Toxic atmosphere at Oxford
Ariadne
Simon Rocker
February 5, 2009
Jewish students at Oxford University have accused it of appearing to
“appease” organisers of a sit-in at the university library last month
in protest at Israel’s actions in Gaza.
The incident is also said to have disturbed some Jewish academics. One
University Reader reportedly told a meeting that “within five years,
Oxford will be a Jew-free zone”.
In an official reaction to the protest, the Senior Proctor of the
university, Professor Donald Fraser, who oversees disciplinary
matters, recommended “a relatively lenient course of action” against
the demonstrators.
He also agreed to take up several of their concerns, including writing
to Balliol College, “drawing attention to the protestors’ concerns
about the title of the lecture series inaugurated by Shimon Peres”.
In November, the Israeli president — braving noisy hecklers —
delivered the first of a Balliol lecture series on world peace
sponsored by the publisher Lord Weidenfeld.
Rachel Romain and Rafi Cohen, joint presidents of Oxford JSoc, said
the Senior Proctor’s statement had been “received with great unease
within the Jewish student body”.
They said that while “he has agreed to look into four out of five of
the protestors’ demands, there is no mention of the contrary opinions
held by other students or those who think that the protest was a
disgrace.
“It seems that the university authorities are all too ready to placate
and appease those whose actions catch media attention rather than the
majority of students who favour dialogue.”
For his part, Lord Weidenfeld regretted that the Senior Proctor
appeared to be unaware that the peace lectures “were not specifically
concerned with Israel”.
The aim was to invite different people involved in bridge-building and
peace-making in different parts of the world, he explained. “The next
lecture will be about the Balkans.”
Releasing the text of his letter to Balliol, Professor Fraser said
that the protestors had been told that unless they left the building
on the evening of the protest, they could face criminal charges.
He wrote: “The occupiers and protestors asked me to express to you
their wish that ‘Balliol reconsider the title of the lectures
inaugurated by Shimon Peres’.
“Of course the Proctors have no role in the affairs of Balliol unless
called by the college to uphold some aspect of university discipline.
I therefore pass this letter to you... as a matter of trust between me
as Senior Proctor and the occupants and as a request by them.”
He also revealed that a student had written to him, warning that “for
Jewish students, the university and the city have developed a toxic
atmosphere in which I and many others feel increasingly alienated and
unwelcome”.
But Professor Fraser said the student seemed to have been “reassured”
by his response.
He had also written to the university’s vice-chancellor, hoping that
one eminent Jewish figure with strong links to Oxford “can be brought
round, for it really would be regrettable if senior alumni were to be
seen to attack the university externally on the basis of misleading
evidence.”
http://www.thejc.com/articles/toxic-atmosphere-oxford-university
--------
No wonder the CIA expects the next terrorist attack on USA to be
"British".
Ariadne
last_per...@yahoo.com
> 'Toxic atmosphere' at Oxford University
It's only toxic when ZioTurds make the scene, turd.
HHW
HHW
Please explain your view of this very English article. Do you believe
that a sit-in, which happened incidentally to be against the Gaza
Invasion, was the problem, or was it not the sit-in per se but the
fact that the demonstrators were critical of Israel? If it is the
latter, what is your theory as to why Israeli policy should not be
criticized on the campus at Oxford, a citadel of English liberties?
Elizabeth Buckwalter
"Ariadne" <ariad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f506448-79d6-4cbb...@x9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>'Toxic atmosphere' at Oxford University
>Simon Rocker
>February 5, 2009
>Jewish students at Oxford University have accused it of appearing to
>“appease” organisers of a sit-in at the university library last month
>in protest at Israel’s actions in Gaza.
>The incident is also said to have disturbed some Jewish academics. One
>University Reader reportedly told a meeting that “within five years,
>Oxford will be a Jew-free zone”.
Great Britain should be a Jew-free zone. The statute to expel you is still
on the books.
drahcir
> On Feb 8, 7:28 pm, Ariadne <ariadne....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 'Toxic atmosphere' at Oxford University
>
> It's only toxic when ZioTurds make the scene, turd.
My, my. You do spend an awful lot of time thinking about turds. Do you
think that may be because your mommy praises you excessively after
shitting?
Boed...@isp.com
wrote:
> "Ariadne" <ariadne....@gmail.com> wrote in message
Since being a jew is "only a religion", one might ask why there is
such a thing as
an Oxford Jsoc. Is there an Oxford Csoc? (Catholic) How about an
Oxford Bsoc ?
Baptist? Any Mormons around? Why does the jew need need their own
Oxford Jsoc?
FLYING FALAFEL
Well it Zio-turds like you who want to do away with freedom of speech
and expression at various universities. You should be flushed along
with all the other Zio-turds. Whoooooosh... whoooooooosh... all the
way to Tel Aviv.
FLYING FALAFEL
> 'Toxic atmosphere' at Oxford University
The toxicity comes from you and people like you.
FLYING FALAFEL
> 'Toxic atmosphere' at Oxford University
The toxicity comes from you and people like you.
> Simon Rocker
Jason P
"Ariadne" <ariad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f506448-79d6-4cbb...@x9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>'Toxic atmosphere' at Oxford University
>Simon Rocker
>
>February 5, 2009
>
>Jewish students at Oxford University have accused it of appearing to
>“appease” organisers of a sit-in at the university library last month
>in protest at Israel’s actions in Gaza.
>
>The incident is also said to have disturbed some Jewish academics. One
>University Reader reportedly told a meeting that “within five years,
>Oxford will be a Jew-free zone”.
If we only could make the rest of the planet "a Jew-free zone." I imagine is
will cut down on greenhouse gas emissions too.
--
Jason P
Eli Grubman
I would give them 'Israel' - but only provided they *all* went there
and stayed there.
Eli
john...@gmail.com
>
> The incident is also said to have disturbed some Jewish academics. One
> University Reader reportedly told a meeting that “within five years,
> Oxford will be a Jew-free zone”.
>
The famous home of lost causes.
onlyme
<john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:95e2d656-b0d6-4d66...@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
There should not be any Jews at Oxford...or at any other education
establishment in this country.
Just as there should not be any Muslims, Christians or any other religious
persuasion either!
Our education establishments should be entirely free of the brainwashing
influence of any religious or political ideologies...they are meant to be
seats of learning!
Eli Grubman
wrote:
Being a jew has to do with race, not religion. There are jew
Christian, jew Muslims and jew atheists.
There was even a jew Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, for fuck's
sake.
Eli
Onlyme
"Eli Grubman" <eli.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fq20p4l8b9rsh9mk3...@4ax.com...
> >There should not be any Jews at Oxford...or at any other education
> >establishment in this country.
> >Just as there should not be any Muslims, Christians or any other
religious
> >persuasion either!
> >
> >Our education establishments should be entirely free of the brainwashing
> >influence of any religious or political ideologies...they are meant to be
> >seats of learning!
>
> Being a jew has to do with race, not religion. There are jew
> Christian, jew Muslims and jew atheists.
>
> There was even a jew Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, for fuck's
> sake.
>
> Eli
The same applies whether you're talking about religion, race or political
persuasion.
Leave them at the fucking door...you're there to learn!
It's curious though that the Jews are (apparently) up in arms about
Oxford....given that Oxford is our premier education establishment,
producing many of our future movers and shakers.
