100,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis . .
bolle boos
<gryb> schreef in bericht news:l7feav0seahqaqa02...@4ax.com...
> 100,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis
And I know that some people would say, every cloud has a silver lining.
For that idear about homosexuals still lives among people in this world.
Spike
>100,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis
>_________________________________________________________
>
he was probably jealous coz he couldn't get in
-
execution is legalised murder
-
Spike
A Planet Visitor
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:25:21 -0400, gryb blurted:
>
>>100,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis
>>_________________________________________________________
>>
>
>he was probably jealous coz he couldn't get in
Go on, spike... now tell us how you believe _homosexuals are the SAME as murderers_,
as you've claimed the "unemployed or ill" are the same as murderers. Your homophobic
roots are showing through, sport.
PV
>-
>Spike
> spike said -- "why don't you string up the unemployed or ill!"
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5i0o9v87694eb6p57jsaodlhd9k85l30kc%404ax.com
Spike
blurted:
>On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:27:05 +0100, Spike <sp...@deathwatch.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:25:21 -0400, gryb blurted:
>>
>>>100,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis
>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>
>>
>>he was probably jealous coz he couldn't get in
>
>Go on, spike... now tell us how you believe _homosexuals are the SAME as murderers_,
>as you've claimed the "unemployed or ill" are the same as murderers. Your homophobic
>roots are showing through, sport.
at last you are right about one thing. I hate puffs. They a fucking
perverts but i would not murder them. That's your job
>
>PV
>
>>-
>>Spike
>> spike said -- "why don't you string up the unemployed or ill!"
>url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5i0o9v87694eb6p57jsaodlhd9k85l30kc%404ax.com
-
Hugh Neary
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 20:58:05 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>blurted:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:27:05 +0100, Spike <sp...@deathwatch.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:25:21 -0400, gryb blurted:
>>>
>>>>100,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis
>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>
>>>he was probably jealous coz he couldn't get in
>>
>>Go on, spike... now tell us how you believe _homosexuals are the SAME as murderers_,
>>as you've claimed the "unemployed or ill" are the same as murderers. Your homophobic
>>roots are showing through, sport.
>
>at last you are right about one thing. I hate puffs. They a fucking
>perverts but i would not murder them. That's your job
Jolly good! It's difficult to hate puffs though, as i'm sure there are
the odd one or two decent ones amongst them. Would it not be more
suitable to hate puffterism instead?
Beware! I suspect that a spot of "queer bashing" on this NG would
risk a ton or so of fan mail from the "good rev" dropping through the
letterbox.
HN
Mr Q. Z. D. at home
<spams...@junk.net> wrote:
> Jolly good! It's difficult to hate puffs though, as i'm sure there are
> the odd one or two decent ones amongst them. Would it not be more
> suitable to hate puffterism instead?
> Beware! I suspect that a spot of "queer bashing" on this NG would
> risk a ton or so of fan mail from the "good rev" dropping through the
> letterbox.
It would be a laugh riot if it wasn't actually _real_.
Spike
blurted:
>On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:58:48 +0100, Spike <sp...@deathwatch.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 20:58:05 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>>blurted:
>>
>>>On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:27:05 +0100, Spike <sp...@deathwatch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:25:21 -0400, gryb blurted:
>>>>
>>>>>100,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis
>>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>he was probably jealous coz he couldn't get in
>>>
>>>Go on, spike... now tell us how you believe _homosexuals are the SAME as murderers_,
>>>as you've claimed the "unemployed or ill" are the same as murderers. Your homophobic
>>>roots are showing through, sport.
>>
>>at last you are right about one thing. I hate puffs. They a fucking
>>perverts but i would not murder them. That's your job
>
>Jolly good! It's difficult to hate puffs though,
nah it's not. They are freaks
>as i'm sure there are
>the odd one or two decent ones amongst them.
decnet people maybe, but there is no such thing as a decent pervert
>Would it not be more
>suitable to hate puffterism instead?
pufferism?
> Beware! I suspect that a spot of "queer bashing" on this NG would
>risk a ton or so of fan mail from the "good rev" dropping through the
>letterbox.
I don't think so. Child molestors are even worse
FitzHerbert
<snip>
> I hate puffs. They a fucking perverts
Be careful now, Spike: you is starting to sound like FuckWit.
Yrs,
Neville Fitzherbert, esq.
A Planet Visitor
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 20:58:05 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>blurted:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:27:05 +0100, Spike <sp...@deathwatch.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:25:21 -0400, gryb blurted:
>>>
>>>>100,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis
>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>
>>>he was probably jealous coz he couldn't get in
>>
>>Go on, spike... now tell us how you believe _homosexuals are the SAME as murderers_,
>>as you've claimed the "unemployed or ill" are the same as murderers. Your homophobic
>>roots are showing through, sport.
>
>at last you are right about one thing. I hate puffs. They a fucking
>perverts but i would not murder them. That's your job
>
Why am I not surprised? (note the correct spelling). You love murderers...
who made the 'free will' CHOICE to murder... but you hate those who are
born a particular way, that gave them no choice as to being born the way
they were. Does the word "holocaust" ring a moral bell with you, dimwit?
There were many millions who were born a particular way who became
murder victims. I suppose you hated them as well. Which makes YOU
the Nazi, a word that you toss about with such abandon, probably because
you realize how close to HOME that word is to your beliefs.
Are you afraid your grandson might be enjoying a dress about now??
Perhaps you believe you can BEAT that feeling out of him? You evil little
man. And you call yourself a Catholic and a grandfather.
PV
>>
>>PV
>>
>>>-
>>>Spike
>>> spike said -- "why don't you string up the unemployed or ill!"
>>url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5i0o9v87694eb6p57jsaodlhd9k85l30kc%404ax.com
>
>-
>spike says -- ""i suggested that you should be put down."
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ri7u9vom0rleat0756bgu0ddgjvhkstklu%404ax.com
>-
>Spike
Spike
(FitzHerbert) blurted:
>Spike <sp...@deathwatch.com> wrote in message news:<577mav046lphiavj1...@4ax.com>...
>
><snip>
>
>> I hate puffs. They a fucking perverts
>
>Be careful now, Spike: you is starting to sound like FuckWit.
>
>
nah. I can never sound like that screwball
>
>
>Yrs,
> Neville Fitzherbert, esq.
Spike
blurted:
>On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:58:48 +0100, Spike <sp...@deathwatch.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 20:58:05 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>>blurted:
>>
>>>On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:27:05 +0100, Spike <sp...@deathwatch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:25:21 -0400, gryb blurted:
>>>>
>>>>>100,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis
>>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>he was probably jealous coz he couldn't get in
>>>
>>>Go on, spike... now tell us how you believe _homosexuals are the SAME as murderers_,
>>>as you've claimed the "unemployed or ill" are the same as murderers. Your homophobic
>>>roots are showing through, sport.
>>
>>at last you are right about one thing. I hate puffs. They a fucking
>>perverts but i would not murder them. That's your job
>>
>Why am I not surprised? (note the correct spelling).
dunno. Why aren't you suprised?
>You love murderers...
nah you love murderers
>who made the 'free will' CHOICE to murder...
your executioners, your bomber flyers, your soldiers didn't do it
under free will? is this another one of these "i was only following
orders" crappy bulshit
>but you hate those who are
>born a particular way, that gave them no choice as to being born the way
>they were. Does the word "holocaust" ring a moral bell with you, dimwit?
yeah you prick. Didn't you get that when i called you a Nazi? you dumb
fuck
>There were many millions who were born a particular way who became
>murder victims.
yeah. They are anythong other than the americans
>I suppose you hated them as well. Which makes YOU
>the Nazi,
who's that then?
>a word that you toss about with such abandon, probably because
>you realize how close to HOME that word is to your beliefs.
nah wrong again fuckwitt scum. You are a fucking Nazi
>
>Are you afraid your grandson might be enjoying a dress about now??
Are you looking for a smack in the gob you prick? my grandchildren are
4 and 10
>Perhaps you believe you can BEAT that feeling out of him?
nah i would never lay a hand on them.
>You evil little
>man.
look who's talking. you are the sick fuck creatig these horror
fantasies. I hope you never get near kids. you will hurt them you sick
fuck
>And you call yourself a Catholic and a grandfather.
yeah i am both. are you anything other than a murdering torturing
scum. if you ever come near my grandchildren i will hurt you, you
monster
>
>PV
>
>>>
>>>PV
>>>
>>>>-
>>>>Spike
>>>> spike said -- "why don't you string up the unemployed or ill!"
>>>url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5i0o9v87694eb6p57jsaodlhd9k85l30kc%404ax.com
>>
>>-
>>spike says -- ""i suggested that you should be put down."
>url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ri7u9vom0rleat0756bgu0ddgjvhkstklu%404ax.com
>>-
>>Spike
-
A Planet Visitor
>On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 03:17:32 +0100, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net>
>blurted:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:58:48 +0100, Spike <sp...@deathwatch.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 20:58:05 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>>>blurted:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:27:05 +0100, Spike <sp...@deathwatch.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:25:21 -0400, gryb blurted:
>>>>>
>>>>>>100,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis
>>>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>he was probably jealous coz he couldn't get in
>>>>
>>>>Go on, spike... now tell us how you believe _homosexuals are the SAME as murderers_,
>>>>as you've claimed the "unemployed or ill" are the same as murderers. Your homophobic
>>>>roots are showing through, sport.
>>>
>>>at last you are right about one thing. I hate puffs. They a fucking
>>>perverts but i would not murder them. That's your job
>>
>>Jolly good! It's difficult to hate puffs though,
>nah it's not. They are freaks
>
Oh.... my.... God.... spike loves murderers... but hates homosexuals.
Go figure. If your grandchild turned out to be homosexual, would
you consider him/her WORSE than a murderer, spike? I do believe
you would. Perhaps try to BEAT IT OUT of him/her. Apparently
spike's belief is _save the murderer... but execute the homosexual_.
Next question... how do you feel about Jews? And Blacks? I can't
wait for that one.
>>as i'm sure there are
>>the odd one or two decent ones amongst them.
>decnet people maybe, but there is no such thing as a decent pervert
>>Would it not be more
>>suitable to hate puffterism instead?
>pufferism?
>> Beware! I suspect that a spot of "queer bashing" on this NG would
>>risk a ton or so of fan mail from the "good rev" dropping through the
>>letterbox.
>I don't think so. Child molestors are even worse
Do you support execution of child molester murderers, spike? Simple
question. Would you support the execution of Theodore Frank? I
related this story before... but you ran away like a stuck pig...
clipping everything... providing only your typical anti-American
rant... and never had the GUTS to answer the question. See your
pathetic clip and insults at --
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vndr9v4tm0kfvkamnl7gb8n05aah0m86nk%404ax.com
Apparently you are a coward, as well as stupid. Well,
let me relate the story yet again, And WHAT is your answer?
-------------------------------------------------------
VICTIM ...AMY SUE SEITZ
On the morning of March 14, in Ventura County community
of Camarillo, twenty-four month old Amy Sue Seitz,
blonde-haired and blue-eyed, was being dropped off at the
home of a relative who cared for her during the week, while
her mother worked.
While Amy's relative was busy upstairs with housework,
little Amy watched cartoons on television, then fell asleep
on the living room couch.
When the relative heard the downstairs front door close,
she thought nothing of it. Amy Sue, she assumed, had
awakened and decided to play in the front yard. Minutes
later, the relative came back downstairs and went out into
the yard to find Amy. She was not there. When she called
out, "Amy Sue! Amy Sue!" She got no answer. She began
searching the streets, yelling at the top of her lungs for
Amy Sue Seitz. But the tiny tot, only thirty-two inches tall
and weighing a mere 32 pounds, had disappeared.
Approximately 28 miles from where 24 month old Amy
Sue had last been seen, Fred Straylaw looked out his
bedroom window and saw his two dogs with something
bloody in the driveway. He called the dogs and locked
them inside. He went immediately back out to see what
his dogs had been playing with....... Using palm prints,
the M.E. identified her as twenty-four month old Amy
Sue Seitz.
The M.E.'s report stated:
1- Amy Sue had been forced to drink alcohol.
2- Amy Sue had been raped.
3- Amy Sue had been punched in the face full force.
4- Amy Sue suffered massive brain hemorrhage.
5- Amy Sue had extensive skull fractures.
6- Amy Sue's skin had been peeled from her body with
vise-grips or pliers while she was still alive.
7- Amy Sue had been strangled to death.
After an extensive search and with the help of one witness
who had seen the suspect prior to Amy Sue's disappearance,
rape, torture and murder, the police had the lead they needed.
The suspect's name was Theodore Francis Frank.
He was 43 years old. This is what was learned about Frank:
1)- Frank's most recent arrest had been in connection with the
molestation of an eight-year-old girl.
2)- Theodore Frank had spent 14 years locked up in
hospitals or prisons in Missouri and California.
3)- Six weeks after he was released from Atascadero, where
he was doing time for raping a four year old child, Amy
Sue Seitz was raped, tortured, and murdered.
4)- After Amy's Death Frank was arrested for two other
molestations in the San Fernando Valley! He was convicted
in those two cases.
5)- In 1958, he was arrested and charged with fondling a ten
year-old girl in front of a church.
6)- Two years later he was once again a free man!
7)- In the 1960s, Frank was charged with several sex offences.
8)- He served a second hospital term and another Missouri
prison term.
9)- In Illinois, when he was questioned about several sex
related crimes and child molestation and murder of a
seven year-old boy in Missouri, he fled to California.
10)- In Bakersfield in 1974, Frank was convicted of
molesting a small boy and was sent to Atascadero. At
Atascadero, a report by a psychologist stated that
"Frank is a chronic, habitual child molester whose
patterns are almost impossible to change."
11)- While Theodore Frank was at Atascadero, he wrote
this in a notebook; "Why do I want to degrade and
humiliate children? Sadism...I enjoy the humiliation. Defile
the innocent. Make them scared of sex. It's dirty. I
didn't have a happy childhood, neither will they...Revenge."
12)- On January 17, police went to Frank's apartment with
an arrest warrant. They discovered he was being held in
L. A. County Jail, charged with the molestation of still another
child!
13)- Theodore Frank had been recently sentenced to eight
years in prison in connection with the molestation of more
adolescent females. Those incidents had occurred five
months AFTER Amy Sue's tragic death.
Theodore Frank's trial got underway on November 5, one
year and eight months after Amy Sue Seitz's brutal murder.
Frank was charged with kidnapping, rape, child molestation,
and first-degree murder. The Los Angeles County M.E., Dr.
Manuel Breton, testified that little Amy's nipples had been
pinched horribly with pliers or vise grips. "There was
not only damage to the nipple itself, but there was also the
imprint of the weapon". Asked whether the child was alive
during this torture, the doctor somberly answered, "Yes, she
was."
The doctor further testified that Amy had been raped, had
suffered several vicious blows to her skull. Bruises on her
neck were characteristic of manual strangling, and, beneath
these, he said, he found a fracture of the hyoid bone of the
voice box and bruising of soft tissues behind.
On November 26, a nine-year-old girl testified that she had
been kidnapped by Frank four months AFTER Amy Sue's
death. She said he drove her to an isolated area, stripped
her, and attacked her. She said she was forced to drink
beer by Frank and he pinched her breasts. "He took
my panties and tried to stuff them down my throat," the
child told the court.
Seven days into the trial, a pair of vise-grips that had been
found during the search of Frank's apartment,were entered
into evidence. Jurors gasped as an expert gave a description
of how the pliers could apply 2,000 pounds of pressure when
clamped tight. On December 15, the seven-man, five-woman
jury found Theodore Frank guilty of rape, child molestation,
kidnapping, and murder.
On January 7, almost two years since the rape, torture and
murder of little 24 month old Amy Sue, jurors had no difficulty
in deciding Frank's fate. They quickly voted that the convicted
baby-killer should be executed.
Do you believe it's reasonable for Theodore Frank to die
peacefully in his sleep, having been cared for physically for
the rest of his natural life? To die peacefully in his sleep,
with a smile on his face, and the drool forming on his lips,
dreaming about the violations he committed on that child,
and other children?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Come on, spike... be a MAN. Yes or no. Execute Theodore
Frank or not.
> spike said -- "why don't you string up the unemployed or ill!"
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5i0o9v87694eb6p57jsaodlhd9k85l30kc%404ax.com
>-
>Spike
A Planet Visitor
stupidly questioned:
>On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:51:28 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>showed no surprise that spike was homophobic:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:58:48 +0100, Spike <sp...@deathwatch.com>
>>announces his homophobia:
<rest clipped>
>>>at last you are right about one thing. I hate puffs. They a fucking
>>>perverts but i would not murder them. That's your job
>>Why am I not surprised? (note the correct spelling).
>
>
>dunno. Why aren't you suprised?
>
Not surprised that you hate gays? Well, because it goes along
with your other hates. It goes along with your hate for all victims,
spike. If your grandson announces he is gay, will you call him a
pervert? Will you try to _beat it_ out of him? How sick such a
thought is.
>>You love murderers...
>
>nah you love murderers
>
LOL... you're a simpleton, spike.
<clip spike anti-American raging which ignored logic>
>
>>but you hate those who are
>>born a particular way, that gave them no choice as to being born the way
>>they were. Does the word "holocaust" ring a moral bell with you, dimwit?
>
>yeah you prick. Didn't you get that when i called you a Nazi? you dumb
>fuck
>
I'm not the one who _hates_ homosexuals, spike. You're the one calling
them perverts. Yet you never call a murderer a pervert. If you think calling
me a Nazi bothers me... it does not. Because you are too stupid to even
understand the meaning of that word, and it thus becomes an insult that
children in kindergarten call those they hate for no reason. Nazis came from
Europe... and you are the true Nazi... in your words here. Expressing
hate for those who are born a particular way (homosexual), which was the
_Nazi way_. Hate for those _different_ from those who considered themselves
as _superior beings_. They were the victimizers... their victims were those they
hated for no reason other than they were different. Just as you hate homosexuals.
Know thyself, spike.
>>There were many millions who were born a particular way who became
>>murder victims.
>
>yeah. They are anythong other than the americans
>
You've now gone beyond rational understanding. Your rage and hate
have consumed you. Let me offer you a book to read, which might offer
you some insight into why you are so consumed with hate, and how
you may curb some of the hate you feel --
url:http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=322WXN5Q6X&isbn=0809224836&itm=1
It would be well worth the money for you.
>
>>I suppose you hated them as well. Which makes YOU
>>the Nazi,
>
>who's that then?
>
Ummm... spike....Europe, only a few short years ago murdered
homosexuals along with those others we know of. They did so
in hate. You stated you hate gays... thus YOU are the Nazi.
>
>>a word that you toss about with such abandon, probably because
>>you realize how close to HOME that word is to your beliefs.
>
>nah wrong again fuckwitt scum. You are a fucking Nazi
ROTFLMAO.
>>Are you afraid your grandson might be enjoying a dress about now??
>
>Are you looking for a smack in the gob you prick? my grandchildren are
>4 and 10
>
Oh my God!!! You've gone f**king crazy!!! Really demented!!
Now you're going to _smack me in the gob_, over the internet.
In a psychotic episode of believing you can change an imaginary
existence into a physical attack. I can only presume your mind is
much closer to a murderer than I ever imagined. Hoping to strike
out in PHYSICAL rage, against an imaginary presence of only
words... since your intellect does not exist. You've lost your
f**king mind... and I can't help but pity you more than I have
pitied any poster in this group at any time. How much hate must
be inside of you, trying to translate an imaginary presence into
presuming physical attacks on them!!
Walt Disney... where are you???
Are you presuming that children only GROW into being gay?
One of your grandchildren could be gay at this moment. Could have
been so at the moment of BIRTH. Yet you HATE HIM if he is born
gay. How sick that is? And how disturbing is the proof of your
homophobia, crazily making physical threats over the net, at the
thought that you might find your grandchild to be WHAT YOU'VE
CALLED -- "A pervert." While that child would have had NO
CHOICE. And could never be called such a disgusting name
by any normal person.
Come on, spike... give me a smack... you total fruitcake.
>>Perhaps you believe you can BEAT that feeling out of him?
>
>nah i would never lay a hand on them.
>
No one any longer believes you, spike. Since you've laid claim to
physical assault on an imaginary presence, in an imaginary world,
here in AADP, simply because it was mentioned as a possibility.
What you would do if it was a reality, is too frightening to imagine
for that poor child. Having you for a grandfather... and hating him,
believing he is a pervert... while his choice in the matter did not
exist, nor should it be seen as any more different than being born
Black or Jewish or English. I think you believe you could _beat
it out of him_. Beat out those things in which we have no
choice in the matter. The Kinsey report from the late 1940s
offered that 10% of the entire population is gay. We understand
now that this percentage was somewhat overstated. There are
also studies which show that those who act out with the most
animosity toward gays, are actually doing so because of their
own repressed sexual feelings. But there is no longer any question
that sexual orientation toward the same sex is not a matter of
choice. Yet you would condemn your grandchild to calling
him/her a pervert, even though he/she was given no choice.
While at the same moment defending murderers who HAD a
choice when they committed their murder. How sick you are,
spike. As close to a Nazi as anyone I've seen in this group.
And given some of what I've seen in my three years here...
that's saying quite a bit.
>>You evil little
>>man.
>
>look who's talking. you are the sick fuck creatig these horror
>fantasies. I hope you never get near kids. you will hurt them you sick
>fuck
>
So you believe it would be a _horror fantasy_, if your grandchild was
gay? How can you possibly believe that? How I pity you... having
such an evil mind.
>
>>And you call yourself a Catholic and a grandfather.
>
>yeah i am both. are you anything other than a murdering torturing
>scum. if you ever come near my grandchildren i will hurt you, you
>monster
>
LOL... sure, spike... come get me... you mental midget. Come and
_beat me up_. And pigs can fly. Are you in the habit of taking your
anger out in physical reaction? If so... your grandchildren need to fear you
greatly... as your children probably did as they were growing up.
Do you also physically beat your wife... to keep her _in line_?
BTW -- thanks for all your help in making U.S. retention the final
winner in this group. You can now concentrate on your anti-American
posturing.
PV
spike said -- "why don't you string up the unemployed or ill!"
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5i0o9v87694eb6p57jsaodlhd9k85l30kc%404ax.com
spike says -- ""i suggested that you should be put down."
Honest Nev
<snip>
> If you think calling me a Nazi bothers me... it does not.
Nazi.
<snip>
> What you would do if it was a reality, is too frightening to imagine
> for that poor child. Having you for a grandfather... and hating him,
> believing he is a pervert... while his choice in the matter did not
> exist, nor should it be seen as any more different than being born
> Black or Jewish or English.
One is not 'born Jewish' anymore than one is 'born Cathy' or 'born Athiest'!!
Yr neo-Nazi agenda comes to the fore again, FuckWit!
<snip>
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
John Rennie
"Honest Nev" <honest_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a5ec705.03050...@posting.google.com...
Theres interesting. Do you think Barry Goldwater was a Jew or an
American, PV? Was Disraeli an Englishman or a Jew. Neither
of them were in the religious sense, Jews. If you agree that neither
was a Jew, Nev has made his point.
A Planet Visitor
Without a doubt, this is the dumbest post I have ever seen you offer,
John. It is beneath you. Totally. Barry Goldwater was a Jew and
an American. Disraeli was both an Englishman and a Jew. Sharon
is an Israeli and a Jew. Arafat is both a Palestinian and an Arab.
Jordan's King Abdullah is both a Jordanian and an Arab. The Saudi
ruling clan are all Saudi Arabian and Arab. Qadhafi is both Libyan
and an Arab. Mubarak is both Egyptian and Arab. Azmi Bishara,
is a Christian, an Arab and an Israeli. There are many Jews who
have converted to Christianity, making them no less a Jew. Martin
Luther King was a Black, a Christian and an American. Desmond
claims to be both French and Jewish (of course he is ACTUALLY
neither). One can of course, practice Judaism as a religious belief,
and be properly characterized as a Jew, but conversely one cannot
shed his Hebrew descent simply by changing his religion. Anymore
than a Black can shed his descent from other Blacks, or an Arab
from that particular Semitic racial strain. In other words, you could
become an Englishman and a Jew by practicing Judaism, but if you
did not, you would simply be an Englishman, because that is your
descent. But Disraeli will always be both an Englishman and a Jew
by virtue of a different, and varied descent, regardless of what religion
he practiced, if any.
Either being born a Jew or converting to Judaism makes a person
part of the Jewish people. What the problem is with Ol' Racist Nev's
rambling is he implies there is SOMETHING WRONG with BEING
born of Hebrew descent. He implies that it could and thus SHOULD be
washed away, by some _purification process of denial_ of who we
are. I detect that he feels it is something to be ASHAMED of. I
detect from his comment that he believes in denial as a _HOPE_
for Jews, with him piously offering them a chance to _redeem_
themselves, from what he perceives is the _curse of their birth_,
as some of Christian Savior offering. Him believing it is NECESSARY
that they should be able to _cleanse_ themselves - from what he
views as a distasteful origin - presuming accepting Christ can wash
away what he sees as the _sin of their birth_. His arguing that they
can shed what HE sees as an unsavory Hebrew descent, in some
sort of _Christian baptismal redemption_. invokes images of the
Middle Ages. He implies it is NECESSARY to seek such
_Christian redemption_, in his self-righteous sanctimonious
Christian display of pompous charity in his offering such _redemption_.
Do you feel it is necessary to deny one's Jewish roots?
All of Ol' Racist Nev's ravings about the Jew being able to shed
the descent of their birth, and thus change who they are, because
he sees something wrong with who they are, implies the same as
believing there is something wrong with being of Black descent.
Which is understandably Ol' Racist Nev's belief. Thus he turns
out to be not only a racist, but an anti-Semite as well. In the
STRONGEST sense of that word... The very strongest.
I hope you get the picture. A Jew is defined as being of Hebrew
descent, as well as one whose religion is Judaism Whether one
born of Hebrew descent practices the Jewish religion or not,
being born of Hebrew descent is being properly at least partly
Jewish. In terms of practicing Judaism as a religion, one of Hebrew
descent can be an atheist, a Christian, or a Buddhist, and he will
still be a Jew. The problem is that Ol' Racist Nev believes there
is something WRONG with that. Thus, ask yourself what other
group of people in the past ALSO believed there was something
WRONG with that. I have in fact stated that I have some Jewish
descent, in my maternal grandmother, whose own mother converted
to Catholicism long before my grandmother immigrated to the U.S.
from Poland in her teenage years. Thus, I am an American, White,
Jewish, Catholic, deist... and French by insemination into another.
None of which makes a shit... but Ol' Racist Nev believes it is
very important to have available the opportunity to _cleanse_
yourself, if born of Hebrew stock. How sad that so many
Europeans view the Jew as _filthy_. :-(
Finally, it is strange that you would pick up the flag from Ol' Racist
Nev in his defense, and seem to imply that unless one practices
the Jewish religion one cannot be a Jew. I find that as suggesting
it is something to be ashamed of. Shame on Ol' Racist Nev.
And you should know better.
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:9vu2bvskminj8k5hr...@4ax.com...
Let's get this stright. Goldwater born in America and Disraeli born in
England had two nationalities - is that it? Let's try you on this one
Mayor Guliani (sp) born in America is also an Italian? BTW
Disraeli hotly denied that he was a Jew although he was proud of
his forbears.
Sharon
> is an Israeli and a Jew. Arafat is both a Palestinian and an Arab.
> Jordan's King Abdullah is both a Jordanian and an Arab. The Saudi
> ruling clan are all Saudi Arabian and Arab. Qadhafi is both Libyan
> and an Arab. Mubarak is both Egyptian and Arab.
You have departed to that region you love so well off the edge of
the world and when you do so you expose your ignorance more
effectively than doggie, Nev or I ever could. Palestinians, Jordanians,
Libyans and Egytians ARE Arabs just as the British, French
anf Germans are Europeans.
I snipped the rest of some very silly arguments to spare you
embarrassment.
A Planet Visitor
his evil:
>A Planet Visitor <I_have_no_shame_@_all.cum> wrote in message news:<o4b1bvc4n50l9bjfl...@4ax.com>...
>
><snip>
>
>> If you think calling me a Nazi bothers me... it does not.
>
>Nazi.
>
><snip>
>
>> What you would do if it was a reality, is too frightening to imagine
>> for that poor child. Having you for a grandfather... and hating him,
>> believing he is a pervert... while his choice in the matter did not
>> exist, nor should it be seen as any more different than being born
>> Black or Jewish or English.
>
>One is not 'born Jewish' anymore than one is 'born Cathy' or 'born Athiest'!!
>
Never has Ol' Racist Nev provided a comment which more clearly
proves he is a Nazi. He presumes that the Jew has a CHOICE
when being born. He states "One is not 'born Jewish" arguing that
a Jew can only BECOME a Jew by having made the choice when he
chooses to do so. His Nazi based meaning is == Ve nicht kill der
Juden... der Juden vanted to be kill... der Juden chose it == accompanied
by his right hand raised, palm facing out.
The most fundamental principle of the law, is that one must have
made a CHOICE to commit the crime. Ol' Racist Nev thus argues
that it is POSSIBLE to create a CRIME called "Jew," just as when
we create a crime called "Murder"... since he sees a choice involved
in being a Jew, as there is with the choice a murderer makes to
murder. Thus, he places the Jew in the same category as murderers,
thieves, rapists and all others who can make a choice as to who and
what they become. Since they are also not BORN murderers,
thieves, rapists, etc. Ol' Racist Nev claims Jews CHOOSE to BE
JEWISH. And thus he justifies the Nazi laws making it a crime to
BE Jewish, since he states they HAD a choice, just as a murderer
has a choice. After all, according to Ol' Racist Nev... they don't
HAVE TO BE A JEW!!!
