grabbed a piece of text from Somewhere Unknown
-- most likely, it transpires, from a National Alliance hategram
-- and posted it dozens of times without naming its author, he
didn't know he was _plagiarizing_ (*gasp!*) somebody.
>>> This is racist in and of itself.
>>
>>It would be, if it weren't for the second half of the sentence, the
>>one you have such trouble believing --
>
>Oh, I see--they are HALF racists! LOL!
I'll let that deep and penetrating comment speak for itself.
>> >or having undergone a Jewish
>>> >conversion.
>>>
>>> One must also be of the seed of Abraham, Isacc, and the rest of the tribe.
>>
>>Keep repeating it, Joe, somebody's bound to believe it sooner or later --
>>not somebody Jewish, of course, because that's not how our definition
>>of Jewish identity works.
>>
>>> >Different denominations of Judaism have different opinions
>>> >about what's involved in such a conversion, but all of them agree
>>> >that such a conversion is possible for _anyone_, regardless of ethnic
>>> >background, and that such a conversion renders the convert _>_completely_
>>> >Jewish.
>>>
>>> Tell it to those Falasha kids who were manhandled by fanatic orthies.
>>
>>If you had a quarter of that encyclopedic knowledge you claim you have
>>about all things Jewish, Joe, you'd remember that there is something
>>that the (very-)Orthodox wanted the Ethiopean Jews to do. Remember what
>>it was, Joe?
>
>I don't care WHAT it was--
I.e. you don't _know_ what it was --
>they had no right manhandling and degrading these
>children the way they did.
Spare us the crocodile tears, Joe. Even though the Orthodox Jews
you mention were considerably out of line in how they acted,
what was it that they wanted the Ethiopean Jews to do?
>>Incidentally, the term "falasha" is derogatory. That's why I don't use
>>it.
>
>Well, other Jewish co-religionists of yours use it quite liberally.
And they are wrong to do so. However, it's not very well known
that "falasha" is derogatory -- after all, "one of the foremost
experts on Judaism in North America," Joe Bellinger, didn't know
it, so surely the Jew-in-the-street, without Joe's volumnous
self-proclaimed knowledge of all things Jewish, can be forgiven...
>>No, but I am Catholic and we share many religious traditions.
>>
>>But not a common definition of Jewish identity, obviously, so your
>>Catholic/pseudo-Catholic upbringing means exactly zilch on this point.
>
>Your pseudo-conversion does not impress me either, thank you--
Joe, I'm trying hard to think of something I care less about than
your opinion over whether or not I'm Jewish, and I really can't.
>nor do I imagine it impresses Orthodox Jews either.
As I have already noted more than once, my personal experiences
say otherwise. None of your groundless smirkage deflects from
what I know, first-hand, from years of experience with Orthodox
Jews -- the strangest of which, arguably, was singing with
three of them in a barbershop quartet for a Hillel talent show.
And never did they turn to me and say, "You missed a note, goy."
Your Magic Rabbit has fed you erroneous information on this one,
Joe, and I'm living proof of it. So now might be a really good
time for you to stop a moment and think about what an idiot you
look like, defending to the death an indefensible position.
>>> So you revert to name calling to prove your point.
>>
>>Here is my point, Joe (besides that you're a dope):
>
>Perhaps you smoke dope?
Another comment I'll leave to speak for itself.
>>By the same argument, since the Christian Identity movement teaches
>>racism, and Christian Identity is a sect of Christianity, Christianity
>>itself must be racist. But, lo, Christianity _doesn't_ teach racism.
>
>So you admit that certain Jewish sects are racist. Thanks.
Take a look at the very next sentence, Joe, where I explain
exactly what I mean. Yes, they are Jewish groups which are
racist -- Kach, as I already mentioned, is one of them --
but they hold exactly the same relation to Judiasm as a whole
as _you_ do to Christianity as a whole: the hate-filled fringe
of the hate-filled fringe. No matter how much you try to claim
that Meir Kahane is Jew Q. Public, nobody's buying it -- for,
as it happens, exactly the same reason that nobody buys that
you are John Q. Historian, which is, more or less because you
are too full of shit.
>>If there are racists out there using Judaism as a pretext to _teach_
>>racism, as there no doubt are, it can't be blamed on Judaism, any
>>more than Christian Identity racists can be blamed on Christianity.
>
>But that LONNNNNG traditiona of racism in the Talmud....If only it
>weren';t for that ole Talmud, eh?
Because Joe Says So.
>>Have I made the argument simple enough for you, Joe?
>>
>
>Have you made it simple enough for yourself?
>I have no problems with anything you write, neither would my 3 year old s>son.
>
>>Not so. The hateful tradition of the orthodox is quite clear.
>>
>>Because Joe Says So.
>>
>><< snip >>
>>
>>@%<
>
>Shall I have to start quoting from the Talmud now? You never learn save
>the hard way.