Why, it's almost as if they seek a high Jewish representation in that
particular establishment, in order to influence future events towards a
Pro-Jewish agenda!
john...@gmail.com
> <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
Oxford has its own very strong personality and does not take kindly to
being told what it should or should not be. It is the heart of the
establishment.
Eli Grubman
wrote:
>
>"Eli Grubman" <eli.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fq20p4l8b9rsh9mk3...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>> >There should not be any Jews at Oxford...or at any other education
>> >establishment in this country.
>> >Just as there should not be any Muslims, Christians or any other
>religious
>> >persuasion either!
>> >
>> >Our education establishments should be entirely free of the brainwashing
>> >influence of any religious or political ideologies...they are meant to be
>> >seats of learning!
>>
>
>
>
>
>> Being a jew has to do with race, not religion. There are jew
>> Christian, jew Muslims and jew atheists.
>>
>> There was even a jew Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, for fuck's
>> sake.
>>
>> Eli
>
>
>
>
>The same applies whether you're talking about religion, race or political
>persuasion.
>Leave them at the fucking door...you're there to learn!
Exactly!
>It's curious though that the Jews are (apparently) up in arms about
>Oxford....given that Oxford is our premier education establishment,
>producing many of our future movers and shakers.
The jew wants his foot in the door.
>Why, it's almost as if they seek a high Jewish representation in that
>particular establishment, in order to influence future events towards a
>Pro-Jewish agenda!
Of course. It has always been so.
Eli
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
Would you? Really? Should they stay there locked up around the clock like
you are in your stinking room, poor psychopathic swine Grabmen? What a
vengeful loser you are! LMAO!
Doctor Panta
--
The Top 5 Truths About Poor Psychopathic Swine Grabmen:
the poor swine can't SLEEP anymore,
it can't FUCK anymore,
it can't get out of the house anymore,
it got NOBODY to talk to anymore,
it got no life outside Usenet AT ALL, anymore!
drahcir
Seems like you haven't yet figured out the "very complicated" process
of replying. Here, I try to be kind to the handicapped, allow me to
assist. When you want to reply to someone, place your reply directly
beneath the point of the person which your reply addresses. Right now,
you appear to be replying to the original poster, yet your reply is
addressed to me. I bet even an imbecile like you could master it in a
matter of months.
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
<BG> How long did your psychotic fit last when you learned about that
Cardinal, poor psychopathic swine Grabmen? LOL
A poor swine like you REALLY should no more get out of the house at all!
Hahahahahaaaaa...!!!
The Top 5 Truths About Poor Psychopathic Swine Grabmen:
the poor swine can't SLEEP anymore,
it can't FUCK anymore,
it can't get out of the house anymore,
it got NOBODY to talk to anymore,
it got no life outside Usenet AT ALL, anymore!
And the real hilarious part of it: the poor psychopathic swine keeps
desperately trying to ignore that it's misery is so OBVIOUS to ANYONE!
Doctor Panta
--
Everyone check this: psychopath Grabmen glued to his computer today as from
04:29 a.m. again (MID: <98cvo4hm56u5citsl...@4ax.com>).
Watch the poor psycho with no life AT ALL making a complete ass of himself,
AGAIN, for the next EIGHTEEN to TWENTY HOURS (and more) at a stretch!
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
sexual cripple, wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:02:33 -0000, "Onlyme" <onlyme_...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eli Grubman" <eli.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:fq20p4l8b9rsh9mk3...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> >There should not be any Jews at Oxford...or at any other education
>>> >establishment in this country.
>>> >Just as there should not be any Muslims, Christians or any other
>>religious
>>> >persuasion either!
>>> >
>>> >Our education establishments should be entirely free of the brainwashing
>>> >influence of any religious or political ideologies...they are meant to be
>>> >seats of learning!
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Being a jew has to do with race, not religion. There are jew
>>> Christian, jew Muslims and jew atheists.
>>>
>>> There was even a jew Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, for fuck's
>>> sake.
>>>
>>> Eli
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>The same applies whether you're talking about religion, race or political
>>persuasion.
>>Leave them at the fucking door...you're there to learn!
>
> Exactly!
Unluckily, for you, Jews have always turned out to be good learners, poor
psychopathic swine. ;-)
>>It's curious though that the Jews are (apparently) up in arms about
>>Oxford....given that Oxford is our premier education establishment,
>>producing many of our future movers and shakers.
>
> The jew wants his foot in the door.
...says the poor psychopathic swine who can't get its foot out of the door
anymore! LMAO!
>>Why, it's almost as if they seek a high Jewish representation in that
>>particular establishment, in order to influence future events towards a
>>Pro-Jewish agenda!
>
> Of course. It has always been so.
>
> Eli
Well, poor psychopathic swine Grabmen: you should email Oxford University
then! Give them a piece of your psychopathic "mind"! LOL
Doctor Panta
--
Onlyme
"Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL"
<grabmen....@andfound.invalid> wrote in message
news:gmp9hg$74l$1...@nntp.motzarella.org...
They seem to be having problems learning how to stop fucking whinging!
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
Well, with creeps around talking about "Jew-free" zones, they better be
wary.
fla...@verizon.net
On 9-Feb-2009, "Onlyme" <onlyme_...@home.com> wrote:
> > >>The same applies whether you're talking about religion, race or
> political
> > >>persuasion.
> > >>Leave them at the fucking door...you're there to learn!
> > >
> > > Exactly!
> >
> > Unluckily, for you, Jews have always turned out to be good learners,
> > poor
> > psychopathic swine. ;-)
> >
> >
>
>
> They seem to be having problems learning how to stop fucking whinging!
Why is it that you lying cowards always turn out to be,
by your own admission/definition, closet Jews?
Susan
Onlyme
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eCXjl.1892$N02....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> Why is it that you lying cowards always turn out to be,
> by your own admission/definition, closet Jews?
>
> Susan
Oy!
No-one calls me a jew!
Eli Grubman
You can only *wish* to be a closet jew, you th*ck Ir*sh cunt!
Eli
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
Apropos of "closet": don't you sometimes wish you were able to get out of
the house again, you hilarious, impotent, housebound, degenerate sexual
cripple? LOL
Filthy, housebound castrate Grabmen:
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1616/dicklessgrabmenso7.jpg
Doctor Panta
--
Rev. Richard Skull about Eli Grabmen: "Any sex act involving YOU is
bestiality."
Eli Grubman
wrote:
Suzy KKKohen would *love* to be called a jew.
Fact is, she's just a wannabe, i.e a 'convert',
Eli
Onlyme
I'm not too sure who Cohen is to be honest...although I seem to recall her
posting on UKPM on occasions.
Usually whenever ariadne needs support if I recall correctly?
Eli Grubman
wrote:
Yes, that would be about right. She makes a habit of sucking up to
real jews.
Eli
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
She is also the one that keeps kicking your bleeding, psychopathic ass in
these groups regularly and seems to be one of the main causes of your
ongoing mental and emotional deterioration, poor housebound, psychopathic
swine Grabmen! LOL
Ariadne
An ignorant, bigoted and sheep-like pro-Islam "establishment"?
A sick joke.