He claims the Jew CHOSE to COMMIT that Nazi created
so-called crime, and could have avoided committing such a crime
simply by not CHOOSING to be a Jew. After all... according
to Ol' Racist Nev they CHOSE to be Jewish!! According to
him they could choose NOT to be Jewish, and walk away from
being guilty of the crime. What's next? Perhaps Ol' Racist Nev
will argue that the crippled, or those born mentally ill have also
CHOSEN to be so... and thus it can be made a crime... so
they can be executed. Oops... too late... Ol' Racist Nev has
ALREADY AGREED with that suggestion for the unemployed
or ill from spike.
Of all the insane ravings from Ol' Racist Nev I've seen here... this
happens to be the most demented, and sickening.
To Ol' Racist Nev --
Your disgusting implication that one can ONLY become a Jew by
CHOOSING to be one, directly implies there is SOMETHING
WRONG with being born of Hebrew descent. Something to be
ashamed of in your view, and thus CAN and SHOULD be washed
away, by some _purification process_ of denying who the Jew
descended from. I detect from your comment that your profane
mind piously presumes to offer the Jews a chance to _redeem_
themselves, from what YOU perceive is the _curse of their birth_,
believing you are some sort of a Christian Savior offering _salvation_
for the Jew, if only they CHOOSE not to be a Jew. To lift them
from the stigma you see associated with being a Jew. A more
hideous concept has never been seen here in AADP. You believing
it is NECESSARY that they should be able to _cleanse_ themselves -
from what you view as a distasteful origin - presuming in your religious
fervor that_accepting Christ_ can wash away what you see as the _sin
of their birth_. Your arguing that they can shed what YOU sees as
an unsavory Hebrew descent, in some sort of _Christian baptismal
redemption_ invokes images of the Middle Ages. With you as some
hooded and dark-robed High Priest offering absolution to those who
do not choose the path of the Jew, and death to those who do choose
the path of the Jew. You imply it is NECESSARY to seek such
_Christian redemption_, in your self-righteous sanctimonious
pseudo-Christian display of pompous charity in your offering such
_redemption_.
You are one very sick human.
>Yr neo-Nazi agenda comes to the fore again, FuckWit!
>
><snip>
>
You have claimed here that the Jew had a choice in the Holocaust...
and chose to be murdered, when all he had to do was choose not
to be a Jew, because you claim he "is not 'born Jewish.' You have
attempted to justify what the Nazis did... in certainly implying that
it was the Jew's OWN FAULT for their murder, since you believe
they could have _saved_ themselves in _Christian spiritual salvation_,
rather than choosing to be Jewish.
Some of the new posters to this group are more disgusting than I ever
believed possible. desi can be positively benign at times compared to you...
with your claim that Jews could have escaped the holocaust by simply
choosing not to be Jewish, and another demanding that those who disagree
with him be "put down," and call homosexuals "perverts."
I solemnly promise you, Ol' Racist Nev... that I will recall your words that
"One is not 'born Jewish'" on various occasions in the future, to demonstrate
how cruel your concept is toward other humans. How you would hope to
JUSTIFY Nazi laws that would make it a crime to BE A JEW... since you
imply the Jews CHOOSE to be Jewish... and could simply avoid what you
see to be a crime by NOT CHOOSING to commit it. I can presume
you also believe that one is not 'born Black,' or 'born Gay.'
Anti-Semitism is very well... and very alive in Europe. Ol' Racist Nev rather
proved that today.
The very concept of damnation was conceived by man's mind as suitable
punishment for those holding the wicked and unholy ideals you hold in
respect to different members of our species... Blacks and Jews, Ol' Racist
Nev. May fire and brimstone burn your evil soul in hell for an eternity.
Because there is no secular punishment which could possibly provide
justice for the heinous corruption displayed in your immoral ideals.
PV
>
> Ol' Racist Jew Hating Nev
Honest Nev
> >> What you would do if it was a reality, is too frightening to imagine
> >> for that poor child. Having you for a grandfather... and hating him,
> >> believing he is a pervert... while his choice in the matter did not
> >> exist, nor should it be seen as any more different than being born
> >> Black or Jewish or English.
> >
> >One is not 'born Jewish' anymore than one is 'born Cathy' or 'born Athiest'!!
> >
> Never has Ol' Racist Nev provided a comment which more clearly
> proves he is a Nazi. He presumes that the Jew has a CHOICE
> when being born. He states "One is not 'born Jewish" arguing that
> a Jew can only BECOME a Jew by having made the choice when he
> chooses to do so. His Nazi based meaning is == Ve nicht kill der
> Juden... der Juden vanted to be kill... der Juden chose it == accompanied
> by his right hand raised, palm facing out.
>
> The most fundamental principle of the law, is that one must have
> made a CHOICE to commit the crime.
Oh no!! The fuckWit punches himsen in the nads yet again!! I wouldn't
equate 'Jewishness' with criminality, scum!!
Quick, FW, jot down a line to Mr Bormann to mek sure you never mek
such a mistake in public again!!
<snip>
> is POSSIBLE to create a CRIME called "Jew," just as when
> we create a crime called "Murder"... since he sees a choice involved
> in being a Jew, as there is with the choice a murderer makes to
> murder. Thus, he places the Jew in the same category as murderers,
> thieves, rapists and all others who can make a choice as to who and
> what they become.
FW, you've really lost it, hant you?
It is you who have placed Jews "in the same category as murderers,
thieves, rapists... "
(Indeed, it seems you find all those who "make a choice as to who and
what they become" are "in the same category" as criminal-types. You
really are an evil old man. Get help, scum.)
<snip>
> My buddy Nev claims Jews CHOOSE to BE JEWISH.
Well, they are certainly not born 'religious', scum.
> And thus he justifies the Nazi laws making it a crime to BE Jewish, since he > states they HAD a choice
Hmmm... whilst I do not like teaching my Grandma to suck eggs, I fink
you will find that the Nazis actually thought that one _is_ 'born
Jewish'.
You see, scum, like you they considered the Jews to be an ethnic
group.
<snip>
Hmmm... Fundy-boy goes off on one again!!
Now, Judaism is a religion and, as such, most rational human-beings
(but not, you, my Fundy Fruit-and-Nut-Case, we know!!) would deduce
that a baby cannot be 'born Jewish' as a baby cannot be 'born
religious'.
I woz not born 'an Athiest' and you (although it is sometimes hard to
believe) woz not born a Fundy. You may deny it, but is the truth.
HEREIN FIND THE PLOT, SCUM:
'The Hebrews' were just one 'tribe' [1] of people speaking a Semitic
language in the Middle-East. It is not thought that they, or their
non-Hebrew speaking Semitic neighbours were ethnically distinct from
one another.
Would you hold that a (Muslim) Palestinian is 'born Jewish'? The
average Palestinian will certainly have more 'ethnic Hebrew' [1] blood
coursing through his veins than yr average European (or Merkin) Jew.
<snip>
> desi can be positively benign at times compared to you...
Oh yes, Desmond. Of course you laff at Desi [sic] for claiming one can
be both Jewish and Irish!! You really are the worst kind of racist,
scum, FuckWit.
<snip>
> I solemnly promise you, Ol' Racist Nev... that I will recall your words that
> "One is not 'born Jewish'" on various occasions in the future
I should hope so: with any luck it'll serve to dilute yr vile
Nazi-indoctrinated misinformation. How I pity you, scum.
<snip>
> The very concept of damnation was conceived by man's mind as suitable
> punishment for those holding the wicked and unholy ideals you hold in
> respect to different members of our species... Blacks and Jews, Ol' Racist
> Nev. May fire and brimstone burn your evil soul in hell for an eternity.
> Because there is no secular punishment which could possibly provide
> justice for the heinous corruption displayed in your immoral ideals.
LOL! You dopey Fundy.
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
[1] Hebrew (like Arabic) is a _language_, albeit a Semitic one.
Always use caution when you apply terms used to denote language to
denote 'tribes', FW.
A Planet Visitor
'drop those Zyklon B pellets' Nev) wrote:
See ---
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20Jew,%20n.htm
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<pah3bv0h4ikqpstld...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >> What you would do if it was a reality, is too frightening to imagine
>> >> for that poor child. Having you for a grandfather... and hating him,
>> >> believing he is a pervert... while his choice in the matter did not
>> >> exist, nor should it be seen as any more different than being born
>> >> Black or Jewish or English.
>> >
>> >One is not 'born Jewish' anymore than one is 'born Cathy' or 'born Athiest'!!
>> >
>> Never has Ol' Racist Nev provided a comment which more clearly
>> proves he is a Nazi. He presumes that the Jew has a CHOICE
>> when being born. He states "One is not 'born Jewish" arguing that
>> a Jew can only BECOME a Jew by having made the choice when he
>> chooses to do so. His Nazi based meaning is == Ve nicht kill der
>> Juden... der Juden vanted to be kill... der Juden chose it == accompanied
>> by his right hand raised, palm facing out.
>>
>> The most fundamental principle of the law, is that one must have
>> made a CHOICE to commit the crime.
>
>Oh no!! The fuckWit punches himsen in the nads yet again!! I wouldn't
>equate 'Jewishness' with criminality, scum!!
>
Of course you would, Ol' 'drop the Zyklon B pellets' Nev! You
almost implied it was a _sin_ to be _born_ Jewish. Arguing that
one cannot BE born Jewish. You actually DENIED that the
ethnic heritage of the Jews, which has sustained them for more
than 2000 years still exists, and one can only be a Jew through
Religion. You presume that this Hebrew ethnic heritage has
become so diluted that no one can BE a Jew, unless they accept
the faith of Judaism. By their CHOICE. Your words were an
insult to every Jew who IS born a Jew. An insult to 'brain
dead bob.' A more evil and inhuman concept has never been
offered here. You DENY their existence except through a
religion. Thus, an Italian can only be a Catholic, if he is Catholic
through religion, in an extension of your thinking. An Italian is
an Italian even if a U.S. citizen, if his ethnic roots have not
become so diluted that he no longer can call himself an Italian.
He is an Italian by ethnic origin, an American by Nationality,
and a Catholic by religion (if that is his religion). All are
distinctly different concepts. It is no different from the Jew.
And the Jew, throughout this 2000 years, in spite of European
pogroms about every hundred years or so, which hoped to
wipe him off the face of that continent, has maintained this
ethnic connection, even when becoming a non-practicing
follower of Judaism. An atheist can be a Jew... IS a Jew...
if ethnic roots to a Hebrew descent exist. Clearly an Arab is
an ethnic origin, and can be a Muslim, a Christian or even
a Jew through a religious following. A Jew has an ethnic
origin, and can also be of any religion. You cannot DENY
that ethnic origin of the Jew. In fact, it is disgusting to even
presume you can, because so much effort has been made
by Europeans over the centuries to DO JUST THAT.
And the Jew NEVER permitted it to happen, because of
that inviolate ethnic connection to his Hebrew descent.
The meaning behind my words that "one must have made a
CHOICE to commit the crime," was to show that using
YOUR argument -- presuming that the Jew HAS a choice
in BEING a Jew, that such could contend that any law which
considers the Jew a criminal, could be argued as LEGAL...
because of the presumption that you make that the Jew
HAS A CHOICE. If the person HAS A CHOICE, it
can legally be made a crime, since they could have avoided
COMMITTING that crime. Thus the laws of the Nazis
could be argued as LEGAL, if they state it is a crime to
BE A JEW. Implying there IS such a choice in committing
that _crime_. You have in fact, JUSTIFIED the possibility
of the legality of the Nazis making it a crime to be a Jew,
you fucking Nazi supporter. Without such a choice, it
cannot be a crime. It cannot be a crime to BE BORN -- in
any particular way... either physically afflicted or through
blood. One is BORN innocent. One must COMMIT a
crime for it to be a crime. One can CHOOSE to be a
criminal. Thus there is a hint of legality when you argue that
by choosing to be a Jew... one also chooses to be a criminal.
And THAT'S THE VIEW OF A NAZI... Your view.
That they HAVE THIS CHOICE.
>Quick, FW, jot down a line to Mr Bormann to mek sure you never mek
>such a mistake in public again!!
>
There is no doubt who the Nazi is here. Since I claim there is no
stigma to being born a Jew... and you certainly implied that they
can only do so by CHOICE. Look at it this way... Now this is
an ANALOGY, dipshit... so do not presume I am equating
a Jew with homosexuality... it is simply an EXAMPLE of what
YOU would contend. Homosexuality is not something over which
one has a CHOICE. One is BORN with a certain sexual attraction
toward the same sex. Thus, to me it is not LEGAL to make it a
crime in ANY WAY to BE homosexual, since they have NO
CHOICE in the matter. It they presume to MAKE it a crime,
as the Nazis did with the Jews, it is an UNLAWFUL LAW
making it a crime. The Law itself which defines that crime is
NOT A LAWFUL LAW. Regardless of the thinking behind
it... it CANNOT be a lawful law. The same applies to being
born a Jew. One has no choice in the matter, thus it CANNOT
legally be made a crime. Thus every law of the Nazis which made
being a Jew a crime, regardless of the thinking behind the
creation of such a law, was UNLAWFUL. They may have still
executed Jews, but that was MURDER by the state (something
Europe is quite familar with), and cannot be a lawful penalty for
committing a crime, because the law establishing the crime was
ITSELF an unlawful law. The crime itself was unlawfully
declared to be a crime. Thus they CANNOT argue that they
executed as a lawful penalty, and did so legally... because there
was no lawful law which created the crime. The state having
passed a law providing for it did not matter, because the
law itself, which defined the crime was UNLAWFUL. You
would argue that such a law WAS lawful, since you contend the
Jew HAD A CHOICE in your view. Do you see how much of
a NAZI you are to make such an implication, Ol' 'drop the
Zyklon B pellets' Nev?
><snip>
>
>> is POSSIBLE to create a CRIME called "Jew," just as when
>> we create a crime called "Murder"... since he sees a choice involved
>> in being a Jew, as there is with the choice a murderer makes to
>> murder. Thus, he places the Jew in the same category as murderers,
>> thieves, rapists and all others who can make a choice as to who and
>> what they become.
>
>FW, you've really lost it, hant you?
>
Actually, it's you that has lost it, Ol' 'pass me the Zyklon B pellets' Nev.
You've totally lost your moral compass.
>It is you who have placed Jews "in the same category as murderers,
>thieves, rapists... "
>
Yes... the category of those WHO choose the acts they commit.
You argued the Jew CHOOSES the act of becoming a Jew. Every
bit as much as the murderer CHOOSES the act of becoming a
murderer.
>(Indeed, it seems you find all those who "make a choice as to who and
>what they become" are "in the same category" as criminal-types. You
>really are an evil old man. Get help, scum.)
>
Save your denials for when someone... anyone... might actually
believe you.
><snip>
>
>> My buddy Nev claims Jews CHOOSE to BE JEWISH.
>
>Well, they are certainly not born 'religious', scum.
>
No... but they can certainly be born 'Jewish,' scumbag.
>> And thus he justifies the Nazi laws making it a crime to BE Jewish, since he
> states they HAD a choice
>
>Hmmm... whilst I do not like teaching my Grandma to suck eggs, I fink
>you will find that the Nazis actually thought that one _is_ 'born
>Jewish'.
It is in the CRIME... you imbecile. They made it a CRIME to BE
Jewish. It is not LEGAL to make anything that you do not have a
choice in a crime. Regardless of the law itself, or what they
'thought.' YOU are arguing that the CRIME placed into LAW by
the Nazis could be argued as LEGAL, because YOU argue that they
have a choice. I can see that this would be YOUR DEFENSE at
the Nuremberg trial, I'm sure. You'd try to argue that the Jew had a
choice, and thus the law making it a crime was a lawful law. So
you were _just following lawful orders_. You fucking Nazi.
>You see, scum, like you they considered the Jews to be an ethnic
>group.
>
While you consider they have a CHOICE. Just as murderers
have a CHOICE when they commit murder. It is YOU who has
placed them in the same group as murderers. Those you presume
have a CHOICE.
Judaism, you moron, is the profession or practice of the Jewish religion; the
religious system or polity of the Jews. One does NOT have to practice
Judaism as a religion to BE A JEW. See my post to John Rennie,
in the distinction between Jews who have ethnic Hebrew roots, and
are Jews by virtue of those roots, regardless of what religion they
practice, and those who become Jews (can call themselves Jews) by
practicing the Religion of Judaism. Then see the definition I've provided
from the OED at the top. Those children born of those from
ethnic Hebrew descent ARE Jews, by birth. Those children born of
Jews who practice Judaism as a religion, but have no Hebrew descent
are born as non-Jews.
>I woz not born 'an Athiest' and you (although it is sometimes hard to
>believe) woz not born a Fundy. You may deny it, but is the truth.
>
That's because you were born an imbecile. And nothing has changed.
Ethnic roots, and religious choice are two separate concepts. The
fact that those practicing Judaism call themselves Jews, is no different
from those practicing Christianity, calling themselves Christians.
Or Iraqis calling themselves Muslim, if they practice Islam. But
YOUR ethnic roots are probably English, which has nothing to
do with your religious preference. The thing is that Jews can be
Jews EITHER through ethnic Hebrew descent, or through following
the religious practice of Judaism. But a Jew through ethnic Hebrew
descent can be of ANY religion, or no religion.
>HEREIN FIND THE PLOT, SCUM:
>
You've never had any _plot_ that doesn't involve hate for others,
scumbag.
>'The Hebrews' were just one 'tribe' [1] of people speaking a Semitic
>language in the Middle-East. It is not thought that they, or their
>non-Hebrew speaking Semitic neighbours were ethnically distinct from
>one another.
>
>Would you hold that a (Muslim) Palestinian is 'born Jewish'? The
>average Palestinian will certainly have more 'ethnic Hebrew' [1] blood
>coursing through his veins than yr average European (or Merkin) Jew.
>
You moron... the Arab tribe is not considered to have Hebrew roots.
You're just too stupid, and too Nazi oriented to even try to break
through that anti-Semitic skull of yours.
><snip>
>
>> desi can be positively benign at times compared to you...
>
>Oh yes, Desmond. Of course you laff at Desi [sic] for claiming one can
>be both Jewish and Irish!! You really are the worst kind of racist,
>scum, FuckWit.
>
Actually, that would be your Nazi 'pass me the Zyklon B pellets'
ravings here, sport.
><snip>
>
>> I solemnly promise you, Ol' Racist Nev... that I will recall your words that
>> "One is not 'born Jewish'" on various occasions in the future
>
>I should hope so: with any luck it'll serve to dilute yr vile
>Nazi-indoctrinated misinformation. How I pity you, scum.
>
Yeah, right... Ol' 'pass me the Zyklon B pellets' Nev says --
"One is not 'born Jewish'" You racist swine, offering an insult to
EVERY Jew who IS born Jewish. Next you'll be saying that
_One is not 'born Black" You presuming it is some sort of
affliction that must be avoided to be born Jewish or Black.
><snip>
>
>> The very concept of damnation was conceived by man's mind as suitable
>> punishment for those holding the wicked and unholy ideals you hold in
>> respect to different members of our species... Blacks and Jews, Ol' Racist
>> Nev. May fire and brimstone burn your evil soul in hell for an eternity.
>> Because there is no secular punishment which could possibly provide
>> justice for the heinous corruption displayed in your immoral ideals.
>
>LOL! You dopey Fundy.
How very articulate, Ol' Racist Nev.
PV
>
>
>
>Ol' Racist 'pass me those Zyklon B pellets' Nev
Meaningless post mumbling clipped
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
Wouldn't it be useful if we could really argue this incredibly important
question without abuse or ridicule which I admit I have been as guilty
of as any. I'll just make one rather banal seeming point, for a Jew
or one of Jewish descent, it's a matter of choice. Does s/he want
to be considered a Jew rather than an American, Brit etc? If s/he
does then let her study the history of Jews since say Nebuchanezzar.
It is both glorious and tragic. In so many ways the distinctiveness
of the Jewish race/religion has endowed he rest of the world with
great cultural riches. We all owe so much to Mahler,Einstein, Menuhin.
Rosalind Franklyn, and to countless millions of others because the
Jews have always maintained this thrust for self-improvement. Why?
Because of the various parlous circumstances that their exclusiveness
has forced them into. This exclusiveness has not allowed them to
integrate fully into the many communities that they have moved since
the Diaspora. I make the obvious point that this makes them the
ideal scapegoat when conditions demand one. Have things improved?
Is the need for scapegoats at an end? Are we more civilised than
our medieval forefathers? I don't think we are. I think public
opinion is more easily manipulated now than it ever was despite our
access to more genuine information than our ancestors could ever
have dreamt of. I have met Brits of Jewish descent who like Disraeli
made the choice of discarding Jewishness but without losing pride
in their descent. They undoubtedly consider themselves to be
British first.
Honest Nev
> >> >> What you would do if it was a reality, is too frightening to imagine
> >> >> for that poor child. Having you for a grandfather... and hating him,
> >> >> believing he is a pervert... while his choice in the matter did not
> >> >> exist, nor should it be seen as any more different than being born
> >> >> Black or Jewish or English.
> >> >
> >> >One is not 'born Jewish' anymore than one is 'born Cathy' or 'born Athiest'!!
<snip>
> >> The most fundamental principle of the law, is that one must have
> >> made a CHOICE to commit the crime.
> >
> >Oh no!! The fuckWit punches himsen in the nads yet again!! I wouldn't
> >equate 'Jewishness' with criminality, scum!!
> >
> Of course you would
I wouldn't. You just did though, scum.
<snip>
> You presume that this Hebrew ethnic heritage
There is no such ethnicity (in the genetic sense) as 'Hebrew'.
<snip>
> Thus, an Italian can only be a Catholic, if he is Catholic
> through religion, in an extension of your thinking.
Yep. Are you suggesting a baby can be born 'Catholic'?
<snip>
> You cannot DENY that ethnic origin of the Jew.
Indeed, a Jew can be of any ethnic group.
<snip more wank>
> If the person HAS A CHOICE, it can legally be made a crime, since they could > have avoided COMMITTING that crime.
On that basis, practising any religion could be made illegal, having
sex could be made illegal, having kids could be made illegal, reading
books could be made illegal.
You twat.
<snip>
> is a crime to BE A JEW. Implying there IS such a choice in committing
> that _crime_.
Being Jewish is not a crime, Nazi scum.
> You have in fact, JUSTIFIED the possibility
> of the legality of the Nazis making it a crime to be a Jew,
> you fucking Nazi supporter.
LOL! My choosing to have a cup of tea could thus be 'justifiably' made
illegal!!
You seem to fink making choices is a bad thing.
> Without such a choice, it
> cannot be a crime. It cannot be a crime to BE BORN --
But it can be a crime to give birth? Seeing as how one can choose to
get pregnant?
<snip>
> One is BORN innocent. One must COMMIT a
> crime for it to be a crime. One can CHOOSE to be a
> criminal. Thus there is a hint of legality when you argue that
> by choosing to be a Jew... one also chooses to be a criminal.
> And THAT'S THE VIEW OF A NAZI... Your view.
> That they HAVE THIS CHOICE.
For the last time, scum: choosing to be a Jew is not a criminal act.
<snip more bilge>
> ><snip>
> >
> >> My buddy Nev claims Jews CHOOSE to BE JEWISH.
> >
> >Well, they are certainly not born 'religious', scum.
> >
> No... but they can certainly be born 'Jewish,' scumbag.
Are you suggesting there is a Jewish 'race'?
> >> And thus he justifies the Nazi laws making it a crime to BE Jewish, since he
> > states they HAD a choice
> >
> >Hmmm... whilst I do not like teaching my Grandma to suck eggs, I fink
> >you will find that the Nazis actually thought that one _is_ 'born
> >Jewish'.
>
> It is in the CRIME... you imbecile. They made it a CRIME to BE
> Jewish. It is not LEGAL to make anything that you do not have a
> choice in a crime.
You twat, I've just told you: the Nazis thought one woz 'born
Jewish'!!
> Regardless of the law itself, or what they
> 'thought.' YOU are arguing that the CRIME placed into LAW by
> the Nazis could be argued as LEGAL, because YOU argue that they
> have a choice. I can see that this would be YOUR DEFENSE at
> the Nuremberg trial, I'm sure. You'd try to argue that the Jew had a
> choice, and thus the law making it a crime was a lawful law. So
> you were _just following lawful orders_. You fucking Nazi.
Poor, FW. You seem to fink it's okay to kill commies, coz they had a
choice to become commies.
> >You see, scum, like you they considered the Jews to be an ethnic
> >group.
> >
> While you consider they have a CHOICE. Just as murderers
> have a CHOICE when they commit murder. It is YOU who has
> placed them in the same group as murderers. Those you presume
> have a CHOICE.
FW's gone loop the bloody loop!!
Everybody meks choices all the time, 6 billion people mek choices
everyday! It is you who selected 'murderers' from 'the ether', scum
(and how very telling that _choice_ woz Fundy-Boy)!!
Honestly, FW---- LMAO!!
<snip>
> >I woz not born 'an Athiest' and you (although it is sometimes hard to
> >believe) woz not born a Fundy. You may deny it, but is the truth.
> >
> That's because you were born an imbecile. And nothing has changed.
> Ethnic roots, and religious choice are two separate concepts. The
> fact that those practicing Judaism call themselves Jews, is no different
> from those practicing Christianity, calling themselves Christians.
> Or Iraqis calling themselves Muslim, if they practice Islam. But
> YOUR ethnic roots are probably English,
There is no such ethnicity (genetically speaking) as 'English'.
<snip>
> >HEREIN FIND THE PLOT, SCUM:
> >
> You've never had any _plot_ that doesn't involve hate for others,
> scumbag.
>
> >'The Hebrews' were just one 'tribe' [1] of people speaking a Semitic
> >language in the Middle-East. It is not thought that they, or their
> >non-Hebrew speaking Semitic neighbours were ethnically distinct from
> >one another.
> >
> >Would you hold that a (Muslim) Palestinian is 'born Jewish'? The
> >average Palestinian will certainly have more 'ethnic Hebrew' [1] blood
> >coursing through his veins than yr average European (or Merkin) Jew.
> >
> You moron... the Arab tribe is not considered to have Hebrew roots.
> You're just too stupid, and too Nazi oriented to even try to break
> through that anti-Semitic skull of yours.
You twat... they both spoke/speak Semitic languages, scum. Arabic is a
Semitic language.
> ><snip>
> >
> >> desi can be positively benign at times compared to you...
> >
> >Oh yes, Desmond. Of course you laff at Desi [sic] for claiming one can
> >be both Jewish and Irish!! You really are the worst kind of racist,
> >scum, FuckWit.
> >
> Actually, that would be your Nazi 'pass me the Zyklon B pellets'
> ravings here, sport.
"Let's see -- so far we have you as 'born in Scotland' (which MAKES
you Scottish BTW - As defined in the OED), while claiming to be Irish,
Jewish... " [2]
You seem to suggest Desmond cannot be Irish or Jewish as he woz born
in Scotland!! I believe he is on the record as saying he has an Irish
parent... and yet you fink that one is born 'Jewish' if an ancestor
from 2500 years ago woz Jewish?
Wot pitiful double standards you assume in yr evil mitherings!!
<racism, anti-Semitism, and general wank snipped>
> >> The very concept of damnation was conceived by man's mind as suitable
> >> punishment for those holding the wicked and unholy ideals you hold in
> >> respect to different members of our species... Blacks and Jews, Ol' Racist
> >> Nev. May fire and brimstone burn your evil soul in hell for an eternity.
> >> Because there is no secular punishment which could possibly provide
> >> justice for the heinous corruption displayed in your immoral ideals.
> >
> >LOL! You dopey Fundy.
>
> How very articulate
Isn't it?
Yrs,
As ever,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
A Planet Visitor
Not at all. They had one nationality and one ethnic origin. And
whatever religion they might have practiced. A Jew is NOT a
nationality. It is an ethnic origin AND a religion, depending upon
the circumstances. One can be a gentile and convert to Judaism,
and call himself a Jew... his children will be gentiles, until or if
they _convert_. But he and they will never be _ethnic_ Jews.
That belongs to those of Hebrew descent, and has NOTHING
to do with the religion they follow. They are Jews, just as Italians
are Italians. And their children will be Jews, just as the children
of Italians will be Italian even if they hold other Nationalities.
Over the years, that ethnic descent might be diluted enough
that one no longer recognizes himself as having such an ethnic
origin, and it can become lost. This happens more frequently
in the U.S., because we are immigrants to begin with.
.The State of Israel is formed under Judaic principles, but not
all citizens of Israel are Jews. We associate Israel with
the Jew since it was formed for the purpose of settling the Jew,
but being a Jewish citizen does not make one a Jew. There are
Christians and Arabs who are citizens of Israel. The State of
Saudi Arabia is formed under Islamic principles, but even
assuming every citizen is Muslim, are they not ALSO Saudi
Arabian? And Arab? See how they are ALL THREE? And
Arab is just as much a distinct _ethnic_ origin as the _Jew_
when it is viewed as his _ethnic_ origin. All are different
characteristics of who we are. Americans are more aware
of this distinction since we all come from different ethnic
origins except for Native American Indians, who themselves
have an ethnic origin of American Indian. But as I said,
although Americans are aware of it, it often becomes
diluted because of the intermarriage between other
_ethnic_ origins, which is not as prevalent in Europe,
because the nations mostly consist of that same ethnic
origin as the Nationality (for example most Italian citizens
marry other Italian citizens and no dilution occurs). Americans
have a great interest in this lately, and may web sites are
devoted to search for genealogical roots. You will find
web pages, where people post their linage, in the hope
that others will read them and provide some connection.
For example, John... go to your nearest Chinese restaurant..
if the owner is Chinese, and a British citizen as well, is he
ONLY British? Of course not. The fact is that the Jew
has maintained his ethnic origin, which being from Hebrew
descent through many centuries. Is there an Italian race?
A German race? We are all the human race... but we
have more than the citizenship of Nationality from the blood
of our ancestors. There are definite characteristics we
associate with those from different ethnic backgrounds...
those Italians with Roman-noses... Germans with strong jaws.
Irish with small wangs -- :-)
> Let's try you on this one
>Mayor Guliani (sp) born in America is also an Italian? BTW
>Disraeli hotly denied that he was a Jew although he was proud of
>his forbears.