Last time you "quoted from the Talmud," you spent the next month wiping
the egg off your face for having obviously lifted your out-of-context
quotes from a piece of overt hate literature. You weren't anywhere near
a copy of the Talmud when you cut-and-pasted your little bit of swastika-
soaked Freedman. Do you think that after such a fiasco you're at any danger
at all of being taken seriously on the same topic?
@%<
@%<
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
> >From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
> >Message-id: <74a42j$6bm$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
> >Note that Joe completely snipped (without notice, nat=FCrlich)
> >the Book of Ruth argument which had been here.
> >Gee, wonder why?
> Do you really want to KNOW why? It is because this one case of Ruth in the
> Bible does nothing to void or negate the opinions of numerous rabbis writing in
> the Talmud and commentaries, that is why it was ignored. It is a red herring.
No, Jew-hating Joe. It's what the Bible states. Now please tell us, and be
sure to cite them correctly, each and every passage of the Talmud which states
"ignore the Book of Ruth."
In short, anti-Semite, you're lying again.
> >I'll leave the question of my craftsmanship in English to those who
> >read these posts -- and, more specifically, the musical interludes.
> >And let me note in passing that I am in fact a professional technical
> >writer.
> Then you ought to stick with that and stay out of the NG.
Sure. You're embarassing Jew-hating Joe by showing up his lies and
bigotry.
Note that unable to answer the arguments, Jew-hating Joe just snips them.
Yale F. Edeiken
> >Date: 12/4/98 8:58 PM EST
> >Message-id: <3668484b...@news3.ibm.net>
> >> >>I have never spoken with Hitler.
> >> >
> >> >Presumably you'll have the proverbial chance in Hell.
> >>
> >> I think you shall meet him before I ever will.
> >
> >Then I presume you mean he was a monster who deservedly went to Hell.
> It is not for me to judge. I have to worry about my own soul.
You certainly do.
David Gehrig
(Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
>>From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
>>Date: 12/4/98 8:58 PM EST
>>Message-id: <3669489b...@news3.ibm.net>
>>
>>In <19981203013117...@ng-fa1.aol.com>, on 3 Dec 1998
>>06:31:17 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>
>>> >The Jewish criterion is exactly as I and many others have described
>>> >it -- either born of a Jewish mother
>>>
>>> This is racist in and of itself.
>>
>>No. The mother could have been a convert.
>>
>>--
>>Gord McFee
>
>Well, let' s hope her coffin does not get disinterred from the cemetary and
>thrown into the streets as the poor Lituanian woman.
The poor boy has only three notes on his "conversion" harmonica,
and this is one of them. Not that he's backed this one up with
a real citation either -- is that the scent of Magic Rabbit again?
@%<
Ed Kadach
>
> >Subject: Re: Where are the revisionist "scholars" who aren't neo-Nazis or
> >
> >In <19981202144050...@ng94.aol.com>, on 2 Dec 1998 19:40:50
> >GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >
> >> >And some Catholics are pro-choice, but that doesn't make pro-choice
> >> >a Catholic teaching.
> >>
> >> If they are pro-choice then they are excommunicated and no longer
> >Catholics.
> >> However, Catholics are not of the "Seed" of Jesus Christ.
> >
> >I understand. Catholicism is a religion, but Judaism is a race?
> >
> >--
> >Gord McFee
>
ROTFL!
Ed Kadach
Debunks
>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>(Debunks) wrote:
>>
>>>Subject: Re: Rabbi Bellinger Lectures the Jews on Judaism
>>>From: "David Gehrig" <zem...@ixnay.amspay.champaign.pdnt.com>
>>>Date: 12/3/98 11:26 PM EST
>>>Message-id: <747o52$bhf$1...@sol.pdnt.net>
>
>the Book of Ruth argument which had been here.
>
>Gee, wonder why?
Do you really want to KNOW why? It is because this one case of Ruth in the
Bible does nothing to void or negate the opinions of numerous rabbis writing in
the Talmud and commentaries, that is why it was ignored. It is a red herring.
>
>I'll leave the question of my craftsmanship in English to those who
>read these posts -- and, more specifically, the musical interludes.
>And let me note in passing that I am in fact a professional technical
>writer.
Then you ought to stick with that and stay out of the NG.
Debunks
>
>In <19981203013117...@ng-fa1.aol.com>, on 3 Dec 1998
>06:31:17 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Presumably you'll have the proverbial chance in Hell.
>>
>> I think you shall meet him before I ever will.
>
>Then I presume you mean he was a monster who deservedly went to Hell.
>
>Gord McFee
>I'll write no line before its time
>
>Visit the Holocaust History Project
>http://www.holocaust-history.org
>
>Visit the Nizkor site
>http://www.nizkor.org
>
>
>
>
>
It is not for me to judge. I have to worry about my own soul.