As for the plebs:
Anti-Semitism in Europe is not simply a rhetorical pastime of
Islamists or pro-Palestinian protesters. In Britain, Jewish
schoolchildren have been castigated for belonging to a people with
‘blood on their hands’. Their elders sometimes face intimidation and
regularly report being subjected to verbal abuse. What is most
disturbing about these developments is the reluctance of European
society to acknowledge and confront acts of anti-Semitism. Take the
riots that broke out in Paris on 3 January. If you relied upon
mainstream media reports, you would never have known that groups of
youngsters were shouting ‘death to the Jews’ while throwing stones at
the police. In this instance, expressions of anti-Semitism were not
even properly reported, much less confronted and challenged in public
debate.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6117/
I Wonder, Does An Antisemitic Tirade Sound Better or Worse in A
British Accent?
http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2009/02/i-wonder-does-antisemitic-tirade-sound.html
john...@gmail.com
>
> > Oxford has its own very strong personality and does not take kindly to
> > being told what it should or should not be. It is the heart of the
> > establishment.
>
> An ignorant, bigoted and sheep-like pro-Islam "establishment"?
> A sick joke.
No, just strong minded enough to resist the efforts of your lot to
dominate as much of society as they can manage.
Very silly to call Oxford scholars ignorant.
I don't agree with the boycott BTW.
Ariadne
> On 9 Feb, 17:27, Ariadne <ariadne....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Oxford has its own very strong personality and does not take kindly to
> > > being told what it should or should not be. It is the heart of the
> > > establishment.
>
> > An ignorant, bigoted and sheep-like pro-Islam "establishment"?
> > A sick joke.
>
> No, just strong minded enough to resist the efforts of your lot to
> dominate as much of society as they can manage.
>
How antisemitic of you to say that!
> Very silly to call Oxford scholars ignorant.
>
More than silly not to when they amply
demonstrate it.
> I don't agree with the boycott BTW.
Good. No one should.
But:
In the 1930s, the universities were the first German institutions to
capitulate to Adolf Hitler. Martin Heidegger, Germany’s greatest 20th
century philosopher and the intellectual idol of American academics,
hailed the advent of the Third Reich from the rectorship of Freiburg
University. Fascism was an idea so messianic in its conception, so
elitist in its attitudes, and so anti-capitalist in its social
philosophy that intellectuals found it irresistible.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?is_campus_support=1
[At least Heidegger saw through it eventually.
For that he was made to dig ditches. Note
that the motives _mentioned_ above are not
Jew-hatred, nor do they embody the murderous
essence of Islam.]
john...@gmail.com
> On 9 Feb, 18:31, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 9 Feb, 17:27, Ariadne <ariadne....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Oxford has its own very strong personality and does not take kindly to
> > > > being told what it should or should not be. It is the heart of the
> > > > establishment.
>
> > > An ignorant, bigoted and sheep-like pro-Islam "establishment"?
> > > A sick joke.
>
> > No, just strong minded enough to resist the efforts of your lot to
> > dominate as much of society as they can manage.
>
> How antisemitic of you to say that!
Antisemitic truths.
>
> > Very silly to call Oxford scholars ignorant.
>
> More than silly not to when they amply
> demonstrate it.
>
> > I don't agree with the boycott BTW.
>
> Good. No one should.
>
> But:
>
> In the 1930s, the universities were the first German institutions to
> capitulate to Adolf Hitler. Martin Heidegger, Germany’s greatest 20th
> century philosopher and the intellectual idol of American academics,
> hailed the advent of the Third Reich from the rectorship of Freiburg
> University. Fascism was an idea so messianic in its conception, so
> elitist in its attitudes, and so anti-capitalist in its social
> philosophy that intellectuals found it irresistible.
>
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?is_campus_support=1
>
> [At least Heidegger saw through it eventually.
> For that he was made to dig ditches. Note
> that the motives _mentioned_ above are not
> Jew-hatred, nor do they embody the murderous
> essence of Islam.]
There is nothing revolutionary about the home of lost causes.
drahcir
> On 9 Feb, 19:09, Ariadne <ariadne....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9 Feb, 18:31, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 9 Feb, 17:27, Ariadne <ariadne....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Oxford has its own very strong personality and does not take kindly to
> > > > > being told what it should or should not be. It is the heart of the
> > > > > establishment.
>
> > > > An ignorant, bigoted and sheep-like pro-Islam "establishment"?
> > > > A sick joke.
>
> > > No, just strong minded enough to resist the efforts of your lot to
> > > dominate as much of society as they can manage.
>
> > How antisemitic of you to say that!
>
> Antisemitic truths.
Antisemitism is a bias. Bias prevents unprejudiced consideration of a
question. But unprejudiced consideration is the only way to arrive at
truth. Thus, there's no such thing as an antisemitic truth.
john...@gmail.com
> > > > No, just strong minded enough to resist the efforts of your lot to
> > > > dominate as much of society as they can manage.
>
> > > How antisemitic of you to say that!
>
> > Antisemitic truths.
>
> Antisemitism is a bias. Bias prevents unprejudiced consideration of a
> question. But unprejudiced consideration is the only way to arrive at
> truth. Thus, there's no such thing as an antisemitic truth.
>
Our disagreement is verbal then. I took antisemitism to be any opinion
that puts the Jews in a bad light. Unprejudiced consideration, might,
logically speaking, well arrive at such an opinion. Only an opposite,
and by your standard equally reprehensible prejudice, could decide in
advance that it could not.
Ariadne
Antisemitism is Jew-hatred.
john...@gmail.com
And as a pro-Jewish troll you try to stir it up. Opinions critical of
Jews stand on their own feet whatever the emotion which inspired them.
I take it you hate Nazis, or at least you give the impression of
doing so. That fact would not invalidate your opinions about them
would it?
Onlyme
>
> Antisemitism is Jew-hatred.
No it's not......it's balance!
Ariadne
> On 9 Feb, 22:27, Ariadne <ariadne....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Feb, 22:14, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 9 Feb, 21:51, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > No, just strong minded enough to resist the efforts of your lot to
> > > > > > > dominate as much of society as they can manage.
>
> > > > > > How antisemitic of you to say that!
>
> > > > > Antisemitic truths.
>
> > > > Antisemitism is a bias. Bias prevents unprejudiced consideration of a
> > > > question. But unprejudiced consideration is the only way to arrive at
> > > > truth. Thus, there's no such thing as an antisemitic truth.
>
> > > Our disagreement is verbal then. I took antisemitism to be any opinion
> > > that puts the Jews in a bad light. Unprejudiced consideration, might,
> > > logically speaking, well arrive at such an opinion. Only an opposite,
> > > and by your standard equally reprehensible prejudice, could decide in
> > > advance that it could not.
>
> > Antisemitism is Jew-hatred.
>
> And as a pro-Jewish troll you try to stir it up. Opinions critical of
> Jews stand on their own feet whatever the emotion which inspired them.
Nonsense.
> I take it you hate Nazis, or at least you give the impression of
> doing so. That fact would not invalidate your opinions about them
> would it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
john...@gmail.com
>
> Nonsense.
So you assert. Now answer the bit you ignored which I repeat:-.
>
I take it you hate Nazis, or at least you give the impression of
doing so. That fact would not invalidate your opinions about them
would it?-
>
General Sherman
<john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:298dbb73-2424-446f...@v39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 9 Feb, 22:27, Ariadne <ariadne....@gmail.com> wrote:
> And as a pro-Jewish troll you try to stir it up.
And what exactly does that mean? Are you saying that if someone is
pro-Jewish, then that makes them automatically a troll? You prefer that the
world is anti-Jewish? You sound like a real heavy thinker.
>Opinions critical of
> Jews stand on their own feet whatever the emotion which inspired them.
Of course when you start from the posistion that Jews are bad, then any
criticism will do nicely, never mind whether it is based on facts or not.