>
Yes, Mayor Guliani is of Italian descent... thus he is _ethnic_
Italian, American Nationality, and Catholic religion (I believe).
There are many Jews who deny their ethnic origin... why do
you think that is? Do you believe because they are ashamed of
it,or because of what they often find is the stigma attached to it?
There was a term in the U.S., in the 1940s, called 'high yellow.'
It was what Blacks applied to other Blacks who were light skinned
and tried to pass for Whites. It was both meant as an insult,
and also as something desirable. Why do you think they tried to
deny THEIR ethnic origin? I'll leave that question for the final
exam.
> >Sharon
>> is an Israeli and a Jew. Arafat is both a Palestinian and an Arab.
>> Jordan's King Abdullah is both a Jordanian and an Arab. The Saudi
>> ruling clan are all Saudi Arabian and Arab. Qadhafi is both Libyan
>> and an Arab. Mubarak is both Egyptian and Arab.
>
>You have departed to that region you love so well off the edge of
>the world and when you do so you expose your ignorance more
>effectively than doggie, Nev or I ever could. Palestinians, Jordanians,
>Libyans and Egytians ARE Arabs just as the British, French
>anf Germans are Europeans.
>
What the fuck are you talking about? Of course they are as you
say... but Arab is an ETHNIC descent. From various Semitic
tribes, not of Hebrew descent. Are you saying that a Libyan
cannot be an Arab... or that he cannot be a Libyan? Since if
you argue he can't be both, he must be one or the other. And
you've just said he is an Arab (which isn't actually accurate since
being a Libyan does not insure being an Arab). Which is he, to
you? Europeans have VARIED ETHNIC descents. Do your
really think the Italian, descended from Romulus, can claim he
is also descended from the Teutonic race as the German? See -
http://www.ryerson.ca/vtoronto/wwwsite/themes/popdemo/html/ethitaly.htm
And see that Italian ETHNIC ORIGIN is still tracked for this who
are Canadian citizens living in Toronto. Calling an Italian a
German might not sit too well with him, and vice-versa.
>I snipped the rest of some very silly arguments to spare you
>embarrassment.
I doubt that seriously... So please do not imitate some others here, and
claim victory from the ashes of defeat, since the OED rather confirms exactly
what I've said. See --
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20Jew,%20n.htm
Jew, n. 1.a. "A person of Hebrew descent; one whose religion is
Judaism' an Israelite."
Meeting ANY of those three makes one a Jew. You certainly cannot
claim that all THREE must be met to be a Jew, since that would of
a certainty demand ONLY those of Hebrew descent could be Jews.
PV
>
>
Honest Nev
> Wouldn't it be useful if we could really argue this incredibly important
> question without abuse or ridicule
I wouldn't get yr hopes up, Mister Rennie. I have taken the liberty of
snipping yr post and stating my own position. :-)
Basically my position is this:
1. One cannot be 'born religious'.
2. There never was a 'Hebrew Race'.
(Hebrew is a language not an 'ethnicity'. One cannot be 'descended
from a language'.)
3. If we humour FW, and take the notion of an 'ethnic Jew' seriously,
how do we deal with the following:
"How about the Semitic Jews who converted to other religions, are they
still descendents of Abraham? It is worth noting that many Jewish
tribes in Arabia, Yemen, Palestine, and Iraq converted to Christianity
and Islam." [1]
Thus FW could hold that a Palestinian Muslim is 'born Jewish'!!
4. How does an ancestor's religion (whether 2500 years ago, or
yesterday) matter to a modern-day descendent? Answer: it doesn't, at
least not to me.
Others disagree:
"Conversion to the religion means acceptance into the people, so that
the child born to a woman after she had converted to Judaism would be
born Jewish (by the first definition) while a child born before her
conversion would NOT be Jewish (the child would have to be
converted)."
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mjewish.html
Are we any the wiser, John?
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
[1] http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story418.html
^^^^
Quite an interesting site this, just found it.
John Rennie
news:<nS4ta.72$Fl4....@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>
> > Wouldn't it be useful if we could really argue this incredibly important
> > question without abuse or ridicule
>
> I wouldn't get yr hopes up, Mister Rennie. I have taken the liberty of
> snipping yr post and stating my own position. :-)
Be my guest. I shall do the same. By the time we've finished
no one will be able to follow us. :-)
>
> Basically my position is this:
>
> 1. One cannot be 'born religious'.
> 2. There never was a 'Hebrew Race'.
Agreed on both counts.
>
> (Hebrew is a language not an 'ethnicity'. One cannot be 'descended
> from a language'.)
yep!
>
> 3. If we humour FW, and take the notion of an 'ethnic Jew' seriously,
> how do we deal with the following:
>
> "How about the Semitic Jews who converted to other religions, are they
> still descendents of Abraham? It is worth noting that many Jewish
> tribes in Arabia, Yemen, Palestine, and Iraq converted to Christianity
> and Islam." [1]
And tribes roundabout the Black Sea who had never been near
Judea/Israel/The Promised Land converted to Judaism. How can
they be descendants of Abraham?
>
> Thus FW could hold that a Palestinian Muslim is 'born Jewish'!!
>
> 4. How does an ancestor's religion (whether 2500 years ago, or
> yesterday) matter to a modern-day descendent? Answer: it doesn't, at
> least not to me.
Or to me.
>
> Others disagree:
How anyone has the temerity to disagree with the both us
is beyond understanding.
>
> "Conversion to the religion means acceptance into the people, so that
> the child born to a woman after she had converted to Judaism would be
> born Jewish (by the first definition) while a child born before her
> conversion would NOT be Jewish (the child would have to be
> converted)."
>
> http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mjewish.html
>
> Are we any the wiser, John?
Give us a chance - I'm still working the above conundrum
out.
>
>
>
> Yrs,
> Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
>
> [1]
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story418.html
> ^^^^
> Quite an interesting site this, just found it.
Yes but it stopped a little short of a full explanation. Where
did the 10 commandments come from? Not from Moses,
not from some Exodus that never happened in the first place.
(This is accepted by not a few Israeli historians.) The Jews
or more correctly their ancestors were enslaved but not by
the Egyptians but by the Assyrians and taken to Babylon.
It is there that they absorbed the culture of the Assyrians which
in turn had been passed down from Sumeria, the cradle of
civilisation. The precepts behind the commandments were
encompassed by the Sumerian culture along with the study
of the heavens and many other advances in civilisation.
PV equates being born a Jew with being born a homosexual. Let us
accept his contention that the homosexual state is to do with genetic
inheritance (by no means proven). If he is correct there is nothing
that a homosexual can do about it - he's stuck with his genetic
inheritance. Not so with being born Jewish, British, Irish or
American. These terms are just labels. Three denote nationalities
and one merely denotes a religion as you put it. All four can be discarded
at will.
BTW I note that you found it quite easy to conduct a post without abuse
or ridicule. (The term FW aside that is).
French Ribbon Clerk
wrote:
{ snip }
> Basically my position is this:
>
> 1. One cannot be 'born religious'.
I think that humans have a 'genetic memory', capable of passing on
'learned' aspects of one's environment, so in that respect, I believe
that one can certainly be born 'predisposed' to religion
(environmental factors notwithstanding), just as some children are
born good at mathematics, some are born good at languages, and some
(like Jigsaw and FuckWit) are born good for nothing. Having said
that, I agree with the thrust of your argument, but believe that one
only needs to 'shift' ever so slightly the basis of the word
'religion' towards 'spiritual', and I find myself diametrically
opposed.
> 2. There never was a 'Hebrew Race'.
>
> (Hebrew is a language not an 'ethnicity'. One cannot be 'descended
> from a language'.)
Not quite, my lad. 'Hebrew' is also the word used to describe the
residents of the land that is (roughly) equivalent to the territories
of the disputed Palestine (usually taken to mean the area between the
Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, and comprising Israel, the Gaza
Strip, and a strip of Jordan), the ancient 'Kindgom of Judea'. The
word itself is of Latin and Greek origin, _hebraeus_, and _hebraios_,
and of course the Hebrew word _ibria_ *, 'he who comes from the other
side' (of a river).
The Hebrew races occupied that land as early as 2,000 BC, having
migrated from the Eastern edges of the Syrian desert. The land at
that time was Canaan (no, Jigsaw, that _isn't_ anything to do with a
fat, television series detective). From 1031 BC onwards, there was at
least _some_ sort of unity (more than at any time since the Exodus, at
any rate), this being the times of Kings Saul, David, and Solomon. I
believe that the claim of the 'Hebraic' is valid since at least AD 70,
the year of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (almost six hundred
years before the Hegira which gave birth to Islam, and which took
place AD 622, if my lessons at the knee of our imam in the Finchley
Mosque are any guide ...).
{ snip remainder as honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) is
valiantly trying to make FuckWit see reason, when we all know
that FuckWit is incapable of doing so }
* for the non-Hebraists among you, modern Hebrew has no vowels, only
22 consonants, so my 'romanisation' of the word, is consistent with
Hebrew as spoken in Palestine up to the Diaspora.
---
Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
French Ribbon Clerk (FRC)
Yamaha YZF-R1
url:http://www.fruffrant.com/gimmicks/
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr> writes:
>Subject: This is a Google-Free Post, Unlike FuckWit's [WAS: Re: 100,000
>homosexuals were
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 17:34:29 +0200
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1!bredband!news.t
ele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!acb078af
.ipt.aol.COM!not-for-mail
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: This is a Google-Free Post, Unlike FuckWit's [WAS: Re: 100,000
>homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis]
>Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 17:34:29 +0200
>Organization: Aucune
>Lines: 59
>Message-ID: <n11dbvcmemlctkhsb...@4ax.com>
>References: <577mav046lphiavj1...@4ax.com>
><lpqoav8t9vk9u5c8e...@4ax.com>
><njqqavksfvsuukm0l...@4ax.com>
><o4b1bvc4n50l9bjfl...@4ax.com>
><a5ec705.03050...@posting.google.com>
><pah3bv0h4ikqpstld...@4ax.com>
><a5ec705.03050...@posting.google.com>
><fb99bvg8q5ahb0853...@4ax.com>
><nS4ta.72$Fl4....@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net>
><a5ec705.03050...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: acb078af.ipt.aol.com (172.176.120.175)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1052148588 16738825 172.176.120.175 (16 [91468])
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) trialware
>
>
Dolly Coughlan Jr, the legend continues!
As Desi lies, the archive grows!
A Planet Visitor
>"John 'Antagonism' Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<nS4ta.72$Fl4....@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>
>(Hebrew is a language not an 'ethnicity'. One cannot be 'descended
>from a language'.)
>
ROTFLMAO. Never has Ol' Racist Nev proved his stupidity
more with those few words. In fact, let me say that NO ONE
has ever proved their stupidty more readily, using as few words as
Ol' Racist Nev used. It seems Ol' Racist Nev should achieve
some sort of recognition in Guinness.
PV
<rest of immaterial ravings clipped>
>
> Ol' Racist Nev
Dolly Coughlan Jr
>Subject: This is a Google-Free Post, Unlike FuckWit's [WAS: Re: 100,000
>homosexuals were
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 17:34:29 +0200
>
Dolly Coughlan Jr
>Subject: This is a Google-Free Post, Unlike FuckWit's [WAS: Re: 100,000
>homosexuals were
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 17:34:29 +0200
>
Honest Nev
<snip>
> > [1]
> http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story418.html
> > ^^^^
> > Quite an interesting site this, just found it.
>
> Yes but it stopped a little short of a full explanation. Where
> did the 10 commandments come from? Not from Moses
> not from some Exodus that never happened in the first place.
> (This is accepted by not a few Israeli historians.)
Wash yr mouth out!! FuckWit (aka Fundy-boy) will no doubt inform you
that 'everybody knows' that the commandments were transcribed directly
by Moses from the Word of God!! He will also tell you (in the
strongest possible terms) that the dinosaur-skeletons were buried in
the ground by Satan to test mankind's faith in God.
Repent, John, or the FuckWit will say something like:
"The very concept of damnation was conceived by man's mind as suitable
punishment for those holding the wicked and unholy ideals you hold...
May fire and brimstone burn your evil soul in hell for an eternity.
Because there is no secular punishment which could possibly provide
justice for the heinous corruption displayed in your immoral ideals."
*snigger*
> The Jews
> or more correctly their ancestors were enslaved but not by
> the Egyptians but by the Assyrians and taken to Babylon.
> It is there that they absorbed the culture of the Assyrians which
> in turn had been passed down from Sumeria, the cradle of
> civilisation. The precepts behind the commandments were
> encompassed by the Sumerian culture along with the study
> of the heavens and many other advances in civilisation.
Yr wasting yr time, John. FuckWit probably thinks the Normans were
'ethnic French'.
> PV equates being born a Jew with being born a homosexual. Let us
> accept his contention that the homosexual state is to do with genetic
> inheritance (by no means proven). If he is correct there is nothing
> that a homosexual can do about it - he's stuck with his genetic
> inheritance. Not so with being born Jewish, British, Irish or
> American. These terms are just labels. Three denote nationalities
> and one merely denotes a religion as you put it. All four can be discarded
> at will.
'British' is a good example as far as I am concerned: I do not feel
even the slightest bit British. I reject the notion of a 'British
identity' completely. And yet by birth I am a Britisher.
I would like to add that a child may be 'brought up' with certain
religious/cultural teachings which it is not so easy to discard. They
were not born that way, and yet neither did they actively _choose_ to
be that way. I suppose they just feel that they _are_ that way,
(although genetics plays no part in it whatsoever).
It is surely akin to the bloke with a particular fetish-- say
high-heels--; now no one would suggest that a baby is born with a
shoe-fetish, but nor does he _choose_ to become a shoe-fetishist, he
just does, and he is.
A good example on a.a.d-p at the moment would be Jiggy: we can be sure
that Jiggy was not born with a Desi-fetish, but look at him now: he
cannot help himsen. No doubt it all seems quite natural to him.
It is thus with a pinch of salt (and some pity) that I read FuckWit
claiming he woz 'born a Catholic Deist'; and thence went on to become
French by 'inseminating' his poor missus.
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
"Do your really think the Italian, descended from Romulus, can claim
he is also descended from the Teutonic race as the German?"
A Planet Visitor
(LMAO!! Poor FuckWit, scotched again!!)
A Planet Visitor
almost having a stroke in his defense of anti-Semitism wrote:
Good God... save AADP from this raging maniac. This post of his is just
so fucking insane that it requires nothing other than that observation.
The man's a lunatic... with drool forming at his lips and arms flaying
about hysterically. There is absolutely no way that one can respond
to such maniac ravings. Since one gets physically ill just reading it.
I actually pictured him clutching his chest and frantically looking for a
nitro pill. BTW -- He hates Jews as well.
PV
Honest Nev
> Good God... save AADP from this raging maniac. This post of his is just
> so fucking insane that it requires nothing other than that observation.
> The man's a lunatic... with drool forming at his lips and arms flaying
> about hysterically. There is absolutely no way that one can respond
> to such maniac ravings. Since one gets physically ill just reading it.
> I actually pictured him clutching his chest and frantically looking for a
> nitro pill. BTW -- He hates Jews as well.
TRANSLATION: "Fuck!! Nev's spanked me again! 1-0 to young Neville"
<snip>
Be so good as to explain the following (without fibbing if poss.):
> >"Do your really think the Italian, descended from Romulus, can claim
> >he is also descended from the Teutonic race as the German?"
> > A Planet Visitor
(you owe us that much at least, Jew-hating scum).
Yrs
N. FitzHerbert, esq.
"... especially when I find you defending Ol' Racist Nev... Making
apologizes for the devil never bodes well for the one making those
apologies."
A Planet Visitor (2003)
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<fb99bvg8q5ahb0853...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >> >> What you would do if it was a reality, is too frightening to imagine
>> >> >> for that poor child. Having you for a grandfather... and hating him,
>> >> >> believing he is a pervert... while his choice in the matter did not
>> >> >> exist, nor should it be seen as any more different than being born
>> >> >> Black or Jewish or English.
>> >> >
>> >> >One is not 'born Jewish' anymore than one is 'born Cathy' or 'born Athiest'!!
>
><snip>
>
>> >> The most fundamental principle of the law, is that one must have
>> >> made a CHOICE to commit the crime.
>> >
>> >Oh no!! The fuckWit punches himsen in the nads yet again!! I wouldn't
>> >equate 'Jewishness' with criminality, scum!!
>> >
>> Of course you would
>
>I wouldn't. You just did though, scum.
>
ROTFLMAO... Typical kindergarten response of 'you did.'-- 'no
you did,'-- 'no YOU did.' What an imbecile you are. What a
hopeless fop... having not the slightest ability to form a meaningful
comment.
><snip>
>
>> You presume that this Hebrew ethnic heritage
>
>There is no such ethnicity (in the genetic sense) as 'Hebrew'.
>
ROTFLMAO.. Sure, Ol' Racist Nev... although you are as full of
shit as a Christmas Goose, you keep believing that.
><snip>
>
>> Thus, an Italian can only be a Catholic, if he is Catholic
>> through religion, in an extension of your thinking.
>
>Yep. Are you suggesting a baby can be born 'Catholic'?
>
Not at all, since Catholic is SOLELY a religion, while a Jew
can be either one who has a Hebrew descent, OR has accepted
Judaism as his religion. That duality doesn't exist in the
Catholic religion, of course. Are you suggesting that a
person can't be born Black? Since that's the question,
not that one can be born having a particular religion.
In fact, a Jew can be an Atheist. Ask the Nameless One.
><snip>
>
>> You cannot DENY that ethnic origin of the Jew.
>
>Indeed, a Jew can be of any ethnic group.
>
Of course, as a religion. But a Jew does not have to practice Judaism.
One who is of Hebrew descent is by definition a Jew regardless of his
religious orientation.
><snip more wank>
>
>> If the person HAS A CHOICE, it can legally be made a crime, since they could
> have avoided COMMITTING that crime.
>
>On that basis, practising any religion could be made illegal, having
>sex could be made illegal, having kids could be made illegal, reading
>books could be made illegal.
>
What are you talking about, you ignorant shit? Of course practicing
any religion can be made illegal... it is in fact done in certain countries.
And certainly those other things COULD be made illegal, although it
would last only one generation. We are not a species of leemings,
thus we realize not having sex or having children will only result in our
quick disappearance as a species.
>You twat.
>
Oh.... you really hurt me, Ol' Racist Nev... maybe you'll send your
_mates_ to Florida, to make sure I _swim with the other boots_ in
one of our canals.
><snip>
>
>> is a crime to BE A JEW. Implying there IS such a choice in committing
>> that _crime_.
>
>Being Jewish is not a crime, Nazi scum.
>
I never said it was. Only you have implied that it CAN BE
a crime, since you claim they HAVE A CHOICE. Which is
a condition of the possibility of committing a crime. Having
no choice CANNOT BE A CRIME. That's rather a fundamental
principle of the law, which the Nazis simply ignored. And
you support them ignoring it, by arguing that ALL Jews HAD
a choice.
>> You have in fact, JUSTIFIED the possibility
>> of the legality of the Nazis making it a crime to be a Jew,
>> you fucking Nazi supporter.
>
>LOL! My choosing to have a cup of tea could thus be 'justifiably' made
>illegal!!
>
I suppose it could. Although it has not a fucking thing to
do with the course of this argument...thus you're just
blowing smoke.
>You seem to fink making choices is a bad thing.
>
Not at all... if they are GOOD choices. Making a choice to murder
I would suspect is NOT a GOOD choice. Making a choice
to be a Jew, when born a Gentile is a personal choice, that has
no aspect of whether it is good or bad... since it is a PERSONAL
choice that is not a crime to have chosen. My point is that
being born, of whatever -- Black, White, Jew, Arab... gives no
choice as to the conditions of your birth, and thus cannot be a
crime. Thus someone born a Jew CANNOT be a crime.
But given that you support the Zyklon B approach... you
suggest that no one IS born a Jew... and thus it's quite
permissible to MAKE it a crime (sic).. since they ALL have a
CHOICE not to commit that _crime_ (sic). Can you possibly
follow that reasoning... given that it's a bit more advanced
than "See Dick Run"?
>> Without such a choice, it
>> cannot be a crime. It cannot be a crime to BE BORN --
>
>But it can be a crime to give birth? Seeing as how one can choose to
>get pregnant?
>
What the fuck!!! Where do you come up with this shit? Being
BORN and GIVING BIRTH, are two entirely different
things. And your questions (???) are senseless. Can it be
a crime to give birth? Only if the state makes its so.
There is a choice there. I would certainly oppose any
such attempt to make it a crime. It's senseless to presume
it could be, since it simply spells the end of the species.
><snip>
>
>> One is BORN innocent. One must COMMIT a
>> crime for it to be a crime. One can CHOOSE to be a
>> criminal. Thus there is a hint of legality when you argue that
>> by choosing to be a Jew... one also chooses to be a criminal.
>> And THAT'S THE VIEW OF A NAZI... Your view.
>> That they HAVE THIS CHOICE.
>
>For the last time, scum: choosing to be a Jew is not a criminal act.
>
I never said it was, racist pig. It is YOUR view that EVERY
Jew has a CHOICE. Isn't that also what EVERY CRIMINAL
has? So YOU are equating the Jew making a choice, with the
fact that a criminal makes a choice... The first to be a Jew,
the second to be a criminal. You are presuming they are the
SAME... because they BOTH HAVE a choice. Thus, using
YOUR logic, not mine (since I state that Jews can be BORN
Jews), the state can make it a crime to CHOOSE to be a
Jew, just as the state can make it a crime to CHOOSE to be
a criminal. Since you claim ALL Jews have a choice.. and
all criminals have a choice. But it is not POSSIBLE to make
it a crime to be BORN Jewish. Thus the laws of the Nazis
were UNLAWFUL on the face of it. They created LAWS
which were themselves unlawful. But you presume that ALL
Jews had a CHOICE. Thus you SUPPORT the laws of the
Nazis, presuming they could be LAWFUL LAWS... since you
argue ALL Jews have a choice to AVOID committing the
_crime_ (sic) that the Nazis placed into law. Just as all
criminals have a choice to AVOID committing their crime.
><snip more bilge>
>
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> My buddy Nev claims Jews CHOOSE to BE JEWISH.
>> >
>> >Well, they are certainly not born 'religious', scum.
>> >
>> No... but they can certainly be born 'Jewish,' scumbag.
>
>Are you suggesting there is a Jewish 'race'?
>
No.. I'm clearly stating their is an ethnic race called the Jew...
one who traces his roots from Hebrew descent... see
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20Jew,%20n.htm
Whether one wishes to attribute "race" to such an ethnic
descent is rather arbitrary... since "race" itself is a rather
arbitrary handle. But strictly speaking it is not improper to
speak of the Jewish race -- See again
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20race,%20n_2.htm
The definition in the English language for "race" is primarily --
"A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common
descent or origin." Nothing in their about "color of skin." In
fact, if you look at that definition, it doesn't even MENTION
the word "color," except in three quotes... nowhere in the
definitions itself. Although I understand that "skin color" has
some very distinctive meaning in the context of "race." One
can most certainly define an ethnic Italian as from the Italian
"race." Shit, I've known MANY Italians in my life.. my life
has been closely intertwined with many ethnic Italians, and many
of them would proudly assert they are a "race" of Italians..
even after living in the U.S. for a generation. Being of ANY
particular race is nothing to be ashamed of. Only bigots and
racists believe it is. Ummmm... gee.... that sounds like you.
>> >> And thus he justifies the Nazi laws making it a crime to BE Jewish, since he
>> > states they HAD a choice
>> >
>> >Hmmm... whilst I do not like teaching my Grandma to suck eggs, I fink
>> >you will find that the Nazis actually thought that one _is_ 'born
>> >Jewish'.
>>
>> It is in the CRIME... you imbecile. They made it a CRIME to BE
>> Jewish. It is not LEGAL to make anything that you do not have a
>> choice in a crime.
>
>You twat, I've just told you: the Nazis thought one woz 'born
>Jewish'!!
>
So what? You've argued that they had a CHOICE. I argue that
the Nazi laws were UNLAWFUL, because they had no choice.
You presume by claiming they had a choice that those laws could
be lawful. You're the one who wants to supports the Nazi
laws... not me.
>> Regardless of the law itself, or what they
>> 'thought.' YOU are arguing that the CRIME placed into LAW by
>> the Nazis could be argued as LEGAL, because YOU argue that they
>> have a choice. I can see that this would be YOUR DEFENSE at
>> the Nuremberg trial, I'm sure. You'd try to argue that the Jew had a
>> choice, and thus the law making it a crime was a lawful law. So
>> you were _just following lawful orders_. You fucking Nazi.
>
>Poor, FW. You seem to fink it's okay to kill commies, coz they had a
>choice to become commies.
>
Not at all... you must be taking lessons from spike. You certainly
can't extrapolate your nonsense from my words. I don't think it's
okay to kill ANYONE. But I accept that my state can choose to
execute certain murderers. I would certainly never accept that they
execute ALL murderers... nor that they execute ANYONE other
than those few selected murderers. I am speaking of what CAN
be... not what I support, you racist shithead. And you certainly
went out into left field with a totally unconnected comment, which
shows me you haven't a clue. Just as when I said "murderers," and
spike suddenly wanted to string up all the "unemployed or ill."
Certainly the state has a right to make Communism a crime, if
it finds that the existence of that state is threatened to such an
extent that it becomes necessary to do so. But "kill commies."
Get a fucking life. And quit going into never-never land.
>> >You see, scum, like you they considered the Jews to be an ethnic
>> >group.
>> >
>> While you consider they have a CHOICE. Just as murderers
>> have a CHOICE when they commit murder. It is YOU who has
>> placed them in the same group as murderers. Those you presume
>> have a CHOICE.
>
>FW's gone loop the bloody loop!!
>
You mean because I've demonstrated that you'd like to drop the
Zyklon B? Sorry about that.
>Everybody meks choices all the time, 6 billion people mek choices
>everyday! It is you who selected 'murderers' from 'the ether', scum
>(and how very telling that _choice_ woz Fundy-Boy)!!
>
The fact is that the state can make those choices crimes, if it
chooses to do so. To presume otherwise is to presume that
one may make a choice to murder, and the state can do nothing
about it... because they chose to do so. When one CHOOSES
to commit what the state has made a crime, they have necessarily
broken a lawful law. But the state, conversely, CANNOT make
a law which makes it a crime for something that one HAS NO
CHOICE. That of being born a particular way... for example.
They can MAKE such a law, of course... but doing so is simply
making an UNLAWFUL LAW... it has no meaning. They can
even execute under such an unlawful law... but when they do
that is NOT a lawful execution, it is murder. No different than
a vigilante group that grabs up a citizen and hangs him, without
an lawful law behind such a hanging.
>Honestly, FW---- LMAO!!
Sorry that I went beyond "See Dick run" methodology. I figured
you'd be lost.
><snip>
>
>> >I woz not born 'an Athiest' and you (although it is sometimes hard to
>> >believe) woz not born a Fundy. You may deny it, but is the truth.
>> >
>> That's because you were born an imbecile. And nothing has changed.
>> Ethnic roots, and religious choice are two separate concepts. The
>> fact that those practicing Judaism call themselves Jews, is no different
>> from those practicing Christianity, calling themselves Christians.
>> Or Iraqis calling themselves Muslim, if they practice Islam. But
>> YOUR ethnic roots are probably English,
>
>There is no such ethnicity (genetically speaking) as 'English'.
>
ROTFLMAO. You ignorant shit.
><snip>
>
>> >HEREIN FIND THE PLOT, SCUM:
>> >
>> You've never had any _plot_ that doesn't involve hate for others,
>> scumbag.
>>
>> >'The Hebrews' were just one 'tribe' [1] of people speaking a Semitic
>> >language in the Middle-East. It is not thought that they, or their
>> >non-Hebrew speaking Semitic neighbours were ethnically distinct from
>> >one another.
>> >
>> >Would you hold that a (Muslim) Palestinian is 'born Jewish'? The
>> >average Palestinian will certainly have more 'ethnic Hebrew' [1] blood
>> >coursing through his veins than yr average European (or Merkin) Jew.
>> >
>> You moron... the Arab tribe is not considered to have Hebrew roots.
>> You're just too stupid, and too Nazi oriented to even try to break
>> through that anti-Semitic skull of yours.
>
>You twat... they both spoke/speak Semitic languages, scum. Arabic is a
>Semitic language.
>
I never said it wasn't. But you are again demonstrating your stupidity.
The word anti-Semite is a relatively newly developed word, that has
a SPECIFIC MEANING in DEFINITION. Although both the Arab
and the Jew are Semitic... the WORD is ONLY applied to the Jew...
BY DEFINITION. You may not like it... I don't either.. but there it
is. One cannot be anti-Semitic if expressing hostility or opposed to
Arabs. One is a bigot, when doing so. You have no idea how
tired I get teaching you the English language. It becomes such a
thankless and useless job, since it seems to go in one ear and out the
other. But, nevertheless -- See
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20anti-Semitism.htm
You will find a very precise, SINGULAR meaning to that word -- which
is "One who is hostile or opposed to the Jews."
The word is of recent origin, coined about 1879, in literature which
was anti-Jewish, and it found its way into the language with that
express meaning, although it is understood that the Arab is also a
Semite. The word "anti-Semite" applies ONLY to the Jews.
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> desi can be positively benign at times compared to you...
>> >
>> >Oh yes, Desmond. Of course you laff at Desi [sic] for claiming one can
>> >be both Jewish and Irish!! You really are the worst kind of racist,
>> >scum, FuckWit.
>> >
>> Actually, that would be your Nazi 'pass me the Zyklon B pellets'
>> ravings here, sport.
>
>"Let's see -- so far we have you as 'born in Scotland' (which MAKES
>you Scottish BTW - As defined in the OED), while claiming to be Irish,
>Jewish... " [2]
>
Are you losing it again???