DoD
Onlyme
"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:02d32537-9d23-4488...@p23g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
Oh....so does she hate Italians too?
DoD
> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
What does Italians have to do with hating nazis?
Onlyme
They (jews) don't seem to be a race/sect that can easily let bygons be
bygons!
drahcir
> On 9 Feb, 21:51, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > No, just strong minded enough to resist the efforts of your lot to
> > > > > dominate as much of society as they can manage.
>
> > > > How antisemitic of you to say that!
>
> > > Antisemitic truths.
>
> > Antisemitism is a bias. Bias prevents unprejudiced consideration of a
> > question. But unprejudiced consideration is the only way to arrive at
> > truth. Thus, there's no such thing as an antisemitic truth.
>
> Our disagreement is verbal then.
Um, since verbal means:
1. of or pertaining to words:
and since words are the only means of communication on usenet, your
observation isn't exactly profound.
I'm starting to wonder about you, John.
I took antisemitism to be any opinion
> that puts the Jews in a bad light.
This is getting scary. An opinion that puts "the Jews" in a bad light
is by definition biased, since one is forming an opinion about all
members of a group without objective data about each member of that
group. That's what PREJUDGING is, John.
Unprejudiced consideration, might,
> logically speaking, well arrive at such an opinion.
No, for the reason stated above. In case you missed it:
An opinion that puts "the Jews" in a bad light is by definition
biased, since one is forming an opinion about all members of a group
without objective data about each member of that group. That's what
PREJUDGING is, John.
The "pre" of prejudice means an opinion is formed PRE, i.e. *before*
experience can empirically lead to a logical deduction.
Only an opposite,
> and by your standard equally reprehensible prejudice, could decide in
> advance that it could not.
I did not prejudge you, John, but now, after reading your "ideas", I
can empirically conclude that you are an idiot.
drahcir
> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:14fff998-3468-4cc2...@o2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 9, 5:51 pm, "Onlyme" <onlyme_sitt...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:02d32537-9d23-4488...@p23g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 9, 5:19 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 9 Feb, 23:11, Ariadne <ariadne....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Nonsense.
>
> > > So you assert. Now answer the bit you ignored which I repeat:-.
>
> > > I take it you hate Nazis, or at least you give the impression of
> > > doing so. That fact would not invalidate your opinions about them
> > > would it?
> > >But that hatred is based on fact, not myths and predjudices.
>
> > Oh....so does she hate Italians too?
> >What does Italians have to do with hating nazis?
>
> They (jews) don't seem to be a race/sect that can easily let bygons be
> bygons!
Hehe - I don't know about "bygons", but you're living proof that jews
can easily let morons be morons.
Eli Grubman
No, it's not, jew cunt. It's a perfectly rational reaction to
semitism.
Eli
Boed...@isp.com
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:43:59 -0000, "onlyme" <onlyme_sitt...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ><john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:95e2d656-b0d6-4d66...@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> >On 9 Feb, 00:28, Ariadne <ariadne....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The incident is also said to have disturbed some Jewish academics. One
> >> University Reader reportedly told a meeting that “within five years,
> >> Oxford will be a Jew-free zone”.
>
> >>The famous home of lost causes.
>
> >There should not be any Jews at Oxford...or at any other education
> >establishment in this country.
> >Just as there should not be any Muslims, Christians or any other religious
> >persuasion either!
>
> >Our education establishments should be entirely free of the brainwashing
> >influence of any religious or political ideologies...they are meant to be
> >seats of learning!
>
> Christian, jew Muslims and jew atheists.
>
> There was even a jew Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, for fuck's
> sake.
And one who was the Anglican Bishop of Birmingham.
Were they still jews or did they turn into Gentiles the second they
took their Protestant vows?
>
> Eli- Hide quoted text -
Eli Grubman
Sadly (for them) there is no escape. Once a jew always a jew.
Eli
Jason P
"Onlyme" <onlyme_...@home.com> wrote in message
news:l8ydnTa4zMmpLg3U...@bt.com...
Anti-semitism is borne on many centuries of Jewish misdeeds, Jewish
prevarications of the truth, and a general Jewish "hooray for us and the
hell with you" attitudes. They reap what they've sewn.
If some want to call it anti-semitism, so be it. They have it coming!
--
Jason P
Jason P
Indeed, once the spawn of Satan, always the spawn of Satan!
--
Jason P
john...@gmail.com
> <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:298dbb73-2424-446f...@v39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 9 Feb, 22:27, Ariadne <ariadne....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And as a pro-Jewish troll you try to stir it up.
>
> And what exactly does that mean? Are you saying that if someone is
> pro-Jewish, then that makes them automatically a troll?
Not at all. I am familiar with Ariadne. She refuses to argue. If she
wold submit to a proper cross examination I should rip her to pieces.
> You prefer that the
> world is anti-Jewish?
I don't see what that has got to do with it.
> You sound like a real heavy thinker.
Irrelevant abuse.
>
> >Opinions critical of
> > Jews stand on their own feet whatever the emotion which inspired them.
>
> Of course when you start from the posistion that Jews are bad, then any
> criticism will do nicely, never mind whether it is based on facts or not.
I think it is far more of a case of people like you starting from the
position that Jews are good, or at least harmless. The facts are what
it is important to establish.
>
john...@gmail.com
john...@gmail.com
> On Feb 9, 5:14 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 9 Feb, 21:51, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > No, just strong minded enough to resist the efforts of your lot to
> > > > > > dominate as much of society as they can manage.
>
> > > > > How antisemitic of you to say that!
>
> > > > Antisemitic truths.
>
> > > Antisemitism is a bias. Bias prevents unprejudiced consideration of a
> > > question. But unprejudiced consideration is the only way to arrive at
> > > truth. Thus, there's no such thing as an antisemitic truth.
>
> > Our disagreement is verbal then.
>
> Um, since verbal means:
>
> 1. of or pertaining to words:
>
> and since words are the only means of communication on usenet, your
> observation isn't exactly profound.
> I'm starting to wonder about you, John.
A verbal disagreement is one about the meaning of words. Our
disagreement is apparently about the meaning of the word
'antisemitism'. Uh to you.
>
> I took antisemitism to be any opinion
>
> > that puts the Jews in a bad light.
>
> This is getting scary. An opinion that puts "the Jews" in a bad light
> is by definition biased, since one is forming an opinion about all
> members of a group without objective data about each member of that
> group. That's what PREJUDGING is, John.
A ridiculous argument. You are suggesting that we should live our
lives without making use of any sort of generalisation. I am not
talking about each and every Jew, obviously. Would you make not
generalisations about the Jews as a people, even good ones?
>
> Unprejudiced consideration, might,
>
> > logically speaking, well arrive at such an opinion.
>
> No, for the reason stated above. In case you missed it:
>
> An opinion that puts "the Jews" in a bad light is by definition
> biased, since one is forming an opinion about all members of a group
> without objective data about each member of that group. That's what
> PREJUDGING is, John.
Does that argument satisfy you, idiot?
Your 'reasons' are nothing but dishonest tricks, Jesuitical ploys. You
cannot believe them yourself.
>
> The "pre" of prejudice means an opinion is formed PRE, i.e. *before*
> experience can empirically lead to a logical deduction.
>
> Only an opposite,
>
> > and by your standard equally reprehensible prejudice, could decide in
> > advance that it could not.
>
> I did not prejudge you, John,
You appear to prejudge Jews.