>You seem to suggest Desmond cannot be Irish or Jewish as he woz born
>in Scotland!! I believe he is on the record as saying he has an Irish
>parent... and yet you fink that one is born 'Jewish' if an ancestor
>from 2500 years ago woz Jewish?
>
My son.. I do not suggest that the Nameless One is or is not Jewish.
But he has CLAIMED to be. And he certainly does so as a function
of his birth... since he is a confirmed Atheist. Which confirms that
HE also believes that being Jewish can be a function of BIRTH, and
not of CHOICE. Thus, you should take it up with him.
>Wot pitiful double standards you assume in yr evil mitherings!!
>
><racism, anti-Semitism, and general wank snipped>
>
LOL... You really don't have a clue. Except I understand from
your underlying argument that _you don't like Jews_.
>> >> The very concept of damnation was conceived by man's mind as suitable
>> >> punishment for those holding the wicked and unholy ideals you hold in
>> >> respect to different members of our species... Blacks and Jews, Ol' Racist
>> >> Nev. May fire and brimstone burn your evil soul in hell for an eternity.
>> >> Because there is no secular punishment which could possibly provide
>> >> justice for the heinous corruption displayed in your immoral ideals.
>> >
>> >LOL! You dopey Fundy.
>>
>> How very articulate
>
>Isn't it?
>
I try to do my best. It's not easy when the group is filled with evil little
gnomes that all _hate the Jew_.
PV
>
>
> Ol' Racist Nev
>
>
>[1] http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3041083211d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=9zSF9.388578%24S8.7900795%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
Honest Nev
**** ****
**** Within, the FuckWit sez: ****
**** ****
**** "Being BORN and GIVING BIRTH, are two ****
**** entirely different things." ****
**** ****
**** You has been warned ****
A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<qnhubv80fi9bip7ck...@4ax.com>...
<snip>
> >> >Oh no!! The fuckWit punches himsen in the nads yet again!! I wouldn't
> >> >equate 'Jewishness' with criminality, scum!!
> >> >
> >> Of course you would
> >
> >I wouldn't. You just did though, scum.
>
> ROTFLMAO... Typical kindergarten response of 'you did.'-- 'no
> you did,'-- 'no YOU did.' What an imbecile you are. What a
> hopeless fop... having not the slightest ability to form a meaningful
> comment.
Well _you_ did, FW: you equted Jews with "murderers, thieves, rapists
and all others who can make a choice as to who and what they become".
I, on the other hand, equated Judaism with Catholicism and Athiesm.
<snip>
> >> Thus, an Italian can only be a Catholic, if he is Catholic
> >> through religion, in an extension of your thinking.
> >
> >Yep. Are you suggesting a baby can be born 'Catholic'?
> >
> Not at all, since Catholic is SOLELY a religion
Then why question this 'extension of my thinking'?
You silly old twat.
<snip>
> Are you suggesting that a person can't be born Black?
No. I'm saying one cannot be 'born Jewish'. How dim are you, FW?
<snip>
> >> You cannot DENY that ethnic origin of the Jew.
> >
> >Indeed, a Jew can be of any ethnic group.
> >
> Of course, as a religion. But a Jew does not have to practice Judaism.
> One who is of Hebrew descent is by definition a Jew regardless of his
> religious orientation.
Eh? So a Palestinian Muslim "who is of Hebrew descent is by definition
a Jew regardless of his religious orientation"?
> ><snip more wank>
> >
> >> If the person HAS A CHOICE, it can legally be made a crime, since they could
> > have avoided COMMITTING that crime.
> >
> >On that basis, practising any religion could be made illegal, having
> >sex could be made illegal, having kids could be made illegal, reading
> >books could be made illegal.
> >
> What are you talking about, you ignorant shit? Of course practicing
> any religion can be made illegal... it is in fact done in certain countries.
> And certainly those other things COULD be made illegal, although it
> would last only one generation. We are not a species of leemings,
> thus we realize not having sex or having children will only result in our
> quick disappearance as a species.
So it is perfectly acceptable to make Judaism illegal, in yr opinion?
<snip>
> >> You have in fact, JUSTIFIED the possibility
> >> of the legality of the Nazis making it a crime to be a Jew,
> >> you fucking Nazi supporter.
> >
> >LOL! My choosing to have a cup of tea could thus be 'justifiably' made
> >illegal!!
> >
> I suppose it could. Although it has not a fucking thing to
> do with the course of this argument...thus you're just
> blowing smoke.
Just because you have a choice to do something does not mean it can be
'justifiably' made illegal... elsewhere recently you've been telling
us about how a 'victimless crime' cannot exist: who is the victim when
one choose to become Jewish?
<snip>
> >> Without such a choice, it
> >> cannot be a crime. It cannot be a crime to BE BORN --
> >
> >But it can be a crime to give birth? Seeing as how one can choose to
> >get pregnant?
> >
> What the fuck!!! Where do you come up with this shit? Being
> BORN and GIVING BIRTH, are two entirely different
> things.
*guffaw*
> And your questions (???) are senseless. Can it be
> a crime to give birth? Only if the state makes its so.
> There is a choice there. I would certainly oppose any
> such attempt to make it a crime. It's senseless to presume
> it could be, since it simply spells the end of the species.
But you said: "If the person HAS A CHOICE, it can legally be made a
crime, since they could have avoided COMMITTING that crime."
Likewise, using yr logic, you could 'justifiably' outlaw sodomy, or
fly-fishing for brown trout, or speaking Yiddish, or... well pretty
much owt really.
> ><snip>
> >
> >> One is BORN innocent. One must COMMIT a
> >> crime for it to be a crime. One can CHOOSE to be a
> >> criminal. Thus there is a hint of legality when you argue that
> >> by choosing to be a Jew... one also chooses to be a criminal.
> >> And THAT'S THE VIEW OF A NAZI... Your view.
> >> That they HAVE THIS CHOICE.
> >
> >For the last time, scum: choosing to be a Jew is not a criminal act.
> >
> I never said it was, racist pig. It is YOUR view that EVERY
> Jew has a CHOICE.
Well.. yes and no... to clarify: one may be 'brought up' Jewish, and a
child has little choice in this matter, that does not mean they are
'born Jewish'.
> Isn't that also what EVERY CRIMINAL
> has? So YOU are equating the Jew making a choice, with the
> fact that a criminal makes a choice...
Ho ho ho! You did that, scum, and you won't ever forget it.
<stuff about "unlawful laws" snipped>
The Nazis persecuted Jehovah's Witnesses, were they 'justifiably'
persecuted in yr opinion?
> >> >> My buddy Nev claims Jews CHOOSE to BE JEWISH.
> >> >
> >> >Well, they are certainly not born 'religious', scum.
> >> >
> >> No... but they can certainly be born 'Jewish,' scumbag.
> >
> >Are you suggesting there is a Jewish 'race'?
> >
> No.. I'm clearly stating their is an ethnic race called the Jew...
> one who traces his roots from Hebrew descent...
Move dem feet, LDB!
<snip>
> Although I understand that "skin color" has
> some very distinctive meaning in the context of "race." One
> can most certainly define an ethnic Italian as from the Italian
> "race." Shit, I've known MANY Italians in my life.. my life
> has been closely intertwined with many ethnic Italians, and many
> of them would proudly assert they are a "race" of Italians..
What, "descended from Romulus" [sic]?
*guffaw*
> even after living in the U.S. for a generation. Being of ANY
> particular race is nothing to be ashamed of. Only bigots and
> racists believe it is. Ummmm... gee.... that sounds like you.
For clarification, I am lead to believe there are only three 'races'.
<snip>
> >> It is in the CRIME... you imbecile. They made it a CRIME to BE
> >> Jewish. It is not LEGAL to make anything that you do not have a
> >> choice in a crime.
> >
> >You twat, I've just told you: the Nazis thought one woz 'born
> >Jewish'!!
> >
> So what? You've argued that they had a CHOICE. I argue that
> the Nazi laws were UNLAWFUL, because they had no choice.
Out of interest, which Nazi law imparticular do you feel was unlawful?
> You presume by claiming they had a choice that those laws could
> be lawful. You're the one who wants to supports the Nazi
> laws... not me.
I'm not sure what 'law' you is talking about, FW, but yr idealogy is
100% cohesive with that of the Nazis.
<snip>
> Certainly the state has a right to make Communism a crime, if
> it finds that the existence of that state is threatened to such an
> extent that it becomes necessary to do so. But "kill commies."
> Get a fucking life. And quit going into never-never land.
The US has, in the past, sanctioned the 'execution' of many Commies.
<snip>
> >Everybody meks choices all the time, 6 billion people mek choices
> >everyday! It is you who selected 'murderers' from 'the ether', scum
> >(and how very telling that _choice_ woz Fundy-Boy)!!
> >
> The fact is that the state can make those choices crimes, if it
> chooses to do so.
Not even gonna try and extricate yoursen from that one, eh, FW? Banged
to rights and no mistake.
> To presume otherwise is to presume that one may make a choice to murder, and > the state can do nothing about it... because they chose to do so.
Murder is not illegal coz someone chooses to commit it, FW: it's coz
it involves murdering folk.
<snip>
> >> YOUR ethnic roots are probably English,
> >
> >There is no such ethnicity (genetically speaking) as 'English'.
> >
> ROTFLMAO. You ignorant shit.
Ho ho ho, go on then tell me how 'the Danish' and 'the English' differ
genetically... to form the 'English race' *chortle* and the... 'Danish
race' *guffaw*...
<snip>
> >You twat... they both spoke/speak Semitic languages, scum. Arabic is a
> >Semitic language.
> >
> I never said it wasn't. But you are again demonstrating your stupidity.
> The word anti-Semite is a relatively newly developed word, that has
> a SPECIFIC MEANING in DEFINITION. Although both the Arab
> and the Jew are Semitic... the WORD is ONLY applied to the Jew...
> BY DEFINITION. You may not like it... I don't either.. but there it
> is. One cannot be anti-Semitic if expressing hostility or opposed to
> Arabs.
The prefix 'anti-' may be applied to the adjective 'Semitic'. That's
how English works. Thus one can indeed be "anti-Semitic if expressing
hostility or opposed to Arabs".
> One is a bigot, when doing so. You have no idea how tired I get teaching you > the English language.
Indeed, I'll explain how a suffix works to you next week, scum.
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<8fvjbvk5nuoht7tk5...@4ax.com>...
>
>> Good God... save AADP from this raging maniac. This post of his is just
>> so fucking insane that it requires nothing other than that observation.
>> The man's a lunatic... with drool forming at his lips and arms flaying
>> about hysterically. There is absolutely no way that one can respond
>> to such maniac ravings. Since one gets physically ill just reading it.
>> I actually pictured him clutching his chest and frantically looking for a
>> nitro pill. BTW -- He hates Jews as well.
>
>TRANSLATION: "Fuck!! Nev's spanked me again! 1-0 to young Neville"
>
LOL... No, Ol' Racist Nev... it simply means exactly what it says... all
your pathetic one-line insults presumed as denials aside. And I notice
that you clipped it, as protection from having demonstrated it is exactly
as I stated.
><snip>
>
>Be so good as to explain the following (without fibbing if poss.):
>
>> >"Do your really think the Italian, descended from Romulus, can claim
>> >he is also descended from the Teutonic race as the German?"
>> > A Planet Visitor
>
>(you owe us that much at least, Jew-hating scum).
>
Actually, you again presume that calling me what YOU are, somehow
relieves you of the burden of your own Jew-hating. It does not, Ol'
Racist Nev. Since I well understand that BEING a Jew is nothing to
be ashamed of. While your implication is that it IS... because you
argue they could CHOOSE NOT to be a Jew... just as a criminal can
CHOOSE not to be a criminal. In fact, there is the subtle hint in
your words that you presume it IS A CRIME, to be a Jew... and they
do not have to _commit that crime_, since it is their CHOICE. Just
as it is the CHOICE of a criminal to commit a crime.
As to your silly request for what is patently obvious.. if such is beyond
you, no explanation on my part will ever satisfy you. But the Italians
and the French and others share the characteristic of different ethnic
roots and a language rooted in Latin, commonly referred to as
Romance languages, from the Roman. See --
url:http://www.june29.com/HLP/lang/Catalan/webcat2.html
While the Teutonic race is derived from a group of languages and
ethnic roots quite different. You will not find them on the URL I
have provided. Often called Germanic in source. Their ethnic
roots are quite different, and "ethnic" can be presumed
as "race," if one wishes to do so, since the definition provides for it. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20ethnic,%20a_%20and%20n.htm
ETHNIC -- "Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological."
PV
>Ol' Racist Nev
>
>
>"... especially when I find you defending Ol' Racist Nev... Making
>apologizes for the devil never bodes well for the one making those
>apologies."
> A Planet Visitor (2003)
Thank you for often reminded everyone.
Honest Nev
> >> Good God... save AADP from this raging maniac. This post of his is just
> >> so fucking insane that it requires nothing other than that observation.
> >> The man's a lunatic... with drool forming at his lips and arms flaying
> >> about hysterically. There is absolutely no way that one can respond
> >> to such maniac ravings. Since one gets physically ill just reading it.
> >> I actually pictured him clutching his chest and frantically looking for a
> >> nitro pill. BTW -- He hates Jews as well.
> >
> >TRANSLATION: "Fuck!! Nev's spanked me again! 1-0 to young Neville"
> >
> LOL... No, Ol' Racist Nev... it simply means exactly what it says... all
> your pathetic one-line insults presumed as denials aside. And I notice
> that you clipped it, as protection from having demonstrated it is exactly
> as I stated.
Actually I din't 'clip' any of the 'text' (I find yr neo-Nazi
mitherings disturbing but untimately far too stupid to muddy the
virginal purity, and unquestionable integrity of an 'Angelic One',
even by association).
I snipped the intros, but then I always do.
> ><snip>
> >
> >Be so good as to explain the following (without fibbing if poss.):
> >
> >> >"Do your really think the Italian, descended from Romulus, can claim
> >> >he is also descended from the Teutonic race as the German?"
> >> > A Planet Visitor
> >
> >(you owe us that much at least, Jew-hating scum).
> >
> Actually, you again presume that calling me what YOU are, somehow
> relieves you of the burden of your own Jew-hating. It does not, Ol'
> Racist Nev. Since I well understand that BEING a Jew is nothing to
> be ashamed of. While your implication is that it IS... because you
> argue they could CHOOSE NOT to be a Jew... just as a criminal can
> CHOOSE not to be a criminal. In fact, there is the subtle hint in
> your words that you presume it IS A CRIME, to be a Jew... and they
> do not have to _commit that crime_, since it is their CHOICE. Just
> as it is the CHOICE of a criminal to commit a crime.
I do wish you'd stop comparing Jews to criminals, FW.
> As to your silly request for what is patently obvious.. if such is beyond
> you, no explanation on my part will ever satisfy you. But the Italians
> and the French and others share the characteristic of different ethnic
> roots and a language rooted in Latin, commonly referred to as
> Romance languages, from the Roman. See --
> url:http://www.june29.com/HLP/lang/Catalan/webcat2.html
>
> While the Teutonic race is derived from a group of languages and
> ethnic roots quite different. You will not find them on the URL I
> have provided. Often called Germanic in source. Their ethnic
> roots are quite different, and "ethnic" can be presumed
> as "race," if one wishes to do so, since the definition provides for it. See --
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20ethnic,%20a_%20and%20n.htm
> ETHNIC -- "Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological."
>
> PV
Thank you for that excellent answer, FW...
1. Languages do not and should not be used as guides to 'ethnicity'
(in the sense of 'race'). If this was the case Hungarians would be
'ethnically' closer to the Sámis than to, say, the Rumanians.
You seem very confused about this concept, so if you want me to
explain, just ask.
2. Cannot Italians have kids with Germans? (p.s. chances are Italians
have a fair bit of Vandal/Lombard/Frankish blood in 'the pool' so the
answer is... ?).
3. Why would the Italians be "descended from Romulus" [sic] in any
case? (p.s. I think Romulus is a mythical figure, FW... go on, tell me
you were 'just trolling'... )
Oh, and btw... "... the Teutonic race is derived from a group of
languages..."
*guffaw*
Now... do one!
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
"Being BORN and GIVING BIRTH, are two entirely different things."
A Planet Visitor
A Planet Visitor
>**** Warning! ****
>**** ****
>**** Within, the FuckWit sez: ****
>**** ****
>**** "Being BORN and GIVING BIRTH, are two ****
>**** entirely different things." ****
>**** ****
>**** You has been warned ****
>
LOL... what a pea-brain... the inability to recognize the difference between "being
born" and "giving birth." Unfucking believable!!! Why am I wasting my time
with this imbecile? I must have a masochistic streak in me.
>
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<qnhubv80fi9bip7ck...@4ax.com>...
>
><snip>
>
>> >> >Oh no!! The fuckWit punches himsen in the nads yet again!! I wouldn't
>> >> >equate 'Jewishness' with criminality, scum!!
>> >> >
>> >> Of course you would
>> >
>> >I wouldn't. You just did though, scum.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO... Typical kindergarten response of 'you did.'-- 'no
>> you did,'-- 'no YOU did.' What an imbecile you are. What a
>> hopeless fop... having not the slightest ability to form a meaningful
>> comment.
>
>Well _you_ did, FW: you equted Jews with "murderers, thieves, rapists
>and all others who can make a choice as to who and what they become".
>
LOL... Murderers, thieves, rapists and all criminals are not BORN
criminals... thus Jews who are born Jews cannot be criminals. But
murderers, thieves, rapists and criminals CHOOSE to be what they are.
You've argued that Jews can ONLY CHOOSE to be what they are,
the SAME as criminals. YOU are comparing the Jew and criminals,
not me. Just as you argue that a Jew can ONLY choose to be a Jew..
a criminal can ONLY choose to be a criminal. It is YOU who has
compared Jews with criminals through arguing they have a CHOICE,
just as criminals have a choice.
>I, on the other hand, equated Judaism with Catholicism and Athiesm.
>
No.. you equated them with criminals who have a CHOICE to
be criminals. Arguing that the Jew CANNOT be born a Jew.
Why don't you ask the Nameless One if he became a Jew
because he CHOSE to be one?
><snip>
>
>> >> Thus, an Italian can only be a Catholic, if he is Catholic
>> >> through religion, in an extension of your thinking.
>> >
>> >Yep. Are you suggesting a baby can be born 'Catholic'?
>> >
>> Not at all, since Catholic is SOLELY a religion
>
>Then why question this 'extension of my thinking'?
>
Because you're a silly shit.
><snip>
>
>> Are you suggesting that a person can't be born Black?
>
>No. I'm saying one cannot be 'born Jewish'. How dim are you, FW?
>
What is the difference between one born Black and on born Jewish?
><snip>
>
>> >> You cannot DENY that ethnic origin of the Jew.
>> >
>> >Indeed, a Jew can be of any ethnic group.
>> >
>> Of course, as a religion. But a Jew does not have to practice Judaism.
>> One who is of Hebrew descent is by definition a Jew regardless of his
>> religious orientation.
>
>Eh? So a Palestinian Muslim "who is of Hebrew descent is by definition
>a Jew regardless of his religious orientation"?
>
According to the definition... one of Hebrew descent is a Jew.
You're again traveling down the road of stupidity, since the Arab is
generally not considered to have Hebrew roots. One may hide
from their descent, of course. In the past, some Blacks
have hid from their descent. There was once a name that Blacks
in the U.S. applied to those who could _pass for Whites_. They
called them "high yellow." It was both an insult, and a hint of
envy, because Blacks knew that _passing for White_ afforded
them better opportunities in a racist America. And an insult
because to the Black it sensed a denial of their roots.
>> ><snip more wank>
>> >
>> >> If the person HAS A CHOICE, it can legally be made a crime, since they could
>> > have avoided COMMITTING that crime.
>> >
>> >On that basis, practising any religion could be made illegal, having
>> >sex could be made illegal, having kids could be made illegal, reading
>> >books could be made illegal.
>> >
>> What are you talking about, you ignorant shit? Of course practicing
>> any religion can be made illegal... it is in fact done in certain countries.
>> And certainly those other things COULD be made illegal, although it
>> would last only one generation. We are not a species of leemings,
>> thus we realize not having sex or having children will only result in our
>> quick disappearance as a species.
>
>So it is perfectly acceptable to make Judaism illegal, in yr opinion?
>
I certainly didn't say that... and don't try to put those words in my
mouth. I've said it can be made illegal. That DOES NOT MEAN
I find it acceptable. The DP can be made LEGAL... does that mean
YOU accept it? What I find "acceptable" is a personal choice.
What I find others may consider legal, because THEY find it
"acceptable," is something entirely different.
><snip>
>
>> >> You have in fact, JUSTIFIED the possibility
>> >> of the legality of the Nazis making it a crime to be a Jew,
>> >> you fucking Nazi supporter.
>> >
>> >LOL! My choosing to have a cup of tea could thus be 'justifiably' made
>> >illegal!!
>> >
>> I suppose it could. Although it has not a fucking thing to
>> do with the course of this argument...thus you're just
>> blowing smoke.
>
>Just because you have a choice to do something does not mean it can be
>'justifiably' made illegal... elsewhere recently you've been telling
>us about how a 'victimless crime' cannot exist: who is the victim when
>one choose to become Jewish?
>
It certainly does mean it can be 'justifiably' made illegal. You are
confusing YOUR view, with the view of a group of people who
have formed a society that might feel quite differently than
you do, and can certainly 'justify' something as trivial as
banning tea drinking. What you or I think about it has no
meaning. You may not like it, I may not like it, but that actually
has no meaning in respect to 'justify.' What CANNOT be 'justified'
is presuming that one can be BORN a criminal. One cannot...
it is PHYSICALLY impossible.. morally impossible... legally
impossible. Thus ANY law which presumes to make being
BORN of a certain characteristic.. color, ethnic background,
physical disability, ANY distinct physical characteristic, CANNOT
be considered a LAWFUL law... regardless of any perception
that the members of such a society might find in making such
an UNLAWFUL LAW. Things which offer a choice can
be made unlawful. We certainly may not LIKE that they have
been made unlawful... We may even be repelled by seeing
them made unlawful, but in the end, it would seem that if
the people who live in a certain society wish NOT to have
such choices made available to them, they can forbid them.
Don't misunderstand and presume I SUPPORT them doing
so.. that is not my argument, of course.
><snip>
>
>> >> Without such a choice, it
>> >> cannot be a crime. It cannot be a crime to BE BORN --
>> >
>> >But it can be a crime to give birth? Seeing as how one can choose to
>> >get pregnant?
>> >
>> What the fuck!!! Where do you come up with this shit? Being
>> BORN and GIVING BIRTH, are two entirely different
>> things.
>
>*guffaw*
>
An admission that you have your head in your nether regions, I
presume? Do you contend that they are the SAME?
In fact, one is born at age zero. Can one GIVE BIRTH
at age zero? I am reminded of how stupid JPB can be at
times, and how I needed to remind him of how his logic
was distorted by making apologies to Lewis Carroll and
quoting --
"Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might
be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it is, it ain't. That's logic."
This sums up your inability to differentiate between being
born and giving birth.
>> And your questions (???) are senseless. Can it be
>> a crime to give birth? Only if the state makes its so.
>> There is a choice there. I would certainly oppose any
>> such attempt to make it a crime. It's senseless to presume
>> it could be, since it simply spells the end of the species.
>
>But you said: "If the person HAS A CHOICE, it can legally be made a
>crime, since they could have avoided COMMITTING that crime."
Quite right. Doesn't EVERY ACT contain a choice? In fact,
the only real act that doesn't give us a choice, is being BORN.
We are incapable of making such a choice. Another difference
between being born and giving birth... since we all know that
giving birth is BY choice.
>Likewise, using yr logic, you could 'justifiably' outlaw sodomy, or
>fly-fishing for brown trout, or speaking Yiddish, or... well pretty
>much owt really.
>
I do not JUSTIFY anything in the Law.. that property belongs
to those who are part of the society who establish such laws.
I may not agree with them. But that has no MEANING in
respect to 'justify.' In fact, I could ask you... why can they
NOT justify such laws? Your answer would be because YOU
don't find them to be justified. Nothing more than YOUR opinion.
Why can it not be justified IN THE LAW? Forget about
YOUR OPINION.
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> One is BORN innocent. One must COMMIT a
>> >> crime for it to be a crime. One can CHOOSE to be a
>> >> criminal. Thus there is a hint of legality when you argue that
>> >> by choosing to be a Jew... one also chooses to be a criminal.
>> >> And THAT'S THE VIEW OF A NAZI... Your view.
>> >> That they HAVE THIS CHOICE.
>> >
>> >For the last time, scum: choosing to be a Jew is not a criminal act.
>> >
>> I never said it was, racist pig. It is YOUR view that EVERY
>> Jew has a CHOICE.
>
>Well.. yes and no... to clarify: one may be 'brought up' Jewish, and a
>child has little choice in this matter, that does not mean they are
>'born Jewish'.
>
One does not HAVE to be 'brought up' Jewish, to be Jewish.
Of course, NOT being 'brought up' Jewish, has served to dilute
the Jewish ethnic background. Intermarriages tend to do
that. Just as the Italian who marries a Swede, whose child
immigrates to America and marries a Hispanic, who marries a
Black whose child marries an Oriental, will result in a child born
of such a union, who hardly recognizes he has Italian roots.
But he will certainly know he has Black and Oriental descent.
>> Isn't that also what EVERY CRIMINAL
>> has? So YOU are equating the Jew making a choice, with the
>> fact that a criminal makes a choice...
>
>Ho ho ho! You did that, scum, and you won't ever forget it.
>
Actually, only YOU have argued that Jews ONLY have a
CHOICE. And those who commit crimes have done so
ONLY through their choice.
><stuff about "unlawful laws" snipped>
>
>The Nazis persecuted Jehovah's Witnesses, were they 'justifiably'
>persecuted in yr opinion?
>
Once again... I do not make decisions as to 'justifiably.' I am
not God... as you presume yourself to be. Legally, they could
do so, if they offered them the choice of not committing
becoming Jehovah' Witnesses, to avoid 'committing that
crime.' Do I agree with them doing so. Don't be an ass...
of course not. They are the ones who need to JUSTIFY
their laws... I cannot do that for them. Personally I find it
not justified... but that doesn't amount to a hill of beans in
respect to the general question of COULD they justify
doing so in a legal sense.
>> >> >> My buddy Nev claims Jews CHOOSE to BE JEWISH.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, they are certainly not born 'religious', scum.
>> >> >
>> >> No... but they can certainly be born 'Jewish,' scumbag.
>> >
>> >Are you suggesting there is a Jewish 'race'?
>> >
>> No.. I'm clearly stating their is an ethnic race called the Jew...
>> one who traces his roots from Hebrew descent...
>
>Move dem feet, LDB!
>
The fact that you refuse to accept that there is.. speaks volumes
of your support for the Nazis.
><snip>
>
>> Although I understand that "skin color" has
>> some very distinctive meaning in the context of "race." One
>> can most certainly define an ethnic Italian as from the Italian
>> "race." Shit, I've known MANY Italians in my life.. my life
>> has been closely intertwined with many ethnic Italians, and many
>> of them would proudly assert they are a "race" of Italians..
>
>What, "descended from Romulus" [sic]?
>
>*guffaw*
>
>> even after living in the U.S. for a generation. Being of ANY
>> particular race is nothing to be ashamed of. Only bigots and
>> racists believe it is. Ummmm... gee.... that sounds like you.
>
>For clarification, I am lead to believe there are only three 'races'.
>
Many are led down the road of stupidity... you are simply among
them. One might as well argue that there is only 'one race,' the
human race. And it would be a wonderful world if that were the
case, and racial and ethnic differences melded into each of us
having the same racial and ethnic background. But we have
the realities of the world we live in. And we cannot ignore the
bigotry that there is in those who would express it, by simply
presuming it doesn't exist.
><snip>
>
>> >> It is in the CRIME... you imbecile. They made it a CRIME to BE
>> >> Jewish. It is not LEGAL to make anything that you do not have a
>> >> choice in a crime.
>> >
>> >You twat, I've just told you: the Nazis thought one woz 'born
>> >Jewish'!!
>> >
>> So what? You've argued that they had a CHOICE. I argue that
>> the Nazi laws were UNLAWFUL, because they had no choice.
>
>Out of interest, which Nazi law imparticular do you feel was unlawful?
>
The law which made it a crime to BE a Jew. The one you
support claiming the Jew could simply choose not the BE a Jew.
>> You presume by claiming they had a choice that those laws could
>> be lawful. You're the one who wants to supports the Nazi
>> laws... not me.
>
>I'm not sure what 'law' you is talking about, FW, but yr idealogy is
>100% cohesive with that of the Nazis.
>
Actually YOURS is. Since you would argue that Jews had a choice,
and thus could simply have AVOIDED the illegal laws of the Nazis,
when in fact they HAD NO CHOICE.
><snip>
>
>> Certainly the state has a right to make Communism a crime, if
>> it finds that the existence of that state is threatened to such an
>> extent that it becomes necessary to do so. But "kill commies."
>> Get a fucking life. And quit going into never-never land.
>
>The US has, in the past, sanctioned the 'execution' of many Commies.
>
Off into anti-American left field again, are we Ol' Racist Nev?
><snip>
>
>> >Everybody meks choices all the time, 6 billion people mek choices
>> >everyday! It is you who selected 'murderers' from 'the ether', scum
>> >(and how very telling that _choice_ woz Fundy-Boy)!!
>> >
>> The fact is that the state can make those choices crimes, if it
>> chooses to do so.
>
>Not even gonna try and extricate yoursen from that one, eh, FW? Banged
>to rights and no mistake.
>
Why should I? Are you presuming that you are GOD? That you
can make choices for OTHERS because of YOUR opinion?
For example, clearly Saudi Arabia can legally forbid the
practice of any religion but Islam. I don't like it.. you probably
don't like it... most of the Western world finds it reprehensible.
But we are speaking of lawful. They choose to do so... and
they are within their sovereign right to choose to do so. What they
CANNOT DO, is make it a crime to be BORN a Jew. If a Jew
is born in Saudi Arabia (how that could happen given that
I don't even know if any LIVE there I am not prepared to
address), the Saudis could FORBID the practice of Judaism
by that Jew born there. But they cannot LAWFULLY call that
Jew a criminal for being BORN a Jew. This is the difference
between the _ethnic birth_ that we are all part of, and the
religious CHOICES we make. The first cannot be made
UNLAWFUL... the second can be made unlawful... as
reprehensible as that seems to most of us.
>> To presume otherwise is to presume that one may make a choice to murder, and
> the state can do nothing about it... because they chose to do so.
>
>Murder is not illegal coz someone chooses to commit it, FW: it's coz
>it involves murdering folk.
>
ROTFLMAO.. If no one COMMITS it, you silly shit, there are no
'murdered folks.'
><snip>
>
>> >> YOUR ethnic roots are probably English,
>> >
>> >There is no such ethnicity (genetically speaking) as 'English'.
>> >
>> ROTFLMAO. You ignorant shit.
>
>Ho ho ho, go on then tell me how 'the Danish' and 'the English' differ
>genetically... to form the 'English race' *chortle* and the... 'Danish
>race' *guffaw*...
>
They don't differ that much. Some can trace their roots back very
far, and claim such separation, but most have intermingled so much
that differentiation is impossible. It would be a perfect world if it
were all thus. But that is ignoring the REALITIES of the world we
live in, and the fact that ethnic diversity DOES EXIST. You cannot
WISH it away, but maybe someday it WILL GO AWAY. And we
will be a better species when it, and if it, does. IMHO, if marriages
between those of the same race were made illegal, and only
interracial marriages permitted for one or two generations, the
world would be a better place in the end. This is obviously
impractical, unworkable and impossible... but I speak only of
the end result in respect to our species being better adapted
to the future at the end of that _experiment_. And only, IMHO.
I believe that dilution of racial and ethnic origins are a GOOD
THING. What I am not, however; is blind to the fact that they
DO exist today. And that prejudices exist because of it. Such
as the prejudice that you demonstrate by arguing that Jews
CANNOT be BORN JEWS.
><snip>
>
>> >You twat... they both spoke/speak Semitic languages, scum. Arabic is a
>> >Semitic language.
>> >
>> I never said it wasn't. But you are again demonstrating your stupidity.
>> The word anti-Semite is a relatively newly developed word, that has
>> a SPECIFIC MEANING in DEFINITION. Although both the Arab
>> and the Jew are Semitic... the WORD is ONLY applied to the Jew...
>> BY DEFINITION. You may not like it... I don't either.. but there it
>> is. One cannot be anti-Semitic if expressing hostility or opposed to
>> Arabs.
>
>The prefix 'anti-' may be applied to the adjective 'Semitic'. That's
>how English works. Thus one can indeed be "anti-Semitic if expressing
>hostility or opposed to Arabs".
>
It may very well... but it doesn't have that meaning. You cannot
INVENT meanings from yourself. They have to take on meaning
which OTHERS have accepted. You need to again check every
dictionary reference you come across and you will find that the
word "anti-Semite" has a SPECIFIC meaning against the Jew. In
fact to DENY that.. is anti-Semitic itself, since it is an attempt
to hide one's own anti-Semitism, IMHO. Again -- see the OED --
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20anti-Semitism.htm
Do you see any mention of 'Arab' in that definition? Do you
understand that the word developed FROM anti-Semitic
(against the Jew) literature of the late 19th Century? See -
url:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anti-Semite
url:http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
url:http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=3203&dict=CALD
url:http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=anti-Semite&matchtype=exact
url:http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col61&query=anti-Semite
url:http://www.askoxford.com/dictionary/anti-Semitic
url:http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn
ALL of those definitions do not contain the word "Arab," and
ALL contain the word "Jew."
>> One is a bigot, when doing so. You have no idea how tired I get teaching you
> >the English language.
>
>Indeed, I'll explain how a suffix works to you next week, scum.
>
*snigger* That's be the day, sport.
PV
>
>Ol' Racist Nev
A Planet Visitor
of believing I could break through the racist mind of Ol' Racist
Nev for the second time. I now realize that could never happen,
and further dialog with him, would only be like feeding a jackal,
and expecting him to reward you by caring for your child.
It is a hopeless task, whose only reward is to provide him a forum
to continue to spew out his poison, as reason will never be able
to penetrate his racist views..
Thus... I make my apologizes and will not continue to "feed the
jackal," after I respond to the six open posts I see directed toward
me that are still outstanding, using this same remark.
Any further communication with him from me... will simply be if
I feel like laughing at his simpleton views by providing the short
insults he so often deserves. There will be no dialogs which
presume I am arguing with a rational human being. It would
obviously a waste of time.
I presume that Ol' Racist Nev will declare victory... but that isn't
his or mine to declare... It rests on the reasoned mind that I cannot
believe would find reason in Ol' Racist Nev.
A Planet Visitor
Gentle reader -- Please allow me to apologize. I fell into the trap
of believing I could break through the racist mind of Ol' Racist
Nev for the second time. I now realize that could never happen,
and further dialog with him, would only be like feeding a jackal,
and expecting him to reward you by caring for your child.
It is a hopeless task, whose only reward is to provide him a forum
to continue to spew out his poison, as reason will never be able
to penetrate his racist views..
Thus... I make my apologizes and will not continue to "feed the
jackal," after I respond to the six open posts I see directed toward
me that are still outstanding, using this same remark.
Any further communication with him from me... will simply be if
I feel like laughing at his simpleton views by providing the short
insults he so often deserves. There will be no dialogs which
presume I am arguing with a rational human being. It would
obviously a waste of time.
I presume that Ol' Racist Nev will declare victory... but that isn't
his or mine to declare... It rests on the reasoned mind that I cannot
believe would find reason in Ol' Racist Nev.
PV
Honest Nev
> >**** Warning! ****
> >**** ****
> >**** Within, the FuckWit sez: ****
> >**** ****
> >**** "Being BORN and GIVING BIRTH, are two ****
> >**** entirely different things." ****
> >**** ****
> >**** You has been warned ****
> >
> LOL... what a pea-brain... the inability to recognize the difference
> between "being born" and "giving birth." Unfucking believable!!! Why am I
> wasting my time with this imbecile? I must have a masochistic streak in me.
Get that magazine down the back of yr britches now, scum, that's my
advice.
<snip>
> >Well _you_ did, FW: you equted Jews with "murderers, thieves, rapists
> >and all others who can make a choice as to who and what they become".
> >
> LOL... Murderers, thieves, rapists and all criminals are not BORN
> criminals... thus Jews who are born Jews cannot be criminals. But
> murderers, thieves, rapists and criminals CHOOSE to be what they are.
> You've argued that Jews can ONLY CHOOSE to be what they are,
> the SAME as criminals. YOU are comparing the Jew and criminals,
> not me.
"One is not 'born Jewish' anymore than one is 'born Cathy' or 'born
Athiest'!!"
You will note I compared Jews with Catholics and Atheists. This is
logical as Judaism is a religion.
You compared Jews with "murders, thieves, rapists" on the flimsy
pretence that thieves, etc. are not 'born thieves'.
"Yr neo-Nazi agenda comes to the fore again, FuckWit!"
But then, we've come too far now for you to admit yr jew-hating ways,
as shown when you made the comparison above.
> Just as you argue that a Jew can ONLY choose to be a Jew..
> a criminal can ONLY choose to be a criminal. It is YOU who has
> compared Jews with criminals through arguing they have a CHOICE,
> just as criminals have a choice.
Would any other posters like to comment on FW's predicament?
> >I, on the other hand, equated Judaism with Catholicism and Athiesm.
> >
> No.. you equated them with criminals who have a CHOICE to
> be criminals.
Poor, FW, _outright lying_ about things that are (luckily for 'Angelic
Ones') archived on 'Google'.
> Arguing that the Jew CANNOT be born a Jew. Why don't you ask the Nameless One > if he became a Jew because he CHOSE to be one?
I'm only guessing, but as Desmond has said his mother was Jewish, he
(in the tradition of 'orthodox jewry') considers himsen Jewish as the
son of a Jewish mother.
I don't agree with this/his position, but then his personal bidness is
none of my bidness.
What I find most illogical about this 'orthodox position' is that one
born to a Jewish father (but a non-Jewish mother) is _not a Jew_, thus
Desmond's kids are not (according to 'orthodox Jews') 'born Jewish'
even though one of his ancient ancestors may have spoken Hebrew in
what is now called 'Israel'
Interestingly one born to a mother after she has _converted_ to
Judaism is considered to be 'born Jewish'.
> >> Are you suggesting that a person can't be born Black?
> >
> >No. I'm saying one cannot be 'born Jewish'. How dim are you, FW?
> >
> What is the difference between one born Black and on born Jewish?
Judaism is a religion (i.e a "social construct"... ), and I do not
believe in a 'genetic memory' that records the theological choices of
our ancestors.
<snip>
> >Eh? So a Palestinian Muslim "who is of Hebrew descent is by definition
> >a Jew regardless of his religious orientation"?
> >
> According to the definition... one of Hebrew descent is a Jew.
[...]
> One may hide from their descent, of course.
[...]
Why should the Palestinian in question be bound by the religious
choices of a long-dead ancestor?
<snip>
> >> >> You have in fact, JUSTIFIED the possibility
> >> >> of the legality of the Nazis making it a crime to be a Jew,
> >> >> you fucking Nazi supporter.
> >> >
> >> >LOL! My choosing to have a cup of tea could thus be 'justifiably' made
> >> >illegal!!
> >> >
> >> I suppose it could. Although it has not a fucking thing to
> >> do with the course of this argument...thus you're just
> >> blowing smoke.
> >
> >Just because you have a choice to do something does not mean it can be
> >'justifiably' made illegal... elsewhere recently you've been telling
> >us about how a 'victimless crime' cannot exist: who is the victim when
> >one choose to become Jewish?
> >
> It certainly does mean it can be 'justifiably' made illegal. You are
> confusing YOUR view, with the view of a group of people who
> have formed a society that might feel quite differently than
> you do, and can certainly 'justify' something as trivial as
> banning tea drinking.
1. What 'group of people' are you talking about?
2. There is nothing "trivial" about tea-drinking scum, not to the
Japs, not to the English. Clearly you wish to 'ethnically cleanse' the
ritual of tea-drinking from these two ancient island nations.
<snip>
> ANY distinct physical characteristic, CANNOT be considered a LAWFUL law...
And what is the 'Jewish phenotype'. FW?
<snip>
> >
> >> >> Without such a choice, it
> >> >> cannot be a crime. It cannot be a crime to BE BORN --
> >> >
> >> >But it can be a crime to give birth? Seeing as how one can choose to
> >> >get pregnant?
> >> >
> >> What the fuck!!! Where do you come up with this shit? Being
> >> BORN and GIVING BIRTH, are two entirely different
> >> things.
> >
> >*guffaw*
> >
> An admission that you have your head in your nether regions, I
> presume? Do you contend that they are the SAME?
I 'contend' that, while they are 'two different things' only the
daftest of twats would presume that they are "two entirely different
things".
Never before have I seen evidence that so strongly suggests that
English is yr second language.
<snip>
> >> And your questions (???) are senseless. Can it be
> >> a crime to give birth? Only if the state makes its so.
> >> There is a choice there. I would certainly oppose any
> >> such attempt to make it a crime. It's senseless to presume
> >> it could be, since it simply spells the end of the species.
> >
> >But you said: "If the person HAS A CHOICE, it can legally be made a
> >crime, since they could have avoided COMMITTING that crime."
>
> Quite right. Doesn't EVERY ACT contain a choice? In fact,
> the only real act that doesn't give us a choice, is being BORN.
> We are incapable of making such a choice. Another difference
> between being born and giving birth... since we all know that
> giving birth is BY choice.
Well no, one does not choose to give birth per se, one chooses to get
pregnant, once that act is accomplished one may make no further choice
regards 'giving birth'.
Naturally, one may become pregnant without consenting to become
pregnant (rape; faulty contraception, etc.).
<snip>
> ><stuff about "unlawful laws" snipped>
> >
> >The Nazis persecuted Jehovah's Witnesses, were they 'justifiably'
> >persecuted in yr opinion?
> >
> Once again... I do not make decisions as to 'justifiably.'
"It certainly does mean it can be 'justifiably' made illegal"...
> I am not God... as you presume yourself to be. Legally, they could
> do so, if they offered them the choice of not committing
> becoming Jehovah' Witnesses, to avoid 'committing that
> crime.' Do I agree with them doing so. Don't be an ass...
> of course not. They are the ones who need to JUSTIFY
> their laws... I cannot do that for them. Personally I find it
> not justified... but that doesn't amount to a hill of beans in
> respect to the general question of COULD they justify
> doing so in a legal sense.
"The Jehovah's Witnesses, or Bible students, were sent to
concentration camps because they refused to serve in the German Army
or because they distributed pamphlets discouraging others from joining
the Army. The first Jehovah's Witness to be registered at Mauthausen
was Franz Bräuchle, who was Prisoner No. 337. The Nazis referred to
the Jehovah's Witnesses as "volunteer" prisoners because they could
leave at any time if only they would change their minds about serving
in the Army or stop distributing pamphlets against the German
government. According to Bernadac, none of them ever recanted."
A few notes:
1. Mauthausen is widely regarded as the 'harshest' of the Nazi
concentration/forced labour camps.
2. I do not think the JWs felt that they had 'a choice'.
3. Jews were not referred to as "volunteer" prisoners, despite yr
claims that the Nazis felt the 'Jews chose to be Jewish'.
> >> >> >> My buddy Nev claims Jews CHOOSE to BE JEWISH.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Well, they are certainly not born 'religious', scum.
> >> >> >
> >> >> No... but they can certainly be born 'Jewish,' scumbag.
> >> >
> >> >Are you suggesting there is a Jewish 'race'?
> >> >
> >> No.. I'm clearly stating their is an ethnic race called the Jew...
> >> one who traces his roots from Hebrew descent...
> >
> >Move dem feet, LDB!
> >
> The fact that you refuse to accept that there is.. speaks volumes
> of your support for the Nazis.
As English Law says that one may be part of an 'ethnic group' by
'adherence', I can accept that the Jews are an ethnic group.
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Although I understand that "skin color" has
> >> some very distinctive meaning in the context of "race." One
> >> can most certainly define an ethnic Italian as from the Italian
> >> "race." Shit, I've known MANY Italians in my life.. my life
> >> has been closely intertwined with many ethnic Italians, and many
> >> of them would proudly assert they are a "race" of Italians..
> >
> >What, "descended from Romulus" [sic]?
> >
> >*guffaw*
> >
> >> even after living in the U.S. for a generation. Being of ANY
> >> particular race is nothing to be ashamed of. Only bigots and
> >> racists believe it is. Ummmm... gee.... that sounds like you.
> >
> >For clarification, I am lead to believe there are only three 'races'.
> >
> Many are led down the road of stupidity... you are simply among
> them. One might as well argue that there is only 'one race,' the
> human race.
Honestly, FW, that's how they is divvied up: there are three 'races',
according to current thinking.
Alas, as someone who considers skin-pigmentation the main part of
'race', you will not understand this.
<snip>
> >> So what? You've argued that they had a CHOICE. I argue that
> >> the Nazi laws were UNLAWFUL, because they had no choice.
> >
> >Out of interest, which Nazi law imparticular do you feel was unlawful?
> >
> The law which made it a crime to BE a Jew.
Which law is that, FW?
Come on, FW, get on 'Goggle' [sic]!
> The one you support claiming the Jew could simply choose not the BE a Jew.
Eh?
> >> You presume by claiming they had a choice that those laws could
> >> be lawful. You're the one who wants to supports the Nazi
> >> laws... not me.
> >
> >I'm not sure what 'law' you is talking about, FW, but yr idealogy is
> >100% cohesive with that of the Nazis.
> >
> Actually YOURS is. Since you would argue that Jews had a choice,
> and thus could simply have AVOIDED the illegal laws of the Nazis,
It should be noted that the 'Nurembereg Laws' were quite similar to
the 'Jim Crow Laws' which were considered 'legal' in the US for over
fifty years.
> when in fact they HAD NO CHOICE.
Again, to re-cap:
1. The Nazis thought Jews were 'born Jewish'.
2. FuckWit thinks Jews are 'born Jewish'.
3. Neville FitzHerbert, esq. is diametrically opposed to both of these
scum.
You has been told.
> >> Certainly the state has a right to make Communism a crime, if
> >> it finds that the existence of that state is threatened to such an
> >> extent that it becomes necessary to do so. But "kill commies."
> >> Get a fucking life. And quit going into never-never land.
> >
> >The US has, in the past, sanctioned the 'execution' of many Commies.
> >
> Off into anti-American left field again, are we Ol' Racist Nev?
It's worth noting that the Nazis also executed a lot of commies.
Another coincidence?
> >> >Everybody meks choices all the time, 6 billion people mek choices
> >> >everyday! It is you who selected 'murderers' from 'the ether', scum
> >> >(and how very telling that _choice_ woz Fundy-Boy)!!
> >> >
> >> The fact is that the state can make those choices crimes, if it
> >> chooses to do so.
> >
> >Not even gonna try and extricate yoursen from that one, eh, FW? Banged
> >to rights and no mistake.
> >
> Why should I?
Quite right, FW. 'Least said, soonest mended'.
(6 billion to choose from and he picks the crims!!)
<snip FW telling the Saudis about what they can and cannot make
illegal>
> >Murder is not illegal coz someone chooses to commit it, FW: it's coz
> >it involves murdering folk.
> >
> ROTFLMAO.. If no one COMMITS it, you silly shit, there are no
> 'murdered folks.'
Take a 'fictional' case:
A person --- let's call him James --- wishes aloud to murder someone,
in fact maybe plans to murder someone, _attempts_ to murder someone
but is unsuccesful.
Now James undoubtably _chose_ to kill someone but in fact failed to
brutally slay his _chosen_ victim --- let's call him Desmond --- is he
guilty of murder?
Whilst you make yr tiny mind up, remember James _chose_ to murder
Desmond.
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >> YOUR ethnic roots are probably English,
> >> >
> >> >There is no such ethnicity (genetically speaking) as 'English'.
> >> >
> >> ROTFLMAO. You ignorant shit.
> >
> >Ho ho ho, go on then tell me how 'the Danish' and 'the English' differ
> >genetically... to form the 'English race' *chortle* and the... 'Danish
> >race' *guffaw*...
> >
> They don't differ that much. Some can trace their roots back very
> far, and claim such separation, but most have intermingled so much
> that differentiation is impossible.
For instance, scum, an Angle leaves the Jutland peninsula in 500ad,
and has kids in England, these kids have kids, etc., and one of them
eventually moves back to the continent from the Danelaw (in say 900AD)
wherein their decendents live until the present-day --- let's say they
settled in Denmark?
Are these Danes (since 900AD) 'descended from the English'?
<snip FuckWit coming unstuck with the English Language... again>
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
[1] http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Mauthausen/KZMauthausen/History/FirstPrisoners.html
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>On Thu, 15 May 2003 08:55:20 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>wrote:
>
>> >**** Warning! ****
>> >**** ****
>> >**** Within, the FuckWit sez: ****
>> >**** ****
>> >**** "Being BORN and GIVING BIRTH, are two ****
>> >**** entirely different things." ****
>> >**** ****
>> >**** You has been warned ****
>
>> LOL... what a pea-brain... the inability to recognize the difference between "being
>> born" and "giving birth." Unfucking believable!!! Why am I wasting my time
>> with this imbecile? I must have a masochistic streak in me.
>
>Considering how brutally you get beaten by the Light Dwellers on
>news:alt.activism.death-penalty in every single thread where you post,
>considering how complete ... sorry, 'compleat' (sic) is your defeat,
>and yet still keep coming back for more, whilst proclaiming loudly
>that you've 'spnaked' (sic) us ... I'd tend to agree.
>
Let me get this straight now... You also believe that there is
no difference between "being born," and "giving birth"?
If you intend to criticize my comment, using only your
Nameless One's alternate gimmick n° 2 --
== Offer no meaningful information but provide a plethora of insults
instead ==
Then I understand why you posted here. But if you actually
intend to argue that my words are wrong, that's an entirely
different subject. So which is it?
>{ snip }
Of course.. the old <snip> routine.
PV
>---
>The Nameless One
The world waits and wonders when the Nameless One will ever
develop a defense for his lack of intellectual acumen which does
not simply involve a mindless drivel insult. We've been waiting
quite some time now, so perhaps this represents the full stretch
of his mental capabilities. Since if one begins to count the
Nameless One's comments that contain no meaningful information
at all except lies and insults.-- this would be #61 since I began
routinely counting them a few days ago. And his insults are
flowing faster than I can keep up with them. Unfort
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>On Fri, 16 May 2003 08:26:35 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>wrote:
>
>> Gentle reader -- Please allow me to apologize. I fell into the trap
>> of believing I could break through the racist mind of Ol' Racist
>> Nev for the second time. I now realize that could never happen,
>> and further dialog with him, would only be like feeding a jackal,
>> and expecting him to reward you by caring for your child.
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!!!
>
>There are few things this side of a blowjob, more satisfying than
>seeing FuckWit beaten into a pile of snot, and trying to maintain some
>dignity as he top-posts several dozen lines of reposted spam, claiming
>victory over the very poster who has just kicked the crap out of him
>in front of all of news:alt.activism.death-penalty , whilst invoking
>FuckWit Patented Gimmick (TM) n° 148, the 'I'm no longer interested in
>this thread' gimmick ...
>
>url:http://www.fruffrant.com/gimmicks/148.html
>
The Nameless One Alternate Gimmick n° 148 --
== The calling a "no longer interested in this thread" comment a
gimmick gimmick === Also called the "I am a hypocrite
gimmick."
And this is the mention I will make of this gimmick when the
Nameless One presumes that _not being interested in a thread
any longer_ is a gimmick. Trying to call attention to that by
calling it a gimmick must by definition be seen as a gimmick since
ALL threads end. But then we have these posts of the Nameless
One --
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030306234122.10901.00001568%40mb-dh.aol.com
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030303115024.09289.00002448%40mb-ch.aol.com
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030130213152.20325.00000788%40mb-fo.aol.com
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20021118212906.10597.00001783%40mb-mq.aol.com
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20021108212946.23768.00001111%40mb-md.aol.com
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20021106212915.09268.00000767%40mb-cu.aol.com
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn979ivq.7h.desmond%40gateway.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn9757bl.68.desmond%40gateway.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn96rg3s.6m.desmond%40gateway.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn96dju5.63.desmond%40gateway.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn95or3c.79.desmond%40gateway.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn94qdqa.6n.desmond%40gateway.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn933siv.7s.desmond%40gateway.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn92hh6s.tgt.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn91tqel.69s.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn91gnnv.a9n.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn91bc7m.3gh.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn919v4u.227.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn919uf0.21b.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn919ud9.21b.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn917eq6.3m3.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn917epb.3m3.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn914tco.ua.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn912ioi.l1p.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8v32p3.urm.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8q1q3r.13n4.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8pd3q4.173.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8frrf8.j8b.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8a36a7.3f8.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=87aep2443y.fsf%40tortue.coughlan.net
Know what all of these posts are? They are a list of the Nameless One's posts
that contain only the word *plonk* -- That's all... just a one word that SAYS
'I'm no longer interested in this thread.' Apparently the Nameless One's killfile
must take up a large portion of his storage capacity. In fact, I've been placed
in his fabulous killfile twice, and the posts that *plonked* me, are not even listed
above, which should give everyone an idea of how many the Nameless One
has shut his eyes too. I have stated that I have never killfiled anyone, and
Ol' Racist Nev has not been killfiled. I continue to read his vile comments,
but clearly, it was impossible to get through to Ol' Racist Nev, no matter what
proof was offered in respect to --
1) the definition of anti-Semitism
2) The Jew
3) nonce
And a number of other things that definitions didn't faze him one bit. To
continue would have been fruitless and only pander to his racism, since he
was certainly intent on drawing other racists into the group. When I see
further racism in his post I will point it out and be done with it. I believe that
when I find time, I will simply assemble all the points of contention and
provide the proof of my position again, and simply top post it to every
one of his racist, swinish, filthy posts. As it is now... why should I bother,
since I have already proved my point as much as I am going to prove it?
>LOL !!!
What? No *plonk* Oh Nameless One?
PV
>---
>The Nameless One
The world waits and wonders when the Nameless One will ever
develop a defense for his lack of intellectual acumen which does
not simply involve a mindless drivel insult. We've been waiting
quite some time now, so perhaps this represents the full stretch
of his mental capabilities. Since if one begins to count the
Nameless One's comments that contain no meaningful information
at all except lies and insults.-- this would be #75 since I began
routinely counting them a few days ago. And his insults are
flowing faster than I can keep up with them. Unfortunately,
as I've noted, they contain nothing but insults.
A Planet Visitor
the Nazis? Why he calls that _a good start_.
PV
On 16 May 2003 06:21:58 -0700, honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote:
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<s5e6cvoli28imhdff...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >Well _you_ did, FW: you equted Jews with "murderers, thieves, rapists
>> >and all others who can make a choice as to who and what they become".
>> >
>> LOL... Murderers, thieves, rapists and all criminals are not BORN
>> criminals... thus Jews who are born Jews cannot be criminals. But
>> murderers, thieves, rapists and criminals CHOOSE to be what they are.
>> You've argued that Jews can ONLY CHOOSE to be what they are,
>> the SAME as criminals. YOU are comparing the Jew and criminals,
>> not me.
>
>"One is not 'born Jewish' anymore than one is 'born Cathy' or 'born
>Athiest'!!"
>
>You will note I compared Jews with Catholics and Atheists. This is
>logical as Judaism is a religion.
>
>You compared Jews with "murders, thieves, rapists" on the flimsy
>pretence that thieves, etc. are not 'born thieves'.
>
>"Yr neo-Nazi agenda comes to the fore again, FuckWit!"
>
>But then, we've come too far now for you to admit yr jew-hating ways,
>as shown when you made the comparison above.
>
Actually, a Jew-hating way would be to presume that there is something
'evil' about being born a Jew... implying that one only CHOOSES
to be a Jew, just as one can only CHOSE to be a criminal. That's
YOUR 'Jew-hating' way. Don't forget to mention that you think
they caused various plague epidemics throughout Europe in the past.
>> Just as you argue that a Jew can ONLY choose to be a Jew..
>> a criminal can ONLY choose to be a criminal. It is YOU who has
>> compared Jews with criminals through arguing they have a CHOICE,
>> just as criminals have a choice.
>
>Would any other posters like to comment on FW's predicament?
>
It doesn't seem so, Ol' Racist Nev. I doubt seriously that your buddy,
the Nameless One would, since he claims to be a Jew BY BIRTH,
which rather argues against your stupid statement.
>> >I, on the other hand, equated Judaism with Catholicism and Athiesm.
LOL... "athiesm." (sic). Is that an olympic event?
>> >
>> No.. you equated them with criminals who have a CHOICE to
>> be criminals.
>
>Poor, FW, _outright lying_ about things that are (luckily for 'Angelic
>Ones') archived on 'Google'.
>
Yeah...yeah..yeah...Look at your words above, sport... you were the one
who argued that a Jew could not be BORN a Jew.
>> Arguing that the Jew CANNOT be born a Jew. Why don't you ask the Nameless One
> if he became a Jew because he CHOSE to be one?
>
>I'm only guessing, but as Desmond has said his mother was Jewish, he
>(in the tradition of 'orthodox jewry') considers himsen Jewish as the
>son of a Jewish mother.
>
Holy shit!!! So you're calling the Nameless One a LIAR???
>I don't agree with this/his position, but then his personal bidness is
>none of my bidness.
>
"bidness." (sic)... You're hilarious, sport.
<rest of meaningless drivel, where Ol' Racist Nev believes others find him
erudite clipped>
>Yrs,
> Ol' Racist Nev
>
>
>[1] http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Mauthausen/KZMauthausen/History/FirstPrisoners.html
Ah, yes... Ol' Racist Nev's _scrapbook_ of memories, that lulls him to sleep
at night -- Good times for you...eh, Ol' Racist Nev?
Honest Nev
FW, I thought I'd already accepted yr unconditional surrender?
I did post the Treaty of Ilkeston-Langley Mill, didn't I?
Why yes, I did.
And yet here he is, poor old FW, putting his jack-boots back on, off
to re-occupy the Rhineland, the daft old Nazi.
> >"One is not 'born Jewish' anymore than one is 'born Cathy' or 'born
> >Athiest'!!"
> >
> >You will note I compared Jews with Catholics and Atheists. This is
> >logical as Judaism is a religion.
> >
> >You compared Jews with "murders, thieves, rapists" on the flimsy
> >pretence that thieves, etc. are not 'born thieves'.
> >
> >"Yr neo-Nazi agenda comes to the fore again, FuckWit!"
> >
> >But then, we've come too far now for you to admit yr jew-hating ways,
> >as shown when you made the comparison above.
> >
> Actually, a Jew-hating way would be to presume that there is something
> 'evil' about being born a Jew...
Which you have done when you lumped them in with 'murderers, rapists
and thieves'.
> implying that one only CHOOSES to be a Jew, just as one can only CHOSE to be > a criminal.
"a Jew"... "a criminal"... will FuckWit ever see the error of his
ways?
> That's YOUR 'Jew-hating' way.
????
> Don't forget to mention that you think they caused various plague epidemics
> throughout Europe in the past.
What a terrible thing to say!! Has the FW no shame when it comes to
bad-mouthing Jews?
Why does he couch these fictional 'thoughts' of others (which the
poster in question has _never_ uttered, or ever likely to utter)? It
seems like a devious attempt to 'get away with it', IMHO.
> >> Just as you argue that a Jew can ONLY choose to be a Jew..
> >> a criminal can ONLY choose to be a criminal. It is YOU who has
> >> compared Jews with criminals through arguing they have a CHOICE,
> >> just as criminals have a choice.