> but now, after reading your "ideas", I
> can empirically conclude that you are an idiot.
No you haven't, because there is nothing wrong with what I have been
saying. You are obviously so blinded by your pro-Jewish prejudice that
you think any fatuous argument in support of it must be a good one.
Elizabeth Buckwalter
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db265e6c-bd6f-4eda...@p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 9, 5:14 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
> On 9 Feb, 21:51, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I took antisemitism to be any opinion
>> that puts the Jews in a bad light.
>This is getting scary. An opinion that puts "the Jews" in a bad light
>is by definition biased, since one is forming an opinion about all
>members of a group without objective data about each member of that
>group. That's what PREJUDGING is, John.
History proves you to be wrong. Jews always act in the same way. They have
been pissing off those countries they inhabit for thousands of years.
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
It's ALWAYS a symptom of degenerate, subnormal folks who usually are
mentally, emotionally and sexually crippled like you, poor psychopathic
swine Grabmen.
Be honest to yourself just for once! You KNOW it that you are all that! ;-)
Doctor Panta
--
The Top 5 Truths About Poor Psychopathic Swine Grabmen:
the poor swine can't SLEEP anymore,
it can't FUCK anymore,
it can't get out of the house anymore,
it got NOBODY to talk to anymore,
it got no life outside Usenet AT ALL, anymore!
And the real hilarious part of it: the poor psychopathic swine keeps
desperately trying to ignore that it's misery is so OBVIOUS to ANYONE!
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
You KNOW that they usually say that about psychopathic swines like you, poor
psychopathic swine Grabmen. Your condition is mostly considered to be
genetic! Keep projecting, poor psychopathic swine Grabmen!
Doctor Panta
--
Description of psychopathic swine Grabmen on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha3XSeulqWY&feature=PlayList&p=A44E01FAC94FB43D&index=0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WftbmbVYiCk&feature=PlayList&p=A44E01FAC94FB43D&index=1
drahcir
> On 10 Feb, 00:47, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 5:14 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 9 Feb, 21:51, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > No, just strong minded enough to resist the efforts of your lot to
> > > > > > > dominate as much of society as they can manage.
>
> > > > > > How antisemitic of you to say that!
>
> > > > > Antisemitic truths.
>
> > > > Antisemitism is a bias. Bias prevents unprejudiced consideration of a
> > > > question. But unprejudiced consideration is the only way to arrive at
> > > > truth. Thus, there's no such thing as an antisemitic truth.
>
> > > Our disagreement is verbal then.
>
> > Um, since verbal means:
>
> > 1. of or pertaining to words:
>
> > and since words are the only means of communication on usenet, your
> > observation isn't exactly profound.
> > I'm starting to wonder about you, John.
>
> A verbal disagreement is one about the meaning of words.
I'm sorry, that's not what a verbal disagreement is, John. The term
you are looking for is *semantic* disagreement:
semantic 1. of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings
of words or other symbols: semantic change; semantic confusion.
Our
> disagreement is apparently about the meaning of the word
> 'antisemitism'. Uh to you.
You disagree because you are a very dangerous (to himself) sort of
idiot - the sort who labors under the delusion that he's not one.
>
>
>
> > I took antisemitism to be any opinion
>
> > > that puts the Jews in a bad light.
>
> > This is getting scary. An opinion that puts "the Jews" in a bad light
> > is by definition biased, since one is forming an opinion about all
> > members of a group without objective data about each member of that
> > group. That's what PREJUDGING is, John.
>
> A ridiculous argument. You are suggesting that we should live our
> lives without making use of any sort of generalisation.
I couldn't give a rat's ass how you live your supposed life, John. I
am simply trying to inform you of the definition of "bias" and
"prejudice". You somehow want to see black and call it white, which
is the practice of many of your ilk. That's why you are where you are
- only those who see reality as accurately as possible manage to
accomplish something in life.
I am not
> talking about each and every Jew, obviously.
You don't know what you are talking about, obviously. Yes, you are
talking about each and every Jew. Guilty until proven innocent.
Would you make not
> generalisations about the Jews as a people, even good ones?
>
The question itself reveals nothing so much as the idiocy of the
asker.
>
> > Unprejudiced consideration, might,
>
> > > logically speaking, well arrive at such an opinion.
>
> > No, for the reason stated above. In case you missed it:
>
> > An opinion that puts "the Jews" in a bad light is by definition
> > biased, since one is forming an opinion about all members of a group
> > without objective data about each member of that group. That's what
> > PREJUDGING is, John.
>
> Does that argument satisfy you, idiot?
When you use the term "idiot" in addressing me, it's nothing more than
schoolyard. However, when I use it in addressing you, it's based on an
unavoidable conclusion based on what you say. You are such an idiot,
you couldn't even come up with a different term for me.
>
> Your 'reasons' are nothing but dishonest tricks, Jesuitical ploys. You
> cannot believe them yourself.
My "reasons" are the definitions of words as they appear in the
dictionary. You want to see them as "tricks" because you are cornered
and are too stupid to come up with any other refutation.
>
>
> > The "pre" of prejudice means an opinion is formed PRE, i.e. *before*
> > experience can empirically lead to a logical deduction.
>
> > Only an opposite,
>
> > > and by your standard equally reprehensible prejudice, could decide in
> > > advance that it could not.
>
> > I did not prejudge you, John,
>
> You appear to prejudge Jews.
LOL! According to this idiot, I am prejudging Jews because I refuse to
prejudge them! BWAHAHAHA!
Ok, John, here's your opportunity. Show, step by step, how I prejudge
Jews, using my words against me, as I used your words against you.
>
> > but now, after reading your "ideas", I
> > can empirically conclude that you are an idiot.
>
> No you haven't,
Um, yes, I have, and so has any objective person reading this. More
schoolyard from you - are you, like, 11 years old?
because there is nothing wrong with what I have been
> saying.
It's all there in black and white. You can't see it because you're an
idiot, so you can be forgiven.
You are obviously so blinded by your pro-Jewish prejudice that
> you think any fatuous argument in support of it must be a good one.
LOL!
john...@gmail.com
>
> > A verbal disagreement is one about the meaning of words.
>
> I'm sorry, that's not what a verbal disagreement is, John. The term
> you are looking for is *semantic* disagreement:
>
> semantic 1. of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings
> of words or other symbols: semantic change; semantic confusion.
>
> Our
>
> > disagreement is apparently about the meaning of the word
> > 'antisemitism'. Uh to you.
check this, arsehole:-
"An example of a verbal disagreement is if one party claims to reject
socialism and the other party claims to support socialism while they
each define socialism differently"
drahcir
> On 10 Feb, 12:36, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > A verbal disagreement is one about the meaning of words.
>
> > I'm sorry, that's not what a verbal disagreement is, John. The term
> > you are looking for is *semantic* disagreement:
>
> > semantic 1. of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings
> > of words or other symbols: semantic change; semantic confusion.
>
> > Our
>
> > > disagreement is apparently about the meaning of the word
> > > 'antisemitism'. Uh to you.
>
> check this, arsehole:-
>
>
> "An example of a verbal disagreement is if one party claims to reject
> socialism and the other party claims to support socialism while they
> each define socialism differently"
Oh, look, John searched high and low and managed to dredge up another
misuse of "verbal". What a good boy John is! Here's the deal: I have
shown you to be an idiot. You have snipped that demonstration as well
as my request for you to demonstrate, using my words, how I prejudge
jews, from above:
Ok, John, here's your opportunity. Show, step by step, how I prejudge
Jews, using my words against me, as I used your words against you.