> >
> >Would any other posters like to comment on FW's predicament?
> >
> It doesn't seem so, Ol' Racist Nev. I doubt seriously that your buddy,
> the Nameless One would, since he claims to be a Jew BY BIRTH,
> which rather argues against your stupid statement.
I do hope Dezi's absence has nothing to do with you 'wishing aloud',
FuckWit.
You will remember that you wished him dead (shortly after he said he
was Jewish).
> >> >I, on the other hand, equated Judaism with Catholicism and Athiesm.
>
> LOL... "athiesm." (sic). Is that an olympic event?
Hardly.
I am not surprised that you are unfamiliar with the term.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=4607&dict=CALD
Most likely it is illegal in the backwoods of Florida, like sodomy (I
kid you not, Europeans, sodomy is _illegal_ in FuckWit's state).
> >> No.. you equated them with criminals who have a CHOICE to
> >> be criminals.
> >
> >Poor, FW, _outright lying_ about things that are (luckily for 'Angelic
> >Ones') archived on 'Google'.
> >
> Yeah...yeah..yeah...Look at your words above, sport... you were the one
> who argued that a Jew could not be BORN a Jew.
And you are the one who identified Jews with criminals.
No amount of after-the-fact wriggling will change this, scum.
> >> Arguing that the Jew CANNOT be born a Jew. Why don't you ask the Nameless One
> > if he became a Jew because he CHOSE to be one?
> >
> >I'm only guessing, but as Desmond has said his mother was Jewish, he
> >(in the tradition of 'orthodox jewry') considers himsen Jewish as the
> >son of a Jewish mother.
> >
> Holy shit!!! So you're calling the Nameless One a LIAR???
No, scum.
Desi is entitled to his beliefs (whatever they may be). I am not
obliged to subscribe to them.
You will note that one born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother is
not considered to be 'born Jewish'... genetics don't even figure, you
soft old coot, nor any 'Hebrew' ancestry.
Do you consider a child born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother
to be 'born Jewish'?
Answer that one, FW... I dare you.
<snip>
Yrs
As ever,
N FitzHerbert, esq.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<qfecdv03son0cloon...@4ax.com>...
>
>FW, I thought I'd already accepted yr unconditional surrender?
>
Not at all... I simply no longer decided to take you seriously, and instead
recognize you for the ignorant redneck trailer Trash Englishman you
are. There are so few of you (of course it seems as if EVERY ONE
of you has gravitated to AADP), that it took me awhile to fully
realize you did not intend to be serious, and actually only wished
to demonstrate the various aspects of your ignorant redneck trailer
trash character here. Such as presuming to make threats on my life,
thinking that actually shows anything other than your ignorance.
>I did post the Treaty of Ilkeston-Langley Mill, didn't I?
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=e518b97d.0305171255.1a59075%40posting.google.com
>
>Why yes, I did.
>
>And yet here he is, poor old FW, putting his jack-boots back on, off
>to re-occupy the Rhineland, the daft old Nazi.
>
Don't pretend to hide both your racism and anti-Semitism behind your
hysterical raving, Ol' Racist Nev. You've claimed that Dachau was no
worse than Guantanamo, and certainly DEFENDED it's existence by
arguing that it _wasn't SO BAD_, because it wasn't ACTUALLY a
death-camp. The focus of ALL your posts is in the generally direction
of both racist and anti-Semitic. A term which you even DENY means
"opposed to the Jews." Thus, that alone should tell everyone how you
hope to deny there IS such a thing. When it is still a rather alive and
well phenomenon in some European circles.
>> >"One is not 'born Jewish' anymore than one is 'born Cathy' or 'born
>> >Athiest'!!"
>> >
>> >You will note I compared Jews with Catholics and Atheists. This is
>> >logical as Judaism is a religion.
>> >
>> >You compared Jews with "murders, thieves, rapists" on the flimsy
>> >pretence that thieves, etc. are not 'born thieves'.
>> >
>> >"Yr neo-Nazi agenda comes to the fore again, FuckWit!"
>> >
>> >But then, we've come too far now for you to admit yr jew-hating ways,
>> >as shown when you made the comparison above.
>> >
>> Actually, a Jew-hating way would be to presume that there is something
>> 'evil' about being born a Jew...
>
>Which you have done when you lumped them in with 'murderers, rapists
>and thieves'.
>
No, actually, Ol' Racist Nev... that is what YOU have done, when you
lumped them in with those who have CHOSEN to be 'murderers, rapists,
and thieves.'
>> implying that one only CHOOSES to be a Jew, just as one can only CHOSE to be
> a criminal.
>
>"a Jew"... "a criminal"... will FuckWit ever see the error of his
>ways?
>
Actually since I contend that they do NOT chose to a Jew, they cannot
possibly chose to be a criminal. Only you have presumed to connect
them with criminals.
>> That's YOUR 'Jew-hating' way.
>
>????
>
!!!!!!!!
>> Don't forget to mention that you think they caused various plague epidemics
>> throughout Europe in the past.
>
>What a terrible thing to say!! Has the FW no shame when it comes to
>bad-mouthing Jews?
>
Hey... you're the one who sees them as such 'evils' presuming they
cannot be born Jews.
>Why does he couch these fictional 'thoughts' of others (which the
>poster in question has _never_ uttered, or ever likely to utter)? It
>seems like a devious attempt to 'get away with it', IMHO.
>
LOL...
>> >> Just as you argue that a Jew can ONLY choose to be a Jew..
>> >> a criminal can ONLY choose to be a criminal. It is YOU who has
>> >> compared Jews with criminals through arguing they have a CHOICE,
>> >> just as criminals have a choice.
>> >
>> >Would any other posters like to comment on FW's predicament?
>> >
>> It doesn't seem so, Ol' Racist Nev. I doubt seriously that your buddy,
>> the Nameless One would, since he claims to be a Jew BY BIRTH,
>> which rather argues against your stupid statement.
>
>I do hope Dezi's absence has nothing to do with you 'wishing aloud',
>FuckWit.
>
I wish he would return quickly, since retentionists need all the help
we can get... after all we DO support "killing people" don't we?
Even if they are the murdering dregs of the earth. While a few
abolitionists... you among them... find it more appropriate to argue
that those who hold differing opinions from yours are the ones who
REALLY need to be murdered. As you, the Nameless One and
spike have all offered as solutions to silence those who disagree with
you. Retentionists NEED abolitionists such as you, spike and the
Nameless One who ask that others be murdered, to keep us from
looking bad by comparison.
>You will remember that you wished him dead (shortly after he said he
>was Jewish).
>
Rubbish... You have us confused, since he wished to torture and kill
EVERY retentionist... and you certainly threatened me with being
murdered if I visited Disneyshire.
>> >> >I, on the other hand, equated Judaism with Catholicism and Athiesm.
>>
>> LOL... "athiesm." (sic). Is that an olympic event?
>
>Hardly.
>
>I am not surprised that you are unfamiliar with the term.
>
>http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=4607&dict=CALD
>
ROTFLMAO... You really ARE as stupid as they say, aren't you?
Could you possibly check your source, and then your word again?
I well know what "atheism" is, but "athiesm" is a new one.
>Most likely it is illegal in the backwoods of Florida, like sodomy (I
>kid you not, Europeans, sodomy is _illegal_ in FuckWit's state).
>
As is murder in yours... but you suggested it.
>> >> No.. you equated them with criminals who have a CHOICE to
>> >> be criminals.
>> >
>> >Poor, FW, _outright lying_ about things that are (luckily for 'Angelic
>> >Ones') archived on 'Google'.
>> >
>> Yeah...yeah..yeah...Look at your words above, sport... you were the one
>> who argued that a Jew could not be BORN a Jew.
>
>And you are the one who identified Jews with criminals.
>
No...I've always contended Jews I am speaking of are "born Jewish."
And criminals are NOT "born criminals." They choose to become
criminals... as you rather rudely accused every Jew of only being
able to choose being a Jew.
>No amount of after-the-fact wriggling will change this, scum.
>
LOL.
>> >> Arguing that the Jew CANNOT be born a Jew. Why don't you ask the Nameless One
>> > if he became a Jew because he CHOSE to be one?
>> >
>> >I'm only guessing, but as Desmond has said his mother was Jewish, he
>> >(in the tradition of 'orthodox jewry') considers himsen Jewish as the
>> >son of a Jewish mother.
>> >
>> Holy shit!!! So you're calling the Nameless One a LIAR???
>
>No, scum.
>
Of course you are... You've said he CAN'T.. He say he IS... Jesus..
connect the fucking dots, Ol' Racist Nev.
>Desi is entitled to his beliefs (whatever they may be). I am not
>obliged to subscribe to them.
>
You apparently are not obliged to subscribe to intelligent human
communication as well. Presuming to make up to the rules as you
go along.
>You will note that one born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother is
>not considered to be 'born Jewish'... genetics don't even figure, you
>soft old coot, nor any 'Hebrew' ancestry.
>
>Do you consider a child born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother
>to be 'born Jewish'?
>
>Answer that one, FW... I dare you.
>
Love it.. just love it when someone proves MY point for me. By your
positing that condition you RECOGNIZE that IF the Mother is Jewish,
the child is "born Jewish." The Hebrew descent is from the maternal
side. I never said that BOTH had to be Jewish. I made no conditions
on that "born Jewish" other than a Hebrew descent, as the OED provides
for. That descent is traditionally through the maternal side. A child
born of a Jewish mother is BORN JEWISH. You thought you could
avoid this by offering a condition which you RECOGNIZE is to be
born Jewish with the genders switched. But your example only
proves that you UNDERSTAND that a child is born Jewish from
a Jewish mother, as a Hebrew descent. See --
http://www.beingjewish.org/jewishemail/article21.html
And learn, you racist swine.
PV
> Ol' Racist Nev
Neville 'the Jackal' FitzHerbert, esq.
Extensive snipping. I find it hard to deal with the daft old fucker
who has likened slavery to "trash collection", the elimination of
which would require "you to take your trash personally to a landfill".
[1]
What a fucking beast!
Anyway back to Jews:
> Only you have presumed to connect them with criminals.
But, FuckWit, only _you_ have connect 'Jews' with 'criminals'.
> >> Don't forget to mention that you think they caused various plague epidemics
> >> throughout Europe in the past.
> >
> >What a terrible thing to say!! Has the FW no shame when it comes to
> >bad-mouthing Jews?
> >
> Hey... you're the one who sees them as such 'evils' presuming they
> cannot be born Jews.
What a dreary little Jew-hater you are, FuckWit.
Kindly desist from using my posts as a spring-board for yr vile
anti-Jewish propaganda.
> >Why does he couch these fictional 'thoughts' of others (which the
> >poster in question has _never_ uttered, or ever likely to utter)? It
> >seems like a devious attempt to 'get away with it', IMHO.
> >
> LOL...
You laff as loud as you want, scum, yr game is up.
[regarding Desmond]:
> >You will remember that you wished him dead (shortly after he said he
> >was Jewish).
> >
> Rubbish...
Fact.
<snip>
> and you certainly threatened me with being murdered if I visited Disneyshire.
'Disneyshire'? Where the fuck's 'Disneyshire'?
<snip>
> >> >> Arguing that the Jew CANNOT be born a Jew. Why don't you ask the Nameless One
> >> > if he became a Jew because he CHOSE to be one?
> >> >
> >> >I'm only guessing, but as Desmond has said his mother was Jewish, he
> >> >(in the tradition of 'orthodox jewry') considers himsen Jewish as the
> >> >son of a Jewish mother.
> >> >
> >> Holy shit!!! So you're calling the Nameless One a LIAR???
> >
> >No, scum.
> >
> Of course you are... You've said he CAN'T.. He say he IS... Jesus..
> connect the fucking dots, Ol' Racist Nev.
Many Anglo-Saxons came to believe they were descended from Woden;
Catholics believe in 'original sin'; Buddhists believe in
reincarnation; and orthodox Jewry believes that children of Jewish
mothers (including new converts) are 'born Jewish'... but that's their
bidness.
That said, they are of course all mistaken in these beliefs, as far as
we know.
<snip>
> >You will note that one born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother is
> >not considered to be 'born Jewish'... genetics don't even figure, you
> >soft old coot, nor any 'Hebrew' ancestry.
> >
> >Do you consider a child born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother
> >to be 'born Jewish'?
> >
> >Answer that one, FW... I dare you.
> >
> Love it.. just love it when someone proves MY point for me.
And yr answer is...
> By your positing that condition you RECOGNIZE that IF the Mother is Jewish,
> the child is "born Jewish."
That's the orthodox Jewish position, not mine. We were talking of
Desmond and "the tradition of 'orthodox jewry'".
> The Hebrew descent is from the maternal side. I never said that BOTH had to > be Jewish.
That position includes converts, that is a woman born to Gentile
parents may convert, have children with a Gentile man, and the kids
are still considered to be 'born Jewish' by orthodox Jews.
Where is the 'Hebrew' descent?
You've only gone and done yoursen up like a kipper again, you daft old
duffer!
<snip FW digging his daft sen deeper>
Now answer the question:
Do you consider a child born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother
to be 'born Jewish'?
Yrs,
As ever,
'The Jackal' [sic].
A Planet Visitor
FitzHerbert, esq.) wrote:
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<sbffdvk8icttkh8mu...@4ax.com>...
>
>Extensive snipping. I find it hard to deal with the daft old fucker
>who has likened slavery to "trash collection", the elimination of
>which would require "you to take your trash personally to a landfill".
>[1]
>
Actually, it is YOU and the likes of YOU, who believe the DP is
the SAME as slavery. Believing there is no difference between
murderers and slaves. I certainly did not compare "trash collection"
to either murderers or slaves, I compared "changing a trash pick up
day" to "the elimination of trash collection altogether." YOU are
the one who compared murderers to slaves.
>What a fucking beast!
>
Yes... you are.. a racist, a Jew-baiter, and now presuming to claim that
849 executed murderers are just as valuable to you as millions of innocent
slaves. It must hurt to have been pinned to the wall so successfully with
the PROOF of you believing that, with your defense of an statement that
claims opposition to the DP is JUST LIKE your opposition to slavery.
>Anyway back to Jews:
>
Ah yes.. the ones you claim were no more _abused_ in the holocaust than
those detainees being held in Guantanamo.
>> Only you have presumed to connect them with criminals.
>
>But, FuckWit, only _you_ have connect 'Jews' with 'criminals'.
>
Since I have argued that Jews are "born Jews," and one cannot be
"born a criminal," your conclusion, as usual... is simply so much
pathetic denial of what you have implied. The fact is that YOU
connect those who choose to do what they do, with both Jews
and criminals. With your dirty little mind that argues anti-Semitism
is not _actually_ meant as against the Jews.
>> >> Don't forget to mention that you think they caused various plague epidemics
>> >> throughout Europe in the past.
>> >
>> >What a terrible thing to say!! Has the FW no shame when it comes to
>> >bad-mouthing Jews?
>> >
>> Hey... you're the one who sees them as such 'evils' presuming they
>> cannot be born Jews.
>
>What a dreary little Jew-hater you are, FuckWit.
>
Actually your denials are becoming rather pathetic. You've "compared"
Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald with Guantanamo, arguing
that they were no worse than Guantanamo, since they are all seen
by you as "concentration camps," and DEFENDING those Nazi
camps by insuring that everyone understands that in YOUR words --
"I must stress that Dachau, Belson (sic), and Buchanwald (sic) were
_not_ used as death-camps for Jews." You have also implied that
there were _not than many Jews in Dachau, which further demonstrates
your intention to diminish the Jew in Dachau, when in fact, shortly before
liberation, in late April 1945, there were over 67,000 registered
prisoners in Dachau, including over 22,000 Jews. Many perished in
forced marches during the last days before liberation of the camp a
few days later. An estimated total of 206,000 prisoners were held there
until it was liberated. Don't think there was any Gas chambers? Of
course there were.. built with a specific purpose. How MANY died
in those gas chambers is a matter of speculation, which is generally
the domain of the holocaust denier who expects everyone to believe
they existed (sometimes even denying that) but were never used. Of
course they were not used on the scale of Auschwitz, which seems to
be YOUR EXCUSE that they _weren't that bad_. How bad were
they? For a very ghastly display of photographs and documents
detailing Dachau, and their GAS CHAMBERS... see --
http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
Now tell me Dachau is Guantanamo.
Then see --
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blcampsbergen.htm
Now tell me Bergen-Belsen is Guantanamo.
Then see --
http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Camps/BuchenwaldEng.html
Now tell me Buchenwald is Guantanamo.
You fucking Nazi.
>Kindly desist from using my posts as a spring-board for yr vile
>anti-Jewish propaganda.
>
More denials. It goes well with your total Holocaust denial persona.
>> >Why does he couch these fictional 'thoughts' of others (which the
>> >poster in question has _never_ uttered, or ever likely to utter)? It
>> >seems like a devious attempt to 'get away with it', IMHO.
>> >
>> LOL...
>
>You laff as loud as you want, scum, yr game is up.
>
I laugh at your pitiful denials of your rampant, and UNDENIABLE
anti-Semitism (even denying that the phase is intended for the Jews).
Of course, I weep that there are those SUCH AS YOU... who by
some mysterious, almost sadistic, plan of our creator, permitted those
such as you to actually exist among our species. Obviously, there
was a glitch in the production line when you came off of it.
>[regarding Desmond]:
>
>> >You will remember that you wished him dead (shortly after he said he
>> >was Jewish).
>> >
>> Rubbish...
>
>Fact.
>
What is fact is that the Nameless One clearly announced that he had
_fun_ torturing and killing retentionists, as the domestic cat tortures
and kills the sparrow, and asked other abolitionists to _join him_
in that _fun_. While YOU most certainly have threatened my life
with murder, should I visit Derbyshire, with your words "stay the fuck
out of Derbyshire, scum, else you'll be swimming in the Erewash
Canal with all the other old boots." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0304300639.5cfabaf4%40posting.google.com
Why would I wish the Nameless One dead, when he is the best thing
that has happened to retention since this group was formed, including
even joe1orbit?
><snip>
>
>> and you certainly threatened me with being murdered if I visited Disneyshire.
>
>'Disneyshire'? Where the fuck's 'Disneyshire'?
>
LOL... It's the fantasy world you live in, Ol' Racist Nev. Right next to
Bumbfuckshire.
><snip>
>
>> >> >> Arguing that the Jew CANNOT be born a Jew. Why don't you ask the Nameless One
>> >> > if he became a Jew because he CHOSE to be one?
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm only guessing, but as Desmond has said his mother was Jewish, he
>> >> >(in the tradition of 'orthodox jewry') considers himsen Jewish as the
>> >> >son of a Jewish mother.
>> >> >
>> >> Holy shit!!! So you're calling the Nameless One a LIAR???
>> >
>> >No, scum.
>> >
>> Of course you are... You've said he CAN'T.. He say he IS... Jesus..
>> connect the fucking dots, Ol' Racist Nev.
>
>Many Anglo-Saxons came to believe they were descended from Woden;
>Catholics believe in 'original sin'; Buddhists believe in
>reincarnation; and orthodox Jewry believes that children of Jewish
>mothers (including new converts) are 'born Jewish'... but that's their
>bidness.
>
ROTFLMAO... And Zeus fathered the Seasons and the Three Fates
on Themis; the Charites on Eurynome; the Three Muses on Mnemosyne,
with whom he lay for nine nights' and some say, Persephone, the Queen
of the Underworld, whom Hades, the brother of Zeus, forcibly
married, on the nymph Styx. All of that making as much sense as your
pitiful posturing.
The fact is that in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE it is clearly defined that
a Jew is one born of Hebrew descent, HOWEVER that descent is
considered.
>That said, they are of course all mistaken in these beliefs, as far as
>we know.
>
If we are speaking of as far as _you_ know... we are speaking of how
far any of us could throw a 20 ton boulder.
><snip>
>
>> >You will note that one born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother is
>> >not considered to be 'born Jewish'... genetics don't even figure, you
>> >soft old coot, nor any 'Hebrew' ancestry.
>> >
>> >Do you consider a child born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother
>> >to be 'born Jewish'?
>> >
>> >Answer that one, FW... I dare you.
>> >
>> Love it.. just love it when someone proves MY point for me.
>
>And yr answer is...
>
That a child born of a Jewish mother, is born Jewish. Simple enough.
>
>> By your positing that condition you RECOGNIZE that IF the Mother is Jewish,
>> the child is "born Jewish."
>
>That's the orthodox Jewish position, not mine. We were talking of
>Desmond and "the tradition of 'orthodox jewry'".
>
Who CARES what YOUR position is? When have YOU been granted
the right to _make the rules_? You certainly are in no position to define
what constitutes a Hebrew descent, nor are you qualified to claim that
the English language has no meaning since YOU THINK a Jew cannot
be born a Jew.
>> The Hebrew descent is from the maternal side. I never said that BOTH had to
> be Jewish.
>
>That position includes converts, that is a woman born to Gentile
>parents may convert, have children with a Gentile man, and the kids
>are still considered to be 'born Jewish' by orthodox Jews.
>
So you DO ADMIT that one can be BORN JEWISH. Gee... I thought
you claimed it could not be?
>Where is the 'Hebrew' descent?
>
>You've only gone and done yoursen up like a kipper again, you daft old
>duffer!
>
><snip FW digging his daft sen deeper>
>
>Now answer the question:
>
>Do you consider a child born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother
>to be 'born Jewish'?
>
Again... do YOU consider a child born to a Jewish mother and a Gentile
father to be Jewish? You see, Ol' Racist Nev... to PROVE your
argument is WRONG, I must only prove that ONE person is BORN
JEWISH... just ONE... and your argument collapses into a lie. I
do not need to prove EVERY JEW is born Jewish. Just one is all
it takes. In fact, the Nameless One actually disproves your entire
argument, if in fact, his _claim_ is true. And I believe under the
definitions of the English language I am Jewish, if one considers
Hebrew roots through the maternal link, since my maternal
grandmother's mother was Jewish through her mother, although
either my great grandmother, or my great-great grandmother
having converted to Catholicism at least 150 years ago. I had
never really given it much thought in that respect, simply knowing
that I had SOME Jewish extraction, but never considering myself
to BE Jewish.
PV
>Ol' Racist Nev
>
>
>[1] http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl410727681d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=ufoddvke9ggn7hjh7vl8p9ddgicahgtu4c%404ax.com
Thank you, Ol' Racist Nev... I hope everyone rereads my post, and sees
how you believe that the DP is JUST LIKE slavery, and murderers are
JUST LIKE slaves.
Honest Nev
> >Extensive snipping. I find it hard to deal with the daft old fucker
> >who has likened slavery to "trash collection", the elimination of
> >which would require "you to take your trash personally to a landfill".
> >[1]
> >
> Actually, it is YOU and the likes of YOU, who believe the DP is
> the SAME as slavery. Believing there is no difference between
> murderers and slaves.
Poor, Jew-hating, slave-trade apologist, fibbing FW!
Can you feel the soil falling on yr head?
> I certainly did not compare "trash collection"
> to either murderers or slaves, I compared "changing a trash pick up
> day" to "the elimination of trash collection altogether." YOU are
> the one who compared murderers to slaves.
You said that to oppose capital punishment is to " "oppose" the trash
collection day being changed from Tuesday to Wednesday". And you then
said that the Angelic Ones' natural desire to eliminate slavery from
this world was like opposition to "the elimination of trash collection
altogether".
It's all there in black and white:
What a fucking beast!
<snip FuckWit asking me if I 'value' slaves (the fucking swine, has he
no shame! You're not in Mississippi now, boy.)>
> >Anyway back to Jews:
> >
> Ah yes.. the ones you claim were no more _abused_ in the holocaust than
> those detainees being held in Guantanamo.
FW, are you gonna say that I am a holocaust denier cos I say that most
Jews were killed in the death camps, _not concentration camps_?
Everybodys laughing at you, scum.
> >> Only you have presumed to connect them with criminals.
> >
> >But, FuckWit, only _you_ have connect 'Jews' with 'criminals'.
> >
> Since I have argued that Jews are "born Jews," and one cannot be
> "born a criminal," your conclusion, as usual...
Is correct. You compared Jews to murderers, thieves, and rapists. I
did no such thing, Jew-hater. This is the last time I point this
_fact_ out to you, as it makes me feel dirty just to repeat yr vile
anti-Jewish propaganda.
<snip>
> >> >> Don't forget to mention that you think they caused various plague epidemics
> >> >> throughout Europe in the past.
> >> >
> >> >What a terrible thing to say!! Has the FW no shame when it comes to
> >> >bad-mouthing Jews?
> >> >
> >> Hey... you're the one who sees them as such 'evils' presuming they
> >> cannot be born Jews.
> >
> >What a dreary little Jew-hater you are, FuckWit.
> >
> Actually your denials are becoming rather pathetic. You've "compared"
> Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald with Guantanamo, arguing
> that they were no worse than Guantanamo, since they are all seen
> by you as "concentration camps," and DEFENDING those Nazi
> camps by insuring that everyone understands that in YOUR words --
> "I must stress that Dachau, Belson (sic), and Buchanwald (sic) were
> _not_ used as death-camps for Jews."
And they were not. Is Simon Wiesenthal "DEFENDING those Nazis camps"
when he says Dachau was not a death-camp for Jews?
> You have also implied that there were _not than many Jews in Dachau, which
> further demonstrates> your intention to diminish the Jew in Dachau, when in
> fact, shortly before liberation, in late April 1945, there were over 67,000
> registered prisoners in Dachau, including over 22,000 Jews. Many perished in
> forced marches during the last days before liberation of the camp a
> few days later. An estimated total of 206,000 prisoners were held there
> until it was liberated. Don't think there was any Gas chambers? Of
> course there were.. built with a specific purpose. How MANY died
> in those gas chambers is a matter of speculation, which is generally
> the domain of the holocaust denier who expects everyone to believe
> they existed (sometimes even denying that) but were never used.
Firstly, 10 out of every 13 dead at Dachau were non-Jews. In fact,
Jews were only brought to Dachau en masse in the last few months of
the War. THis is historic fact.
Secondly, in Dachau today (and you know the German laws on Holocaust
denial) the gas chamber has a sign in it saying it was "never used".
[1]
> course they were not used on the scale of Auschwitz, which seems to
> be YOUR EXCUSE that they _weren't that bad_. How bad were
> they? For a very ghastly display of photographs and documents
> detailing Dachau, and their GAS CHAMBERS... see --
> http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
> Now tell me Dachau is Guantanamo.
Dachau isn't 'Gitmo', no more than Dachau is Auschwitz, but Dachau and
'Gitmo' were/are both concentration camps and only a Arab-hater would
deny it... hang on, it's 'never trust an Arab' FuckWit who's saying
it. As you were.
> Then see --
> http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blcampsbergen.htm
> Now tell me Bergen-Belsen is Guantanamo.
>
> Then see --
> http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Camps/BuchenwaldEng.html
> Now tell me Buchenwald is Guantanamo.
>
> You fucking Nazi.
LMAO!
> >Kindly desist from using my posts as a spring-board for yr vile
> >anti-Jewish propaganda.
> >
> More denials. It goes well with your total Holocaust denial persona.
FuckWit, if I was seeking to 'totally deny the Holocaust' I would
hardly bring everybodys attention to the fact that Nazi death-camps
existed to kill Jews, would I?
If saying Dachau was not a death-camp is Holocaust denial, then you
sir have just called Mister Wiesenthal a Holocaust denier... you
absolute pig.
You've only gone and done yoursehn up like a kipper... _again_!
<snip FuckWit weeping because I'm not dead>
> >[regarding Desmond]:
> >
> >> >You will remember that you wished him dead (shortly after he said he
> >> >was Jewish).
> >> >
> >> Rubbish...
> >
> >Fact.
> >
<snip denial... no, to be fair he didn't actually deny it>
> ><snip>
> >
> >> and you certainly threatened me with being murdered if I visited Disneyshire.
> >
> >'Disneyshire'? Where the fuck's 'Disneyshire'?
> >
<snip FW's tiny tears about getting it wrong again!!>
> >Many Anglo-Saxons came to believe they were descended from Woden;
> >Catholics believe in 'original sin'; Buddhists believe in
> >reincarnation; and orthodox Jewry believes that children of Jewish
> >mothers (including new converts) are 'born Jewish'... but that's their
> >bidness.
> >
> ROTFLMAO... And Zeus fathered the Seasons and the Three Fates
> on Themis; the Charites on Eurynome; the Three Muses on Mnemosyne,
> with whom he lay for nine nights' and some say, Persephone, the Queen
> of the Underworld, whom Hades, the brother of Zeus, forcibly
> married, on the nymph Styx. All of that making as much sense as your
> pitiful posturing. ^
|
Glad you agree that it's all bollox, as far as _we_ know.
> The fact is that in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE it is clearly defined that
> a Jew is one born of Hebrew descent, HOWEVER that descent is
> considered.
In that case a daughter of a convert has 'Hebrew descent', mind you
that also means the daughter of an Muslim convert has 'Islamic
descent'.
> >That said, they are of course all mistaken in these beliefs, as far as
> >we know.
> >
> If we are speaking of as far as _you_ know... we are speaking of how
> far any of us could throw a 20 ton boulder.
Prove just one of 'em.
> >> >You will note that one born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother is
> >> >not considered to be 'born Jewish'... genetics don't even figure, you
> >> >soft old coot, nor any 'Hebrew' ancestry.
> >> >
> >> >Do you consider a child born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother
> >> >to be 'born Jewish'?
> >> >
> >> >Answer that one, FW... I dare you.
> >> >
> >> Love it.. just love it when someone proves MY point for me.
> >
> >And yr answer is...
> >
> That a child born of a Jewish mother, is born Jewish. Simple enough.
In other words... you're an absolute fucking fuckwit!!!!! Answer the
question.
> >> By your positing that condition you RECOGNIZE that IF the Mother is Jewish,
> >> the child is "born Jewish."
> >
> >That's the orthodox Jewish position, not mine. We were talking of
> >Desmond and "the tradition of 'orthodox jewry'".
> >
> Who CARES what YOUR position is? When have YOU been granted
> the right to _make the rules_? You certainly are in no position to define
> what constitutes a Hebrew descent, nor are you qualified to claim that
> the English language has no meaning since YOU THINK a Jew cannot
> be born a Jew.
Fucking hell! He's not even going down with a fight!
> >> The Hebrew descent is from the maternal side. I never said that BOTH had to
> > be Jewish.
> >
> >That position includes converts, that is a woman born to Gentile
> >parents may convert, have children with a Gentile man, and the kids
> >are still considered to be 'born Jewish' by orthodox Jews.
> >
> So you DO ADMIT that one can be BORN JEWISH. Gee... I thought
> you claimed it could not be?
You can't... this is the 'orthodox' position... where the unscientific
notion that one could be 'born Jewish' if yr mum's Jewish comes from.
That I can understand other POVs does not mean I agree, but then as
you are incapable of comprehending another's POV, how could you
possibly know?
> >Where is the 'Hebrew' descent?
> >
> >You've only gone and done yoursen up like a kipper again, you daft old
> >duffer!
> >
> ><snip FW digging his daft sen deeper>
> >
> >Now answer the question:
> >
> >Do you consider a child born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother
> >to be 'born Jewish'?
> >
> Again... do YOU consider a child born to a Jewish mother and a Gentile
> father to be Jewish?
Not 'born Jewish', no.
> You see, Ol' Racist Nev... to PROVE your
> argument is WRONG, I must only prove that ONE person is BORN
> JEWISH... just ONE... and your argument collapses into a lie.
So do you consider one born to a Jewish father and a gentile mother is
'born Jewish'?
> do not need to prove EVERY JEW is born Jewish. Just one is all
> it takes. In fact, the Nameless One actually disproves your entire
> argument, if in fact, his _claim_ is true. And I believe under the
> definitions of the English language I am Jewish, if one considers
> Hebrew roots through the maternal link, since my maternal
> grandmother's mother was Jewish through her mother, although
> either my great grandmother, or my great-great grandmother
> having converted to Catholicism at least 150 years ago. I had
> never really given it much thought in that respect, simply knowing
> that I had SOME Jewish extraction, but never considering myself
> to BE Jewish.
That's cos you're not, twat. No one's 'born Jewish' in the same way
that no one's 'born Muslim'. The only reason that some think they are
is because of a sexist orthodox Jewish tradition. One is not obliged
to share that tradition, even if one is Jewish.
Anyway I thought you said you was 'born a Catholic Deist' that became
French when you inseminated [sic] yr Frenchie wife?
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
<snip FuckWit comparing slaves to murderers again>
[1] http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/KZDachau/CrematoriaArea/gaschamber01.html
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<eg3idvgueg16f0nrq...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >Extensive snipping. I find it hard to deal with the daft old fucker
>> >who has likened slavery to "trash collection", the elimination of
>> >which would require "you to take your trash personally to a landfill".
>> >[1]
>> >
>> Actually, it is YOU and the likes of YOU, who believe the DP is
>> the SAME as slavery. Believing there is no difference between
>> murderers and slaves.
>
>Poor, Jew-hating, slave-trade apologist, fibbing FW!
>
It's not nice to lie, Ol' Racist Nev.. you well know that your Jew-baiting
has become as famous as the Nameless One's racism here. You deny
Jews their birthright, you argue that anti-Semitism doesn't exist, and you
claimed that Dachau was the next thing to a health spa (that it wasn't
'quite so bad' since it wasn't actually a 'death camp' and it was just the same
as Guantanamo).
And now you seem prepared to begin attacking slaves, by agreeing
that they are the same as murderers. Does you evil actually have a
bottom?
>Can you feel the soil falling on yr head?
>
>> I certainly did not compare "trash collection"
>> to either murderers or slaves, I compared "changing a trash pick up
>> day" to "the elimination of trash collection altogether." YOU are
>> the one who compared murderers to slaves.
>
>You said that to oppose capital punishment is to " "oppose" the trash
>collection day being changed from Tuesday to Wednesday".
No.. actually I did not, and anyone can see that I did not. I compared
"opposing changing the trash collection day from Tuesday to Wednesday,"
TO being JUST LIKE "opposing eliminating trash collection pickup
completely." Nothing to do with either the DP or slavery.
And I then I referred to euro's claim that "opposing the DP" TO being
JUST LIKE "opposing slavery," to demonstrate how stupid and
ignorant it is to presume that one can compare the DP to slavery
UNLESS one sees murderers as JUST LIKE slaves. After all, HE
was the only who used the words "JUST LIKE," and I simply
pointed out what those two words MEAN.
> And you then
>said that the Angelic Ones' natural desire to eliminate slavery from
>this world was like opposition to "the elimination of trash collection
>altogether".
>
Actually, you're as full of shit as a Christmas goose, Ol' Racist Nev, and
anyone who goes to my post can see that for themselves. Which I am
happy to ask them to do, to demonstrate how easily you lie. Since my
comparison in my words was --- "You might "oppose" the trash collection
day being changed from Tuesday to Wednesday, but you would certainly not
"oppose" that AS MUCH as the elimination of trash collection altogether,
requiring you to take your trash personally to a landfill." There is nothing
in that comparison that speaks to either of those being compared to the
DP or to slavery.
>It's all there in black and white:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl4060652612d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=ufoddvke9ggn7hjh7vl8p9ddgicahgtu4c%404ax.com
>
>What a fucking beast!
>
Yes... you are... and a beast who has threatened me with murder if I happen
to visit your Disneyshire with your threat being --
"stay the fuck out of Derbyshire, scum, else you'll be swimming in
the Erewash Canal with all the other old boots."
Ol' Racist Nev - March 30, 2003
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0304300639.5cfabaf4%40posting.google.com
While you also laughed in agreement at spike's "suggestion" that the
"unemployed or ill" be strung up. You have a rather macabre "sense
of humor," Ol' Racist Nev.
><snip FuckWit asking me if I 'value' slaves (the fucking swine, has he
>no shame! You're not in Mississippi now, boy.)>
>
Actually you 'value' millions of them EXACTLY as much as 849
murderers in your agreement with the statement of euro. Imagine that...
you find 849 murderers are "JUST LIKE" millions of innocent slaves.
Who said you don't have a heart??? (that's sarcasm, shithead).
>> >Anyway back to Jews:
>> >
>> Ah yes.. the ones you claim were no more _abused_ in the holocaust than
>> those detainees being held in Guantanamo.
>
>FW, are you gonna say that I am a holocaust denier cos I say that most
>Jews were killed in the death camps, _not concentration camps_?
>
No... I'm saying you are a holocaust denier because you've tried
to minimize the _concentration camps_ to make them appear as
_not so bad_. In just about every way possible... arguing how
many non-Jews were kept there... comparing the condition as
comparable to Guantanamo, etc., etc., etc.,
>Everybodys laughing at you, scum.
>
Once again... you really feel the need, as JPB and some others to
presume that you have the force of "everybody" lined up against
me. While you display your racism in front of the group. If
"everybody" is laughing at me, scumbag, it could only be one
of two reasons..
1) They are no better than you.
2) They are laughing at my futility for even engaging a dialog
with a racist.
>> >> Only you have presumed to connect them with criminals.
>> >
>> >But, FuckWit, only _you_ have connect 'Jews' with 'criminals'.
>> >
>> Since I have argued that Jews are "born Jews," and one cannot be
>> "born a criminal," your conclusion, as usual...
>
>Is correct. You compared Jews to murderers, thieves, and rapists. I
>did no such thing, Jew-hater. This is the last time I point this
>_fact_ out to you, as it makes me feel dirty just to repeat yr vile
>anti-Jewish propaganda.
>
You keep saying that... but it only makes your nose grow longer. Since
it was YOU who argued that Jews can ONLY CHOSE to BE JEWS.
And of course... Murderers can only CHOSE to BE MURDERERS.
I argue that Jews are BORN JEWISH... and given the absolute proof
that a human does not come out of the womb AS a MURDERER,
Jews cannot be murderers. qed -- YOU have compared those who
have chosen to BE Jewish to those who have chosen to be murderers.
You anti-Semitic swine.
><snip>
>
>> >> >> Don't forget to mention that you think they caused various plague epidemics
>> >> >> throughout Europe in the past.
>> >> >
>> >> >What a terrible thing to say!! Has the FW no shame when it comes to
>> >> >bad-mouthing Jews?
>> >> >
>> >> Hey... you're the one who sees them as such 'evils' presuming they
>> >> cannot be born Jews.
>> >
>> >What a dreary little Jew-hater you are, FuckWit.
>> >
>> Actually your denials are becoming rather pathetic. You've "compared"
>> Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald with Guantanamo, arguing
>> that they were no worse than Guantanamo, since they are all seen
>> by you as "concentration camps," and DEFENDING those Nazi
>> camps by insuring that everyone understands that in YOUR words --
>> "I must stress that Dachau, Belson (sic), and Buchanwald (sic) were
>> _not_ used as death-camps for Jews."
>
>And they were not. Is Simon Wiesenthal "DEFENDING those Nazis camps"
>when he says Dachau was not a death-camp for Jews?
>
I don't think he uses the word "stress" which would leave one with the feeling
that they _weren't all that bad_. Are you presuming that a great number
of humans, many of them Jewish didn't perish because of CONDITIONS
in Dachau? With your use of the word "stress," you seem to be saying ==>
_no deaths actually happened there, because I must STRESS that it
wasn't a death camp_. Why do you find it necessary to STRESS that
fact... why not just "say it"?
>> You have also implied that there were _not than many Jews in Dachau, which
>> further demonstrates> your intention to diminish the Jew in Dachau, when in
>> fact, shortly before liberation, in late April 1945, there were over 67,000
>> registered prisoners in Dachau, including over 22,000 Jews. Many perished in
>> forced marches during the last days before liberation of the camp a
>> few days later. An estimated total of 206,000 prisoners were held there
>> until it was liberated. Don't think there was any Gas chambers? Of
>> course there were.. built with a specific purpose. How MANY died
>> in those gas chambers is a matter of speculation, which is generally
>> the domain of the holocaust denier who expects everyone to believe
>> they existed (sometimes even denying that) but were never used.
>
>Firstly, 10 out of every 13 dead at Dachau were non-Jews. In fact,
>Jews were only brought to Dachau en masse in the last few months of
>the War. THis is historic fact.
>
See what I mean? The big denial that the Jew was actually the focus
of the holocaust.
>Secondly, in Dachau today (and you know the German laws on Holocaust
>denial) the gas chamber has a sign in it saying it was "never used".
>[1]
>
Oh, well.. of course.. if there's a "sign".... That's sarcasm again, BTW.
>> course they were not used on the scale of Auschwitz, which seems to
>> be YOUR EXCUSE that they _weren't that bad_. How bad were
>> they? For a very ghastly display of photographs and documents
>> detailing Dachau, and their GAS CHAMBERS... see --
>> http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
>> Now tell me Dachau is Guantanamo.
>
>Dachau isn't 'Gitmo', no more than Dachau is Auschwitz, but Dachau and
>'Gitmo' were/are both concentration camps and only a Arab-hater would
>deny it... hang on, it's 'never trust an Arab' FuckWit who's saying
>it. As you were.
>
You were the one doing the comparison, Ol' Racist Nev. As I said
before and will continue to say.... I no longer argue Guantanamo...
there is much wrong with it... but NOT on the scale of Dachau...
Not conceivably by a hundred-thousand fold... no one has been
murdered in Guantanamo. Murders were a common occurrence
in Dachau, in spite of the fact that you needed to STRESS that
Dachau was not among the camps designated as _death camps_.
When you made such a comparison it was obvious that it was
intended just as much to make your anti-American stand as to
diminish the actual atrocities that went on in Dachau. And you
CONTINUE to try and diminish those atrocities... as the good
(that's again sarcasm) little Jew-baiter that you are.
>> Then see --
>> http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blcampsbergen.htm
>> Now tell me Bergen-Belsen is Guantanamo.
>>
>> Then see --
>> http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Camps/BuchenwaldEng.html
>> Now tell me Buchenwald is Guantanamo.
>>
>> You fucking Nazi.
>
>LMAO!
>
Well...well...well... those images drew another laugh from you... how
typical. As when you laughed in agreement at spike's suggestion that
the "unemployed or ill" should be strung up. Those kind of things
really seem to 'tickle your funny bone,' don't they, Ol' Racist Nev?
>> >Kindly desist from using my posts as a spring-board for yr vile
>> >anti-Jewish propaganda.
>> >
>> More denials. It goes well with your total Holocaust denial persona.
>
>FuckWit, if I was seeking to 'totally deny the Holocaust' I would
>hardly bring everybodys attention to the fact that Nazi death-camps
>existed to kill Jews, would I?
>
Ah.. there's denial... and then there is "denial." You would never be
so bold as to say ==> There was NO holocaust. <== Even you
are not that stupid. As with your racism, you try to be a bit more
subtle to deny you actually are what you clearly are. What you've
done... is as I've said... you've continued to paint a picture of the
holocaust as _not that bad_. Dachau... you find not that bad...
because it you state that "wasn't a death camp," a point which you
needed to STRESS. YOu claimed it was comparable to Guantanamo.
And you've argued strongly right above that it housed _hardly any
Jews_ to speak of. Apparenlty you arguing _why worry about
that small number of Jews_?
>If saying Dachau was not a death-camp is Holocaust denial, then you
>sir have just called Mister Wiesenthal a Holocaust denier... you
>absolute pig.
>
ROTFLMAO. Oh..Ol' Racist Nev.. you really have become pathetic.
>You've only gone and done yoursehn up like a kipper... _again_!
>
><snip FuckWit weeping because I'm not dead>
>
Actually.. I believe I'll avoid going to Disneyshire, since you've claimed your
'gang' would murder me if I did.
>> >[regarding Desmond]:
>> >
>> >> >You will remember that you wished him dead (shortly after he said he
>> >> >was Jewish).
>> >> >
>> >> Rubbish...
>> >
>> >Fact.
>> >
>
><snip denial... no, to be fair he didn't actually deny it>
>
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> and you certainly threatened me with being murdered if I visited Disneyshire.
>> >
>> >'Disneyshire'? Where the fuck's 'Disneyshire'?
>> >
>
><snip FW's tiny tears about getting it wrong again!!>
>
>> >Many Anglo-Saxons came to believe they were descended from Woden;
>> >Catholics believe in 'original sin'; Buddhists believe in
>> >reincarnation; and orthodox Jewry believes that children of Jewish
>> >mothers (including new converts) are 'born Jewish'... but that's their
>> >bidness.
>> >
>> ROTFLMAO... And Zeus fathered the Seasons and the Three Fates
>> on Themis; the Charites on Eurynome; the Three Muses on Mnemosyne,
>> with whom he lay for nine nights' and some say, Persephone, the Queen
>> of the Underworld, whom Hades, the brother of Zeus, forcibly
>> married, on the nymph Styx. All of that making as much sense as your
>> pitiful posturing. ^
> |
>Glad you agree that it's all bollox, as far as _we_ know.
I believe your fairy tale interpretation of what being born Jewish means
is bollox (sic) That was my point in providing that bollox (sic).
>
>> The fact is that in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE it is clearly defined that
>> a Jew is one born of Hebrew descent, HOWEVER that descent is
>> considered.
>
>In that case a daughter of a convert has 'Hebrew descent', mind you
>that also means the daughter of an Muslim convert has 'Islamic
>descent'.
>
So what? What do apples have to do with oranges?
>> >That said, they are of course all mistaken in these beliefs, as far as
>> >we know.
>> >
>> If we are speaking of as far as _you_ know... we are speaking of how
>> far any of us could throw a 20 ton boulder.
>
>Prove just one of 'em.
>
Huh??? Prove just one of what? It's not my job to _prove_ your lies.
You do quite well in proving they are lies without any help from me.
>> >> >You will note that one born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother is
>> >> >not considered to be 'born Jewish'... genetics don't even figure, you
>> >> >soft old coot, nor any 'Hebrew' ancestry.
>> >> >
>> >> >Do you consider a child born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother
>> >> >to be 'born Jewish'?
>> >> >
>> >> >Answer that one, FW... I dare you.
>> >> >
>> >> Love it.. just love it when someone proves MY point for me.
>> >
>> >And yr answer is...
>> >
>> That a child born of a Jewish mother, is born Jewish. Simple enough.
>
>In other words... you're an absolute fucking fuckwit!!!!! Answer the
>question.
>
Gee.... you seem to be getting hysterical now, Ol' Racist Nev. As I said..
A child born of a Jewish mother, is born Jewish, which categorically
DISPROVES your claim that it is not possible that one can be BORN
JEWISH. You see, Ol' Racist Nev... under the principles of Logic 101,
when you say NONE... I need only provide ONE to prove your
hypothesis false.
>> >> By your positing that condition you RECOGNIZE that IF the Mother is Jewish,
>> >> the child is "born Jewish."
>> >
>> >That's the orthodox Jewish position, not mine. We were talking of
>> >Desmond and "the tradition of 'orthodox jewry'".
>> >
>> Who CARES what YOUR position is? When have YOU been granted
>> the right to _make the rules_? You certainly are in no position to define
>> what constitutes a Hebrew descent, nor are you qualified to claim that
>> the English language has no meaning since YOU THINK a Jew cannot
>> be born a Jew.
>
>Fucking hell! He's not even going down with a fight!
>
You're raging hysterically and irrationally again, Ol' Racist Nev. Talking
to the "crowd" to perhaps _drum up_ a bit of support from those
"EVERYBODY" you speak of? They're right behind you, Ol' Racist
Nev... you have the Nameless One (although he's been rather subdued
in his comments to you - perhaps knowing better) -- and you have
JPB -- who would give a handjob to a pig if he thought he could get
the pig to oink in agreement with him -- and you have euro - who
just doesn't know any better -- and you have dirtbag -- who agrees
with you simply because he's dirtbag -and doesn't give a shit one way
or the other as long as he can stink up AADP.
>> >> The Hebrew descent is from the maternal side. I never said that BOTH had to
>> > be Jewish.
>> >
>> >That position includes converts, that is a woman born to Gentile
>> >parents may convert, have children with a Gentile man, and the kids
>> >are still considered to be 'born Jewish' by orthodox Jews.
>> >
>> So you DO ADMIT that one can be BORN JEWISH. Gee... I thought
>> you claimed it could not be?
>
>You can't... this is the 'orthodox' position... where the unscientific
>notion that one could be 'born Jewish' if yr mum's Jewish comes from.
>
Ah, yes... the "orthodox" position -- I would not touch that straight
line. But I'm quite certain you are unfamiliar with anything that is
"orthodox" because your lies are quite "unorthodox" in their concept.
Quite innovative, in fact. It's rather unfortunate that your life took
the turn it did, since if you had concentrated the same efforts in
finding truth, as you obviously have in constructing lies, something
meaningful might have evolved from your pathetic and meaningless
life. I really don't know if the effort I'm putting in here to redirect
your life will actually pay off.. it may well be too late for you.
>That I can understand other POVs does not mean I agree, but then as
>you are incapable of comprehending another's POV, how could you
>possibly know?
>
No.. Ol' Racist Nev... You made a statement that you can neither
justify nor prove, while I have proven through many sources, including
the OED, and various URLs I've provided that a Jew is born Jewish.
You're just blowing smoke now... claiming it's now 'your POV.'
You may hold a POV that the sun will come up in the West tomorrow,
but I'm pretty sure you would be full of shit holding such a POV.
>> >Where is the 'Hebrew' descent?
>> >
>> >You've only gone and done yoursen up like a kipper again, you daft old
>> >duffer!
>> >
>> ><snip FW digging his daft sen deeper>
>> >
>> >Now answer the question:
>> >
>> >Do you consider a child born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother
>> >to be 'born Jewish'?
>> >
>> Again... do YOU consider a child born to a Jewish mother and a Gentile
>> father to be Jewish?
>
>Not 'born Jewish', no.
>
Well... that shows how stupid your POV is.
>> You see, Ol' Racist Nev... to PROVE your
>> argument is WRONG, I must only prove that ONE person is BORN
>> JEWISH... just ONE... and your argument collapses into a lie.
>
>So do you consider one born to a Jewish father and a gentile mother is
>'born Jewish'?
>
I didn't say that. Do not try again to put words into my mouth that
I did not say nor did I imply. I AM SAYING that a child born of
a Jewish Mother is born Jewish. Plain and simple... very uncomplicated..
very true... by all definitions... regardless of your particular POV.
>> do not need to prove EVERY JEW is born Jewish. Just one is all
>> it takes. In fact, the Nameless One actually disproves your entire
>> argument, if in fact, his _claim_ is true. And I believe under the
>> definitions of the English language I am Jewish, if one considers
>> Hebrew roots through the maternal link, since my maternal
>> grandmother's mother was Jewish through her mother, although
>> either my great grandmother, or my great-great grandmother
>> having converted to Catholicism at least 150 years ago. I had
>> never really given it much thought in that respect, simply knowing
>> that I had SOME Jewish extraction, but never considering myself
>> to BE Jewish.
>
>That's cos you're not, twat. No one's 'born Jewish' in the same way
>that no one's 'born Muslim'. The only reason that some think they are
>is because of a sexist orthodox Jewish tradition. One is not obliged
>to share that tradition, even if one is Jewish.
>
LOL... Ol' Racist Nev again travels to never-never land in his delusional
ravings.
>Anyway I thought you said you was 'born a Catholic Deist' that became
>French when you inseminated [sic] yr Frenchie wife?
>
One cannot be born a "Catholic" or a "Deist." I was RAISED as a Catholic,
but to be frank I reject practically all of the dogma surrounding Catholicism.
Yet I still go to Mass frequently. My wife never misses a Sunday and has
at times been quite involved - which keeps me going - and often makes it
necessary that I hold my tongue in expressing my beliefs. I do not use the
church for anything but to provide a channel to my belief as a Deist. I could
no more abandon the Church I was raised in, then I could abandon my
core belief in a Creator (not of Christian dimension- other than some of the
principles that have evolved from that religion). There are other reasons of
course that I stay within the church. Community involvement with neighbors,
and contributions to what I find are works of the Church that provide
necessary services to the community. I lived in Tennessee a few years ago,
and was much more active in those activities than I am today. Even
traveling sometimes to depressed Appalachian towns in organized groups.
Why you seem so concerned with my religious beliefs seems rather
intrusive to me.. but I've come to expect intrusive questions here.
And you seemed to be worried as to my REAL LIFE, here in this
forum where REAL LIFE has no meaning. So I hope you now
understand what I meant by a "Catholic deist."
PV
>Ol' Racist Nev
It needs to be repeated before I go on vacation --
Ol' Racist Nev making murder threats against me if I "visit" Disneyshire --
"stay the fuck out of Derbyshire, scum, else you'll be swimming in
the Erewash Canal with all the other old boots."
Ol' Racist Nev - March 30, 2003
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0304300639.5cfabaf4%40posting.google.com
>
Honest Nev
> >> >Extensive snipping. I find it hard to deal with the daft old fucker
> >> >who has likened slavery to "trash collection", the elimination of
> >> >which would require "you to take your trash personally to a landfill".
> >> >[1]
> >> >
> >> Actually, it is YOU and the likes of YOU, who believe the DP is
> >> the SAME as slavery. Believing there is no difference between
> >> murderers and slaves.
> >
> >Poor, Jew-hating, slave-trade apologist, fibbing FW!
> >
> It's not nice to lie, Ol' Racist Nev..
I know, that's why I don't.
> you well know that your Jew-baiting has become as famous as the Nameless
> One's racism here.
Which, I am sure you will be the first to admit, is not very famous at
all.
But then everybody knows you are partial to porky-pies when yr racist,
homophobic, Jew-hating, mysogenistic, fascist ways are being exposed.
I bet you will now go on another drinking-binge and won't even have
the guts to deny it... at least not for a few days.
> Jews their birthright
What 'birthright' is that, FW, you've gone all vague on me.
> you argue that anti-Semitism doesn't exist,
Quote me then, my dishonest interlocuter. I won't hold my breath.
<snip FW comparing Dachau to a "health spa" [sic]>
<snip>
> >FW, are you gonna say that I am a holocaust denier cos I say that most
> >Jews were killed in the death camps, _not concentration camps_?
> >
> No... I'm saying you are a holocaust denier because you've tried
> to minimize the _concentration camps_ to make them appear as
> _not so bad_. In just about every way possible... arguing how
> many non-Jews were kept there...
You mean I have stated historical facts agreed upon by every Holocaust
historian of note? It is _fact_ that 10 out every 13 dead at Dachau
were non-Jews. Do you disagree? Seeing as how I have mentioned
Treblinka, Birkenhau etc. and stated that they were death-camps
designed to exterminate Jews... I do not see the denial. By calling me
a 'holocaust denier', you make a complete and utter tit of yousehn.
<the FW denying people are laffing at him snipped>
> >You compared Jews to murderers, thieves, and rapists. I
> >did no such thing, Jew-hater. This is the last time I point this
> >_fact_ out to you, as it makes me feel dirty just to repeat yr vile
> >anti-Jewish propaganda.
> >
> You keep saying that... but it only makes your nose grow longer. Since
> it was YOU who argued that Jews can ONLY CHOSE to BE JEWS.
> And of course... Murderers can only CHOSE to BE MURDERERS.
> I argue that Jews are BORN JEWISH... and given the absolute proof
> that a human does not come out of the womb AS a MURDERER,
> Jews cannot be murderers. qed -- YOU have compared those who
> have chosen to BE Jewish to those who have chosen to be murderers.
> You anti-Semitic swine.
What a silly, illogical, convoluted piece of crap.
That out of all the things in the universe one may choose to be (be it
a Jew, a Cathy, a Lollipop man, a politician, a nurse, etc.), you
would _chose_ to indentify Jews with 'murderers, thieves, and rapists'
is, I think, _proof_ that you are a Jew-hater and a Nazi.
<snip>
> >And they were not. Is Simon Wiesenthal "DEFENDING those Nazis camps"
> >when he says Dachau was not a death-camp for Jews?
> >
> I don't think he uses the word "stress" which would leave one with the feeling
> that they _weren't all that bad_.
ROTFLMAO!!! You've done it, FW... kipper-time again!
> Are you presuming that a great number
> of humans, many of them Jewish didn't perish because of CONDITIONS
> in Dachau? With your use of the word "stress," you seem to be saying ==>
> _no deaths actually happened there, because I must STRESS that it
> wasn't a death camp_. Why do you find it necessary to STRESS that
> fact... why not just "say it"?
I had 'said it', and Danny didn't belive me (just as you didn't), so I
said it again with emphasis. The difference is (to young Daniel's
credit) that he didn't go on to call Simon Wiesenthal a 'holocaust
denier': only you sunk that low.
<snip>
> >Firstly, 10 out of every 13 dead at Dachau were non-Jews. In fact,
> >Jews were only brought to Dachau en masse in the last few months of
> >the War. THis is historic fact.
> >
> See what I mean? The big denial that the Jew was actually the focus
> of the holocaust.
You keep mentioning Dachau (you term it a "health spa [sic]" ,
Nazi-boy, whereas I prefer the term 'concentration camp'), and it is a
_fact_... sorry a FACT [sic] that Dachau's dead was mainly non-Jewish.
This was not the case in the death-camps, which you, of course, refuse
to acknowledge as such.
> >Secondly, in Dachau today (and you know the German laws on Holocaust
> >denial) the gas chamber has a sign in it saying it was "never used".
> >[1]
> >
> Oh, well.. of course.. if there's a "sign".... That's sarcasm again, BTW.
"How MANY died in those gas chambers is a matter of speculation, which
is generally the domain of the holocaust denier who expects everyone
to believe they existed (sometimes even denying that) but were never
used"
Why not write a few lines to the Museum at Dachau and point out that,
despite their lengthy research and consultations with eminent
historians in the field, you as an Internationally Recognised Usenet
Fuckwit know better and _stress_ that they and their advisors are
'Holocaust deniers'?
<snip>
> >> Now tell me Dachau is Guantanamo.
> >
> >Dachau isn't 'Gitmo', no more than Dachau is Auschwitz, but Dachau and
> >'Gitmo' were/are both concentration camps and only a Arab-hater would
> >deny it... hang on, it's 'never trust an Arab' FuckWit who's saying
> >it. As you were.
> >
> You were the one doing the comparison, Ol' Racist Nev. As I said
> before and will continue to say.... I no longer argue Guantanamo...
> there is much wrong with it... but NOT on the scale of Dachau...
> Not conceivably by a hundred-thousand fold... no one has been
> murdered in Guantanamo. Murders were a common occurrence
> in Dachau,
Do you think that on 22 March 1933, as crowds watched the first 200
prisoners arrive at Dachau, they had any idea what would happen there?
Give 'Gitmo' and TWAT twelve years, FW, who knows what further
depravity the Merkins will sink to. Remember Vietnam (which naturally
you deny involved the US murdering folk).
<snip>
> >> >Kindly desist from using my posts as a spring-board for yr vile
> >> >anti-Jewish propaganda.
> >> >
> >> More denials. It goes well with your total Holocaust denial persona.
> >
> >FuckWit, if I was seeking to 'totally deny the Holocaust' I would
> >hardly bring everybodys attention to the fact that Nazi death-camps
> >existed to kill Jews, would I?
> >
> Ah.. there's denial... and then there is "denial."
Really? And by reminding a.a.d-p of the Nazi death-camps, I denied
what exactly?
<snip>
> >> The fact is that in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE it is clearly defined that
> >> a Jew is one born of Hebrew descent, HOWEVER that descent is
> >> considered.
> >
> >In that case a daughter of a convert has 'Hebrew descent', mind you
> >that also means the daughter of an Muslim convert has 'Islamic
> >descent'.
> >
> So what? What do apples have to do with oranges?
Heh.
At least I'm forcing you into being a _consistant_ twat. You've been
saying one could _not_ be 'born Muslim'... LMAO!!