You can't do it because (you guessed it folks) you are an idiot, thus
your accusation was, of course, idiotic. In so being, you are
perfectly consistent with every antisemite who posts on this board.
It's truly amazing. You're all just a bunch of what my freshman
roommate used to call "wastes of society" - not grammatically correct,
but apt nonetheless. You can't get anywhere in life (I'll never forget
your incredibly stupid "article" that you were so very proud of)
because you are inept, and are too weak to take responsibility for
that fact, so you search for something outside yourselves to blame,
and often settle on jews.
Onlyme
[snipped - verbal effluent]
It always amuses me to note that whenever anyone dares to critisise any
aspect of jewery, the usual suspects, jumping to their (jews) defence,
always choose to deride, scorn and generally abuse the poster.
It does show the weakness of the defenders position.
If I were a jew, drahcir.....I'd be telling you to shut the fuck up before
you give the game away.
Pity the jews ...with 'friends' like you, who needs enemies?
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4edeba5f-263a-4101...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snipped - verbal effluent]
>
> It always amuses me to note that whenever anyone dares to critisise any
> aspect of jewery,
ok, here we go. Hey, einstein, I am willing to let "bygons" [sic] be
bygons and forget about "jewery", if you answer one question. What
aspect(s), specifically, do you think John was criticizing?
Onlyme
>ok, here we go.
Good...it's about time you went!
last_per...@yahoo.com
>
> news:4edeba5f-263a-4101...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snipped - verbal effluent]
>
> It always amuses me to note that whenever anyone dares to critisise any
> aspect of jewery, the usual suspects, jumping to their (jews) defence,
> always choose to deride, scorn and generally abuse the poster.
Smear the messenger, ignore the message, it's the ZioNazi way.
An old tradition.
> It does show the weakness of the defenders position.
They usually have no position with any defense.
john...@gmail.com
Do you mean this brilliant piece, bar mitzvah boy? Is your momma
really proud of what you are doing for your G-d?
http://www.mith.demon.co.uk/Christianity.htm
>
> because you are inept, and are too weak to take responsibility for
> that fact, so you search for something outside yourselves to blame,
> and often settle on jews.
By your pedantic objection, to say 'Nazis are bad' would be
inadmissible because I have not checked out all individual Nazis and
there may be some nice ones. Actually by 'Jews are bad' I meant
nothing more than to characterise negative criticism of Jews as part
of a definition of antisemitism. It does appear to me that you are
saying that any negative criticism of Jewry must be impossible to
express because you interpret it in a straw man way. Suppose I were to
say that the existence of Jews insofar as they are Jews might
conceivably be a bad thing for the rest of humanity. Would that make
any sense to you?
What I actually said was "No, just strong minded enough to resist the
efforts of your lot to dominate as much of society as they can
manage. " That was called antisemitic. Is it possible that your lot do
make such efforts? Is it not logical to suggest that might be a bad
thing?
Ariadne
a building to demonise Israel:
http://www.thejc.com/video/baroness-banned-from-the-building
Posted in the Jewish Chronicle without comment
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c5600c17-13f0-48b4...@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> >ok, here we go.
>
> Good...it's about time you went!
Hey, Only, got a little snip action going, huh? Snip away all the
evidence that you're a moron, huh? Snip away the question you didn't
have the brain to answer, huh? Yeah, that's about par for the course.
drahcir
> On 10 Feb, 16:29, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 10:33 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 10 Feb, 12:36, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > A verbal disagreement is one about the meaning of words.
>
> > > > I'm sorry, that's not what a verbal disagreement is, John. The term
> > > > you are looking for is *semantic* disagreement:
>
> > > > semantic 1. of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings
> > > > of words or other symbols: semantic change; semantic confusion.
>
> > > > Our
>
> > > > > disagreement is apparently about the meaning of the word
> > > > > 'antisemitism'. Uh to you.
>
> > > check this, arsehole:-
>
> > >http://books.google.com/books?id=VDJxuZ0AqQ8C&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=%...
>
> > > "An example of a verbal disagreement is if one party claims to reject
> > > socialism and the other party claims to support socialism while they
> > > each define socialism differently"
>
> > Oh, look, John searched high and low and managed to dredge up another
> > misuse of "verbal". What a good boy John is! Here's the deal: I have
> > shown you to be an idiot. You have snipped that demonstration as well
> > as my request for you to demonstrate, using my words, how I prejudge
> > jews, from above:
>
> > Ok, John, here's your opportunity. Show, step by step, how I prejudge
> > Jews, using my words against me, as I used your words against you.
Oh Johnny, where oh where are you, Johnny? You "forgot" yet again to
answer the above, Johnny. Why oh why have you forsaken me, my Johnny?
>
> > You can't do it because (you guessed it folks) you are an idiot, thus
> > your accusation was, of course, idiotic. In so being, you are
> > perfectly consistent with every antisemite who posts on this board.
> > It's truly amazing. You're all just a bunch of what my freshman
> > roommate used to call "wastes of society" - not grammatically correct,
> > but apt nonetheless. You can't get anywhere in life (I'll never forget
> > your incredibly stupid "article" that you were so very proud of)
>
> Do you mean this brilliant piece, bar mitzvah boy? Is your momma
> really proud of what you are doing for your G-d?
Somehow with you idiots, a person's mother always makes it into the
conversation sooner or later. Confirmation of the 11 year old brain in
the 50- or 60-something year old skull.
>
> http://www.mith.demon.co.uk/Christianity.htm
YES, that's the laughable piece of tripe I was referring to! Thanks.
>
>
>
> > because you are inept, and are too weak to take responsibility for
> > that fact, so you search for something outside yourselves to blame,
> > and often settle on jews.
>
> By your pedantic objection, to say 'Nazis are bad' would be
> inadmissible because I have not checked out all individual Nazis and
> there may be some nice ones.
Wrong. See, you're an idiot, so you don't comprehend the fact that
Nazis, just by virtue of calling themselves Nazis, admit to
subscribing to a philosophy, a component of which is the duty to
perform genocide, that qualifies them as "bad", to use your schoolboy
term.
Actually by 'Jews are bad' I meant
> nothing more than to characterise negative criticism of Jews as part
> of a definition of antisemitism.
I can here see that the idiot's mind is wandering, trying to find some
sort of explanation that will somehow change the definitions of "bias"
and "prejudice" to something he likes better. Sorry, Johnny, I don't
have time to mess with an idiot's meanderings. See ya next time...
Onlyme
>Hey,
rest binned!
drahcir
> On Feb 10, 11:45 am, "Onlyme" <onlyme_sitt...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4edeba5f-263a-4101...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > [snipped - verbal effluent]
>
> > It always amuses me to note that whenever anyone dares to critisise any
> > aspect of jewery, the usual suspects, jumping to their (jews) defence,
> > always choose to deride, scorn and generally abuse the poster.
>
> Smear the messenger, ignore the message, it's the ZioNazi way.
> An old tradition.
If you weren't a moron, you'd see that I asked Only to specify the
"message". He snipped the request away.
john...@gmail.com
> On Feb 10, 2:04 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > By your pedantic objection, to say 'Nazis are bad' would be
> > inadmissible because I have not checked out all individual Nazis and
> > there may be some nice ones.
>
> Wrong. See, you're an idiot, so you don't comprehend the fact that
> Nazis, just by virtue of calling themselves Nazis, admit to
> subscribing to a philosophy, a component of which is the duty to
> perform genocide,
I don't think that is quite true. Otherwise why would they deny the
holocaust?
> that qualifies them as "bad", to use your schoolboy
> term.
Someone might argue that Jews, insofar as they identify with Jewish
chauvinism, are bad in the same sort of way. Of course there is a
minority that doesn't support it.
>
> Actually by 'Jews are bad' I meant
>
> > nothing more than to characterise negative criticism of Jews as part
> > of a definition of antisemitism.
>
> I can here see that the idiot's mind is wandering,
On the contrary I'm getting us back on track.
>trying to find some
> sort of explanation that will somehow change the definitions of "bias"
> and "prejudice" to something he likes better. Sorry, Johnny, I don't
> have time to mess with an idiot's meanderings. See ya next time.
Please feel free to fuck off now you know you are losing.
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b2dbdb2-2588-4c64...@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Hey,
>
> rest binned!
Ostriches are as ostriches do...
john...@gmail.com
>
> > > Ok, John, here's your opportunity. Show, step by step, how I prejudge
> > > Jews, using my words against me, as I used your words against you.
>
> Oh Johnny, where oh where are you, Johnny? You "forgot" yet again to
> answer the above, Johnny. Why oh why have you forsaken me, my Johnny?
>
You said 'an opinion that puts the Jews in a bad light is by
definition biased'. Therefore insofar as it is possible to talk about
'the Jews' at all one would have to put them in a good or a neutral
light. If it is not possible to talk about them at all then that would
appear to mean they should be allowed to get away with whatever they
are trying to get away with because they would have no distinctive
qualities other than those possessed as individuals by human beings in
general. That would appear to embody an assumption that Jewry as a
body is harmless. That is a prejudice.
drahcir
> On 10 Feb, 20:28, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 10, 2:04 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > By your pedantic objection, to say 'Nazis are bad' would be
> > > inadmissible because I have not checked out all individual Nazis and
> > > there may be some nice ones.
>
> > Wrong. See, you're an idiot, so you don't comprehend the fact that
> > Nazis, just by virtue of calling themselves Nazis, admit to
> > subscribing to a philosophy, a component of which is the duty to
> > perform genocide,
>
> I don't think that is quite true. Otherwise why would they deny the
> holocaust?
LOL! Educating idiots is not my job here, John, but I'll take my
valuable time and have you google
“lebensunwertes Leben". Denying the Holocaust is acknowledged by non-
idiots as a ploy used by some Nazis to allow its completion.
> > that qualifies them as "bad", to use your schoolboy
> > term.
>
> Someone might argue that Jews, insofar as they identify with Jewish
> chauvinism, are bad in the same sort of way. Of course there is a
> minority that doesn't support it.
Too stupid to warrant a reply.
>
>
>
> > Actually by 'Jews are bad' I meant
>
> > > nothing more than to characterise negative criticism of Jews as part
> > > of a definition of antisemitism.
>
> > I can here see that the idiot's mind is wandering,
>
> On the contrary I'm getting us back on track.
>
> >trying to find some
> > sort of explanation that will somehow change the definitions of "bias"
> > and "prejudice" to something he likes better. Sorry, Johnny, I don't
> > have time to mess with an idiot's meanderings. See ya next time.
>
> Please feel free to fuck off now you know you are losing.
LOL! Hey bud, when you don't feel forced to snip away stuff like the
below, there might be a snowball's chance in hell of the above being
true. Until then, enjoy your fantasy:
*****************
Here's the deal: I have
> > shown you to be an idiot. You have snipped that demonstration as well
> > as my request for you to demonstrate, using my words, how I prejudge
> > jews, from above:
> > Ok, John, here's your opportunity. Show, step by step, how I prejudge
> > Jews, using my words against me, as I used your words against you.
When you reply, if you snip the above, it will for the third time be
replaced. Silly ostriches don't succeed with me.
Onlyme
<john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec76b373-36fb-407e...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>On the contrary I'm getting us back on track.
It's little use attempting debate with cretins such as drahcir.
Believe me, I've tried in the past.
The others of his ilk....parris, ariadne et-al are of a singular mindset.
Most reasonable, intelligent, level-headed people are always prepared to
change their views if necessary.
Or even if they do'n change their views, they're usually willing to concede
a point or two, where points need to be conceded!
No amount of debate will ever change the mind of people such as drahcir.
But then again, it's not really debate that they seek.
I personally refuse to engage people who's 2nd line of defence in any debate
is to resort to personal attacks.
Here's how it usually goes...how one can usually tell that one's dealing
with such a person....
You post stating a certain position.
They reply, refuting your position.
(note: so far no offence has changed hands)
Your second reply reaffirms your original position (still no abuse)
That's it....you've had your chance, and after being told!!...you still
refuse to see their point of view.
Now the abuse starts....you must be an idiot, a cretin...an
antisemite...take your pick!
The best thing to do at this point is to either ignore/block them.....or
simply snip their replies without further discussion!
john...@gmail.com
> > > Wrong. See, you're an idiot, so you don't comprehend the fact that
> > > Nazis, just by virtue of calling themselves Nazis, admit to
> > > subscribing to a philosophy, a component of which is the duty to
> > > perform genocide,
>
> > I don't think that is quite true. Otherwise why would they deny the
> > holocaust?
>
> LOL! Educating idiots is not my job here, John, but I'll take my
> valuable time and have you google
> “lebensunwertes Leben". Denying the Holocaust is acknowledged by non-
> idiots as a ploy used by some Nazis to allow its completion.
>
'Non-Idiot' in your lexicon meaning 'chauvinist Jew', presumably.
john...@gmail.com
> > Do you mean this brilliant piece, bar mitzvah boy? Is your momma
> > really proud of what you are doing for your G-d?
>
> Somehow with you idiots, a person's mother always makes it into the
> conversation sooner or later. Confirmation of the 11 year old brain in
> the 50- or 60-something year old skull.
>
>
In your case it just conjures up a particularly revolting image.
drahcir
> On 10 Feb, 20:28, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Ok, John, here's your opportunity. Show, step by step, how I prejudge
> > > > Jews, using my words against me, as I used your words against you.
>
> > Oh Johnny, where oh where are you, Johnny? You "forgot" yet again to
> > answer the above, Johnny. Why oh why have you forsaken me, my Johnny?
>
> You said 'an opinion that puts the Jews in a bad light is by
> definition biased'. Therefore insofar as it is possible to talk about
> 'the Jews' at all one would have to put them in a good or a neutral
> light.
After three tries, I finally shamed this idiot into replying. He was
afraid to because he knew by answering he would confirm his idiocy,
and of course he did not disappoint. Listen up, child. "Putting jews
in a good light" is biased, but being neutral is unbiased. Are you
really so fucking stupid that even that is beyond you?
If it is not possible to talk about them at all then that would
> appear to mean they should be allowed to get away with whatever they
> are trying to get away with because they would have no distinctive
> qualities other than those possessed as individuals by human beings in
> general. That would appear to embody an assumption that Jewry as a
> body is harmless. That is a prejudice.
ROFLMAO!! Thanks, John. It is now evident to everyone precisely why
you tried to snip your way out of answering. You have fulfilled my
expectations!
drahcir
Well, I am sure that an 11 year old brain inside your skull conjures
up a revolting image for just about everyone here, not just me. But I
am sure that by now you must have grown used to people being revolted
at the sight of you.
drahcir
> <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ec76b373-36fb-407e...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On the contrary I'm getting us back on track.
>
> It's little use attempting debate with cretins such as drahcir.
Aw, c'mon Only - won't you let "bygons" [sic] be bygons? Debating with
"jewery" [sic] is probably fun for you, no? Wait, perhaps you were
thinking of your favorite place, the BREWERY, or maybe ornamenting
your froggy body with some JEWELRY. Perhaps using referring to you as
"thinking" in any context is far-fetched, don't you think?
Only, I wouldn't be so mean to you if you were just a moron. But once
you showed your antisemitic side, I figured you deserve it.
> Believe me, I've tried in the past.
OHOH, the moron who talks about "bygons" has tried in the past! Can
anyone imagine this burger flipper debating anyone but a mannequin?
> The others of his ilk....parris, ariadne et-al are of a singular mindset.
> Most reasonable, intelligent, level-headed people are always prepared to
> change their views if necessary.
Only, do you really think someone who speaks of "bygons" and "jewery"
has the ability to discern intelligence?
> Or even if they do'n
Whoa, there's a new one....
change their views, they're usually willing to concede
> a point or two, where points need to be conceded!
>
> No amount of debate will ever change the mind of people such as drahcir.
> But then again, it's not really debate that they seek.
> I personally refuse to engage people who's 2nd line of defence in any debate
> is to resort to personal attacks.
>
> Here's how it usually goes...how one can usually tell that one's dealing
> with such a person....
> You post stating a certain position.
> They reply, refuting your position.
> (note: so far no offence has changed hands)
> Your second reply reaffirms your original position (still no abuse)
> That's it....you've had your chance, and after being told!!...you still
> refuse to see their point of view.
>
> Now the abuse starts....you must be an idiot, a cretin...an
> antisemite...take your pick!
>
> The best thing to do at this point is to either ignore/block them.....or
> simply snip their replies without further discussion!
Hey bud, I asked you to specify "the message", and what happened? You
blabbed sweet nothings and snipped it away. That's because you are
incompetent. Get back to your griddle, fool, the mcmuffin crowd will
be in in a few hours, and they're HUNGRY!
DoD
LOL!!
DoD
> <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ec76b373-36fb-407e...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On the contrary I'm getting us back on track.
>
> It's little use attempting debate with cretins such as drahcir.
It is very comedic for you to equate your trolling to debate.
john...@gmail.com
Is it unbiased to put the Mafia in a neutral light?
DoD
You are pretty stupid.
john...@gmail.com
>
> ROFLMAO!! Thanks, John. It is now evident to everyone precisely why
> you tried to snip your way out of answering. You have fulfilled my
> expectations!
If in your arrogance and pseudo logic you are really convinced that I
have been unable to express my thoughts intelligently, perhaps you
wold try to help me out and tell me how to describe the indubitable
fact of Jewish efforts to dominate discourse, and much else, in the
supposed interests of Jews?
Onlyme
Onlyme
"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:587a3b88-620b-4e1f...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>It is very comedic for you to equate your trolling to debate.
Trolling?
Is that the latest catch-all phrase for anyone with a view that differs from
the officially sanctioned one?
How silly!!
Elizabeth Buckwalter
<john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3c5ac3f-25a1-4e32...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On 10 Feb, 12:36, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A verbal disagreement is one about the meaning of words.
>
> I'm sorry, that's not what a verbal disagreement is, John. The term
> you are looking for is *semantic* disagreement:
>
> semantic 1. of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings
> of words or other symbols: semantic change; semantic confusion.
>
> Our
>
> > disagreement is apparently about the meaning of the word
> > 'antisemitism'. Uh to you.
>check this, arsehole:-
A total waste of time, John.
This person's only interest it to practice his English on some poor sucker
and to whine.
I'm guessing he's an unemployed Jew.
Elizabeth Buckwalter
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4edeba5f-263a-4101...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > > A verbal disagreement is one about the meaning of words.
>
> > I'm sorry, that's not what a verbal disagreement is, John. The term
> > you are looking for is *semantic* disagreement:
>
> > semantic 1. of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings
> > of words or other symbols: semantic change; semantic confusion.
>
> > Our
>
> > > disagreement is apparently about the meaning of the word
> > > 'antisemitism'. Uh to you.
>
> check this, arsehole:-
>
>
>> "An example of a verbal disagreement is if one party claims to reject
>> socialism and the other party claims to support socialism while they
>> each define socialism differently"
>Oh, look, John searched high and low and managed to dredge up another
>misuse of "verbal".
You should refrain from preaching about language.
You are the clot who said "turd" is not a noun. If I could be bothered I
could find many other examples of your stupidity and whiny carryings on.
Elizabeth Buckwalter
Are you related to Susan Cohen? You sound like her. You whine like she
does.
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> posted
>
> '[sic]'
>
> So nothing new there then!
You obviously have no clue what "sic" means, do you?
drahcir
John, listen, I am not your fifth grade teacher. Get a fucking
dictionary and look up "bias" and "neutral" and if you still can't
figure it out, go ask a fifth grader.
P.S. Are you truly such an idiot that you can't extrapolate the answer
to your asinine question from my answer to your previous asinine
question about Nazis IN THIS THREAD? Here, you blithering idiot, I
will paste it for you:
***********
> By your pedantic objection, to say 'Nazis are bad' would be
> inadmissible because I have not checked out all individual Nazis and
> there may be some nice ones.
Wrong. See, you're an idiot, so you don't comprehend the fact that
Nazis, just by virtue of calling themselves Nazis, admit to
subscribing to a philosophy, a component of which is the duty to
perform genocide, that qualifies them as "bad", to use your schoolboy
term.
Every mafioso by definition is involved in organized crime, just like
every Nazi by definition supports genocide and believes in some racial
superiority dogma. Every one. So can you see that being neutral about
the Mafia would be similar to being neutral about Nazis, since both by
definition carry objectively negative aspects? Being neutral about
Jews, however, is a unbiased, since being a Jew does not by definition
carry objectively negative aspects. Here, little boy, let me make it
clear: being a jew does not imply that you will murder anyone, nor
that you make your living as a criminal. So now what, John, are you
going to ask me whether it would be unbiased to put drug dealers in a
neutral light? Rapists? Arsonists? Where precisely is the limit of
your seemingly boundless stupidity?
Sheesh, all kinds of nuts on usenet.
drahcir
You are of course far too stupid to see that I could easily parrot
your above paragraph, substituting "muslim" or "christian" for
"jewish". That's what prejudice is all about - some idiot like you
wagging his tongue, expressing the disease he mistakes for thoughts
for all the world to witness, and somehow glibly typing along without
feeling the slightest urge to support with verifiable facts his sputum.
Onlyme
>You obviously have no clue what "sic" means, do you?
...says the knob-head, so in need of friends that he feels the need to seek
to impress on usenet with his intellectual prowess!
How should one respond?...I know...
"Ooh look! drahcir knows what 'sic' means...let's all bow down before one
who is so obviously academically gifted!"
Happy now?
Ego stroked enough for you?
Good.....Now piss off cretin!
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It's not about what I know, Only. It's about what you don't know.
Things like the inabiility to spell "jewry" or "bygone" indicate very
low intelligence, so low that ignorance of elementary words like "sic"
is to be expected. You thinking that it is "impressive" that I know
what "sic" means is nothing if not pathetic.