> >> >That said, they are of course all mistaken in these beliefs, as far as
> >> >we know.
> >> >
> >> If we are speaking of as far as _you_ know... we are speaking of how
> >> far any of us could throw a 20 ton boulder.
> >
> >Prove just one of 'em.
> >
> Huh??? Prove just one of what? It's not my job to _prove_ your lies.
> You do quite well in proving they are lies without any help from me.
"... and orthodox Jewry believes that children of Jewish mothers
(including new converts) are 'born Jewish'...", is not a lie, FW, you
Jew-hater.
> >> >> >You will note that one born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother is
> >> >> >not considered to be 'born Jewish'... genetics don't even figure, you
> >> >> >soft old coot, nor any 'Hebrew' ancestry.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Do you consider a child born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother
> >> >> >to be 'born Jewish'?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Answer that one, FW... I dare you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Love it.. just love it when someone proves MY point for me.
> >> >
> >> >And yr answer is...
> >> >
> >> That a child born of a Jewish mother, is born Jewish. Simple enough.
> >
> >In other words... you're an absolute fucking fuckwit!!!!! Answer the
> >question.
> >
<snip FW failing to answer the question _again_... I'm starting to
wonder why...>
<snip>
**** **** More evidence of FW's fixation with zoophilia **** ****
> -- and you have JPB -- who would give a handjob to a pig if he thought he
> could get the pig to oink in agreement with him --
**** **** More evidence of FW's fixation with zoophilia **** ****
Can he go a whole post without mentioning it?
<snip>
> >> So you DO ADMIT that one can be BORN JEWISH. Gee... I thought
> >> you claimed it could not be?
> >
> >You can't... this is the 'orthodox' position... where the unscientific
> >notion that one could be 'born Jewish' if yr mum's Jewish comes from.
<snip FW saying how he would "not touch" the orthodox position>
> No.. Ol' Racist Nev... You made a statement that you can neither
> justify nor prove, while I have proven through many sources, including
> the OED, and various URLs I've provided that a Jew is born Jewish.
> You're just blowing smoke now... claiming it's now 'your POV.'
> You may hold a POV that the sun will come up in the West tomorrow,
> but I'm pretty sure you would be full of shit holding such a POV.
But Fuckwit (I'm loving this one), you cannot prove that one is 'born
Jewish' as you have claimed is the case. You are asking me to accept a
sexist tradition as fact when it is no such thing. It has come to the
point when you will not answer a simple question, because you know
that which ever way you answer it, you're fucked.
What happened to that psuedo-scientific 'evidence' regards Ashkenazi
Jews that you deemed post-worthy and 'convincing' [sic] enough to sway
a.a.d-p towards agreeing with yr notion of a 'Jewish race' (you evil
Nazi).
The emphasis of proof is on you, FW. You made the claim.
Yrs,
As ever,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
John Rennie
in your posts on this so horrible subject, Nev. Because so many Jews
were slaughtered by the Nazis there is more than a tendency to think
that they were the only victims of the holocaust. To be fair I don't
think that the Jews themselves push this idea, others do it for them.
Could you recommend useful sources?
Honest Nev
> Joking and abuse apart I have to write that I have been really interested
> in your posts on this so horrible subject, Nev.
It is a horrible subject, John. And one I will try and avoid whilst
FuckWit takes his annual pretend sojourn (same goes for Jews (not that
Jews are a horrible subject, it's just we've been having this
discussion for _ages_)/anti-Semitism in general, and if poss.,
racism).
> Because so many Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis there is more than a
> tendency to think that they were the only victims of the holocaust.
Of course, when many people say _the_ Holocaust, they refer only to
the Jewish victims of the Nazis.
> To be fair I don't think that the Jews themselves push this idea, others do
> it for them.
No, I don't either. The fact is that, as you know, the Cold War began
directly after WW2, and the USSR (and communists generally) were
vilified in the West (and still are, you only have to read a.a.d-p.).
Thus it was not useful to remind people that approx 20,000,000 Soviets
died fighting [1] the Nazis (inc. approx 2.5 million Soviet POWS in
the camps). As you probably know, captured commissars were handed over
to the Einsatzgruppens for immediate execuction. That's how much the
Nazis hated them.
Total number number for Jewish deaths at the hands of Nazis is usually
put around 5.5 million to six million. About half of these are
estimated to have been gassed at the death-camps.
The only figure I could find for Roma/Sinta victims was "220,000 to
500,000" [2].
Very sketchy about the number of homosexuals who died, but about 8,000
to 10,000 seems to be the figure. (Many more arrested/detained)
The number of Jehovah's Witnesses who died in the camps is estimated
at 2,500 to 5,000.
Of course the everyday inhabitants of every occupied country (and the
Britishers too) also suffered greatly.
Although not great in number (relatively speaking), Allied POWs who
escaped and captured Allied Specials were also executed as a matter of
course in the last few years of the war.
> Could you recommend useful sources?
Well this one is very interesting:
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/sitemap.htm
But I haven't had a proper look at it mysehn yet. I found it whilst
looking for the Roma/Sinta figures above.
I have pretty much been through:
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/sitemap03.html
An 'amateur' site (in the best sense, he obviously knows his stuff,
and presents different POVs), but quite detailed accounts of
individual camps. I personally am very interested in Mauthausen (the
only Grade III camp). You may find it interesting also, as I see you
post to alt.books.george-orwell, as it was the camp that housed the
victims of 'the Spanish Holocaust':
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Mauthausen/index.html
As a Britisher, the pages on Belsen were also v. interesting:
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/BergenBelsen/index.html
Yrs,
As ever,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
[1] I say "fighting", at least half of that figure would have been
non-combatants.
[2] http://www.holocaust-trc.org/sinti.htm
^
Dunno, about this site: it reviews a kids' book called: "The Yellow
Star, The Legend of King Christian X of Denmark", as being about a
'legend', when it is in fact a 'myth'. It looks okay otherwise though.
Honest Nev
> Joking and abuse apart I have to write that I have been really interested
> in your posts on this so horrible subject, Nev.
It is a horrible subject, John. And it's one I will try and avoid
whilst FuckWit is on his pretend sojourn (the same goes for Jews (not
that Jews are a horrible subject, it's just that we've been doing this
thread for _ages_), anti-Semitism, and, with any luck, racism,
homophobia etc.).
> Because so many Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis there is more than a
> tendency to think that they were the only victims of the holocaust.
Well, when many people speak of _the_ Holocaust, they refer only to
the Jewish victims of the Nazis.
> To be fair I don't think that the Jews themselves push this idea, others do
> it for them.
I agree. As the Cold War followed directly on from WW2, it wasn't very
useful to remind people that 20,000,000 Soviets died fighting [1] the
Nazis (approx 2.5 million Soviet POWS died in Nazi camps), especially
when the West was at that time active in vilifying the USSR and
communists generally. It would hardly be on-message to point-out that
all Russian commissars captured and identified by the Nazis were sent
immediately to Einsatzgruppens for elimination, (that's how much the
Nazis hated them).
As you probably know, the total number for Jewish deaths at the hands
of the Nazis is usually put at between 5.5 million and 6 million. It
is estimated that about half were gassed by the Nazis at death-camps.
The figures for Roma/Sinta victims "range from 220,000 to 500,000."
[2]
The figure for homosexuals who died in Nazi camps is estimated at
about 10,000.
The figure for Jehovah's Witnesses who died in the camps is put around
2,500 to 5,000. [3]
Of course everyday folk in all Nazi-occupied countries (and in the UK
too) also suffered during the war.
Although a relatively small group in number, Allied POWs who escaped
along with any captured Allied Specials were also executed as a matter
of course during the last few years of the war.
> Could you recommend useful sources?
Well, when looking up the figures for the Roma/Sinta, I came across:
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/sitemap.htm
Looks v. interesting, but haven't been through it yet.
These pages are 'amateur' (in the best sense, he seems to know his
stuff, and puts forth various POVs):
I see you post to alt.books.george-orwell, in which case you might
find the pages on Mauthausen very interesting: it was the Grade III
(!) camp that housed (amongst others) 8,000 Spaniards who had escaped
from Spain after loosing the Civil War, only to end up the captives of
Nazi Germany.
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
[1] I say "fighting", more than half of that number would be
non-combatants.
[2] http://www.holocaust-trc.org/sinti.htm
[3] I'll never moan about JWs knocking on my door again. The had the
option to denounce their faith and leave the camps at any time, but
they didn't. When you consider the conditions, that was some
achievement.
JIGSAW1695
>. .
>From: honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
>Date: 6/4/2003 5:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <a5ec705.03060...@posting.google.com>
>
>"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:<USiDa.90$W_1...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>
>> Joking and abuse apart I have to write that I have been really interested
>> in your posts on this so horrible subject, Nev.
>
>It is a horrible subject, John. And it's one I will try and avoid
>whilst FuckWit is on his pretend sojourn (the same goes for Jews (not
>that Jews are a horrible subject, it's just that we've been doing this
>thread for _ages_), anti-Semitism, and, with any luck, racism,
>homophobia etc.).
>
>> Because so many Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis there is more than a
>> tendency to think that they were the only victims of the holocaust.
>
>Well, when many people speak of _the_ Holocaust, they refer only to
>the Jewish victims of the Nazis.
>
>> To be fair I don't think that the Jews themselves push this idea, others do
>
>> it for them.
>
>I agree. As the Cold War followed directly on from WW2, it wasn't very
>useful to remind people that 20,000,000 Soviets died fighting [1] the
>Nazis (approx 2.5 million Soviet POWS died in Nazi camps), especially
>when the West was at that time active in vilifying the USSR and
>communists generally.
<< A lot snipped>>
===============================
The issue of the 20 million soviet civilian deaths in WWII has been discussed
earlier. Dezi had claimed that the Soviets won WWII because they suffered the
highest death rate in that war.
Research shows that the soviets lost about 5 million men and women in the war,
mostly due to poor tactical leadership than anything else. Soviet doctrine at
the time called for three waves of men and armour to attack. The first wave was
designed to cause the enemy to give away its positions and cause the
ammunitions to be depleated. The Second wave concentrated on the destruction of
position integrity. The third wave was the wave that actually took the
position.
While the large number of civilian war time casualties in indisputable, it
should be noted that the majority of civilian "casualties" included the
millions of soviet citizens who were thrown into the Gulags and work camps by
Stalin.
And it must not be forgotten that several hundred thousand former soviet
military members who were captured by the Germans. these men were repatriated
after the war, mached in Red Square and then loaded into trucks and taken into
soviet prison camps because they had been contaminated by the anti-communist
Germans.
FitzHerbert
<snip near-duplicate of already sent>
Those lying gogle [sic] fiends!
FitzHerbert
> The issue of the 20 million soviet civilian deaths in WWII
AFAIK, that figure includes military losses also. But, as you would
expect, estimates vary.
> has been discussed earlier. Dezi had claimed that the Soviets won WWII
> because they suffered the highest death rate in that war.
Without the Soviets, and the German losses on the Eastern front, WW2
may indeed have gone the other way. Total defeat of Nazi Germany would
not have been possible without the Soviets IMHO.
> Research shows that the soviets lost about 5 million men and women in the war,
> mostly due to poor tactical leadership than anything else.
I think we can safely say that Soviet dead ran to more than 5 million.
And everybody (inc. the Merkins) made tactical errors. I'm sure you
know that fighting on the Eastern front was probably the most
ferocious of the entire war.
In the end, the Ruskies managed to defeat a determined, experienced
and tactically-sophisticated invader that had already conquered much
of Europe. I shudder to think of the British losses had our natural
defences as an island nation not made such a 'push' impractical.
<snip>
> While the large number of civilian war time casualties in indisputable, it
> should be noted that the majority of civilian "casualties" included the
> millions of soviet citizens who were thrown into the Gulags and work camps by
> Stalin.
"the majority", Jiggy? Please quote figures.
> And it must not be forgotten that several hundred thousand former soviet
> military members who were captured by the Germans.
You're talking millions, Jiggy, not several hundred thousand.
> these men were repatriated after the war, mached in Red Square and then
> loaded into trucks and taken into soviet prison camps because they had been
> contaminated by the anti-communist Germans.
Approx. 2.5 million Soviet POWs died in the Nazi camps.
Don't get me wrong, Jiggy, Stalin was a bastard who had many people's
blood on his hands (inc. in the interest of fairness about 1 million
German POWs), but he killed a lot less of his own troops than the
Nazis did.
----------
I'm not a commie, Jigbob, and I strongly suspect you aren't (*wink*),
but just as communism has resulted in many atrocities, so has
capitalism: think of the slaves picking cotton in the US, think of
eight-year-old kids dragging carts about down English coal-mines,
think of kids today working in sweatshops making [insert brand here]
trainers.
Yrs,
Nev FitzHerbert, esq.
JIGSAW1695
. .
Date: 6/5/2003 7:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <f85d58f0.03060...@posting.google.com>
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote in message
news:<20030604185212...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
> The issue of the 20 million soviet civilian deaths in WWII
AFAIK, that figure includes military losses also. But, as you would
expect, estimates vary.
==============================
As I said, we had disgussed this issue before. The total war time death toll
was as stated*. If you cant locate these stats on the net, I will go back and
the sources.
Jigsaw
*Approximatly Twenty million civilian deaths and five million military deaths.
This is not to demean the individual soviet military man or citizen. They made
a great contribution to the war effort. But their leadership was unworthy of
them.
John Rennie
FitzHerbert
> 88% of German casualties in WWII were lost on their western front..
Really, John? That sounds very high. Does that include the German POWs
who died in soviet camps? And does it include civilians?
If we take 3.5 million (average estimate [1]) for total German
military dead, that would mean 'only' 420,000 died on the Eastern
front.
That seems very low, especially when compared to the level for Soviet
fatalities.
As I say, it's estimated that a million or so German POWs died in
Soviet camps.
Nev.
FitzHerbert
> Subject: Re: 100,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis
> . .
> From: FitzHerb...@hotmail.com (FitzHerbert)
> Date: 6/5/2003 7:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> Message-id: <f85d58f0.03060...@posting.google.com>
>
> jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote in message
> news:<20030604185212...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
>
> > The issue of the 20 million soviet civilian deaths in WWII
>
> AFAIK, that figure includes military losses also. But, as you would
> expect, estimates vary.
>
> ==============================
>
> As I said, we had disgussed this issue before. The total war time death toll
> was as stated*. If you cant locate these stats on the net, I will go back and
> the sources.
It's okay, Jiggy: the estimates vary a lot.
Total USSR dead seems to go from 20 million all the way up to 27
million. Most put it at between 20 and 25 million. Estimates for
Soviet military dead goes from 5 million up to 13 million.
This seems typical:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/statistics.htm
Total Military Civilian
USSR 20,600,000 13,600,000 7,000,000
John Rennie
"FitzHerbert" <FitzHerb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f85d58f0.03060...@posting.google.com...
> "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:<G0IDa.156$G6.2...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
>
> > 88% of German casualties in WWII were lost on their western front..
>
> Really, John? That sounds very high. Does that include the German POWs
> who died in soviet camps? And does it include civilians?
>
> If we take 3.5 million (average estimate [1]) for total German
> military dead, that would mean 'only' 420,000 died on the Eastern
> front.
To me who lived through these times that figure seems very high.
Consider the Italian and Normandy campaigns - except for the
bombing of the Falaise area in Normandy where have you heard of
large German casualties? Remember the Germans began
to have large numbers of casualties against the Russians in late
1941. These continued for another four years. There were
almost 600,000 Germans in Paulus's army at Stalingrad. Not
many of them made it back to Germany. I believe the figure
does include POWs killed as it should.
Honest Nev
> > > 88% of German casualties in WWII were lost on their western front..
> >
> > Really, John? That sounds very high. Does that include the German POWs
> > who died in soviet camps? And does it include civilians?
> >
> > If we take 3.5 million (average estimate [1]) for total German
> > military dead, that would mean 'only' 420,000 died on the Eastern
> > front.
>
> To me who lived through these times that figure seems very high.
For total German military war-dead? It does seem a lot. Mind you, I
find the 10-13m quoted for Russian civilians almost unimaginable...
and yet it seems to be the accepted figure.
> Consider the Italian and Normandy campaigns - except for the
> bombing of the Falaise area in Normandy where have you heard of
> large German casualties? Remember the Germans began
> to have large numbers of casualties against the Russians in late
> 1941. These continued for another four years. There were
> almost 600,000 Germans in Paulus's army at Stalingrad. Not
> many of them made it back to Germany.
Are we talking at cross-purposes, John, you did mean:
88% of German casualties in WWII were lost on their _western_ front?
<snip>
Nev
John Rennie
"Honest Nev" <honest_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a5ec705.03060...@posting.google.com...
Oh Dear! Should be their 'Eastern' front. The Sun does rise on that side
doesn't it?
Honest Nev
<snip>
> > Are we talking at cross-purposes, John, you did mean:
> >
> > 88% of German casualties in WWII were lost on their _western_ front?
<snip>
> Oh Dear! Should be their 'Eastern' front. The Sun does rise on that side
> doesn't it?
I could ha' sworn I heard more Germans perished on the Eastern
Front... though I was going mad. :-)
------
At this juncture I intend to question Jiggy's argument that the high
Soviet death-toll was "mostly due to poor tactical leadership than
anything else".
Now, the total figure for German dead in WW2 (all figures quoted in
this post are for military personnal only) is estimated at 3,500,000,
so it roughly breaks down thus [1]:
Western Front: 420,000 (12% of 3,500,000)
Eastern Front: 3,080,000 (88% of 3,500,000)
Now I have taken the median figures where possible from:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second
And that lists Soviet dead at 10,000,000. Polish dead is quoted at
125,000 (A substantial part of which would have been on the Western
Front).
Now the main 'Westerns' breaks down thus:
USA 400,000 (median) [2]
UK 280,000 (median)
French 210,000 (median)
Canada 37,476 (KIA, officially)
Australia 23,365 (incl. missing) (Britannica) [2]
Netherlands 13,700
Belgium 12,000 (Britannica)
New Zealand 10,033 (KIA, officially)
Denmark 1,800 (Britannica)
Norway 3,000 (Britannica)
Luxemburg 4,000-5,000 (Urlanis)
Total 995, 374 [3]
That mean a ratio of 3.2 Soviet/Polish deaths per German deaths on the
Eastern Front [4], compared to 2.4 Allied deaths per German deaths on
the Western Front. Although the Soviet figure is considerably higher,
it does not support Jiggy's assertion that the high level of Soviet
fatalities was "mostly due to poor tactical leadership than anything
else", no more than 'poor tactical leadership' on the Western Front.
If the Western Front had had to accomodate that extra 3 million German
troops, using the Allied ratio above it would have cost the lives of
approx 8.3 million Allied troops (as opposed to the 10 million
Soviets).
I think we can safely say that the Soviets took the brunt of the Nazi
war-machine, from the invasion onwards. Hardly surprising when you
consider the huge expanses and forces looming in the East, compared to
the two non-Nazi-occupied islands left in the West after the Nazis
conquered continental (Western) Europe with frightening pace and
relative ease.
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
[1] Not sure how Africa etc. impact on yr figure.
[2] I reckon these figures include deaths in the Pacific theatre.
[3] I've omitted a few countries on both fronts were the death count
was confused or relatively low.
[4] If we take Jiggy's figure of 5 million Soviet dead, that actually
works out at 1.6, a much lower figure than the Allies.
Sources for figures:
Urlanis, Boris, Wars and Population (1971)
Britannica: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1992 printing.
"Killed, died of wounds, or in prison .... exclud[ing] those who died
of natural causes or were suicides."
Both from http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm.
JIGSAW1695
. .
Date: 6/7/2003 3:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <a5ec705.03060...@posting.google.com>
[4] If we take Jiggy's figure of 5 million Soviet dead, that actually
works out at 1.6, a much lower figure than the Allies.
===============================
Reread my posts on this one Nev. I said that the Soviet military lost five
million troops and there were twenty million soviet civilians reported dead.
Your quote of my figures are off off by about 20 mil.
Jigsaw
Honest Nev
> Subject: Re: 100,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis
> . .
> From: honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
> Date: 6/7/2003 3:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> Message-id: <a5ec705.03060...@posting.google.com>
>
>
> [4] If we take Jiggy's figure of 5 million Soviet dead, that actually
> works out at 1.6, a much lower figure than the Allies.
>
> ===============================
>
> Reread my posts on this one Nev.
Reread my post, Jogbob. The post you have replied to contained figures
for military deaths only. I did point that out in the text.
> I said that the Soviet military lost five million troops
Indeed, which works out at a healthier ratio (Soviets to German
deaths) than on the Western Front (Allied to German deaths). It's
purely academic in any case as the Soviet figure is nearly always
quoted as much higher than 5 million. A death-rate for the Soviets of
anything over 9 million (i.e. most estimates) would put the Soviet to
German death-rate ratio as higher than the Allies, if only marginally
so.
To put it another way, the Soviets suffered much heavier losses than
the Allies fighting on the Western Front mainly because they were
fighting on a much grander scale. As has been pointed out German
losses were also much greater on the Eastern Front. It wasn't because
they were crap at fighting, Jiggy.
> and there were twenty million soviet civilians reported dead.
> Your quote of my figures are off off by about 20 mil.
>
> Jigsaw
Nev
Again Jiggy, all the figures in this post refer to military deaths
only.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<vkgodvk4eooeetra3...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >> >Extensive snipping. I find it hard to deal with the daft old fucker
>> >> >who has likened slavery to "trash collection", the elimination of
>> >> >which would require "you to take your trash personally to a landfill".
>> >> >[1]
>> >> >
>> >> Actually, it is YOU and the likes of YOU, who believe the DP is
>> >> the SAME as slavery. Believing there is no difference between
>> >> murderers and slaves.
>> >
>> >Poor, Jew-hating, slave-trade apologist, fibbing FW!
>> >
>> It's not nice to lie, Ol' Racist Nev..
>
>I know, that's why I don't.
>
LOL... Know thyself, Ol' Racist Nev.
>> you well know that your Jew-baiting has become as famous as the Nameless
>> One's racism here.
>
>Which, I am sure you will be the first to admit, is not very famous at
>all.
>
Quite right... his racism is "infamous," of course.
>But then everybody knows you are partial to porky-pies when yr racist,
>homophobic, Jew-hating, mysogenistic, fascist ways are being exposed.
In your hysterical ravings... one can see the spittle forming on your monitor,
Ol' Racist Nev. You can drop the act, since you've already admitted to
being a holocaust denier, and Nizkor has confirmed that your comments
meet the general standard of a holocaust denier.
>I bet you will now go on another drinking-binge and won't even have
>the guts to deny it... at least not for a few days.
>
Bacchus has drowned more men than Neptune, Ol' Racist Nev.. it is
your libation of choice... not mine. I drink from the fountain of knowledge
and truth. You wallow in the filthy rat and cockroach infested slime of
racism and anti-Semitism. You really should come 'into the light.'
>> Jews their birthright
>
>What 'birthright' is that, FW, you've gone all vague on me.
Their "birthright" of "born Jewish," you fool.
>> you argue that anti-Semitism doesn't exist,
>
>Quote me then, my dishonest interlocuter. I won't hold my breath.
>
Hello... your arguments which deny the meaning of that phrase are more
numerous than your arguments which deny the holocaust.
><snip FW comparing Dachau to a "health spa" [sic]>
>
That's you, sport. In your characterizations that Dachau wasn't 'quite
so bad' since you needed to STRESS that it wasn't actually a 'death camp'
and your claim that _not that many Jews were ever in Dachau_, and
your comparisons of Dachau as the same as Guantanamo. Jesus.. even
your own URL to Nizkor confirms that your comments demonstrate your
neo-Nazi and holocaust denial leanings. They confirm that those USING
the past comments of Wiesenthal to argue that no death camps existed
in Germany proper are Neo-Nazis. Just as you did.
Neo-Nazi-Nev... NNN... just like KKK. See --
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar03.html
><snip>
>
>> >FW, are you gonna say that I am a holocaust denier cos I say that most
>> >Jews were killed in the death camps, _not concentration camps_?
>> >
>> No... I'm saying you are a holocaust denier because you've tried
>> to minimize the _concentration camps_ to make them appear as
>> _not so bad_. In just about every way possible... arguing how
>> many non-Jews were kept there...
>
>You mean I have stated historical facts agreed upon by every Holocaust
>historian of note? It is _fact_ that 10 out every 13 dead at Dachau
>were non-Jews. Do you disagree? Seeing as how I have mentioned
>Treblinka, Birkenhau etc. and stated that they were death-camps
>designed to exterminate Jews... I do not see the denial. By calling me
>a 'holocaust denier', you make a complete and utter tit of yousehn.
You should read your own URL that you provided...given above...
where Nizkor shows that you are simply a neo-Nazi having used the
words of Simon Wiesenthal to presume some kind of admission that
the Holocaust was much more limited than has been maintained and
that the truth is finally coming out. It was illuminating that you provided
the weapon that points to your own holocaust denial.
<pathetic drooling of Ol' Racist Nev clipped>
>> >You compared Jews to murderers, thieves, and rapists. I
>> >did no such thing, Jew-hater. This is the last time I point this
>> >_fact_ out to you, as it makes me feel dirty just to repeat yr vile
>> >anti-Jewish propaganda.
>> >
>> You keep saying that... but it only makes your nose grow longer. Since
>> it was YOU who argued that Jews can ONLY CHOSE to BE JEWS.
>> And of course... Murderers can only CHOSE to BE MURDERERS.
>> I argue that Jews are BORN JEWISH... and given the absolute proof
>> that a human does not come out of the womb AS a MURDERER,
>> Jews cannot be murderers. qed -- YOU have compared those who
>> have chosen to BE Jewish to those who have chosen to be murderers.
>> You anti-Semitic swine.
>
>What a silly, illogical, convoluted piece of crap.
Chuckle... you are soooo easy. When comments become more
complicated than "See Dick run," you simply enter into your sniveling
puppy mode, curl up in that little ball, and whimper some pitifully
weak, but totally meaningless whine.
>That out of all the things in the universe one may choose to be (be it
>a Jew, a Cathy, a Lollipop man, a politician, a nurse, etc.), you
>would _chose_ to indentify Jews with 'murderers, thieves, and rapists'
>is, I think, _proof_ that you are a Jew-hater and a Nazi.
>
Actually I have EXCLUDED them from any of those who YOU identify
the Jew with... A born Jew is born as pure as the driven snow... as is
EVERY human. You identify the Jew with those who CHOOSE to do
what they do. Which are all of those things that YOU'VE mentioned
above. My argument is that a Jew is "born a Jew," and CANNOT be
born any of those things you've noted above.
><snip>
>
>> >And they were not. Is Simon Wiesenthal "DEFENDING those Nazis camps"
>> >when he says Dachau was not a death-camp for Jews?
>> >
>> I don't think he uses the word "stress" which would leave one with the feeling
>> that they _weren't all that bad_.
>
>ROTFLMAO!!! You've done it, FW... kipper-time again!
>
Actually... after reading the URL you offered.. I am thrilled that you provided
such proof of your own neo-Nazi leanings. As verified by Nizkor. Read the
URL you offered, Ol' Racist Nev... and then look in the mirror. Wiesenthal
spoke DIRECTLY to the type of comment you have provided in respect to
denying that death-camps were in Germany... and he called YOU a neo-Nazi
for using his past comments to diminish the holocaust itself.
>> Are you presuming that a great number
>> of humans, many of them Jewish didn't perish because of CONDITIONS
>> in Dachau? With your use of the word "stress," you seem to be saying ==>
>> _no deaths actually happened there, because I must STRESS that it
>> wasn't a death camp_. Why do you find it necessary to STRESS that
>> fact... why not just "say it"?
>
>I had 'said it', and Danny didn't belive me (just as you didn't), so I
>said it again with emphasis. The difference is (to young Daniel's
>credit) that he didn't go on to call Simon Wiesenthal a 'holocaust
>denier': only you sunk that low.
>
You maniac... I have NEVER called Simon Wiesenthal a 'holocaust
denier.' In fact, HE CALLED YOU ONE, in characterizing those
who used his words as neo-Nazis, and you certainly USED his words
to pronounce that there were no death-camps on German soil. His
words in the URL you offered -- "Because there were no extermination
camps on German soil the Neo-Nazis are using this as proof that these
crimes did not happen." That's YOU he is pointed his finger at, Ol'
Racist Nev. I have argued that it is denial of the holocaust to presume
that Dachau was _only a concentration camp_. You have argued that
Dachau WAS _only a concentration camp_. You connect the dots...
if your intellect is sufficient to figure it out.
><snip>
>
>> >Firstly, 10 out of every 13 dead at Dachau were non-Jews. In fact,
>> >Jews were only brought to Dachau en masse in the last few months of
>> >the War. THis is historic fact.
>> >
>> See what I mean? The big denial that the Jew was actually the focus
>> of the holocaust.
>
>You keep mentioning Dachau (you term it a "health spa [sic]" ,
Actually, I said that YOU termed it a health spa, since you seem to
be obsessive in your attempts to argue that _it wasn't all that bad_.
>Nazi-boy, whereas I prefer the term 'concentration camp'), and it is a
>_fact_... sorry a FACT [sic] that Dachau's dead was mainly non-Jewish.
>This was not the case in the death-camps, which you, of course, refuse
>to acknowledge as such.
>
Read again the URL from Nizkor that you provided and see that it terms
you a neo-Nazi for the views you are expressing.
>> >Secondly, in Dachau today (and you know the German laws on Holocaust
>> >denial) the gas chamber has a sign in it saying it was "never used".
>> >[1]
>> >
>> Oh, well.. of course.. if there's a "sign".... That's sarcasm again, BTW.
>
>"How MANY died in those gas chambers is a matter of speculation, which
>is generally the domain of the holocaust denier who expects everyone
>to believe they existed (sometimes even denying that) but were never
>used"
>
My God... it seems you are again admitting to what has already been proven...
that YOU are a holocaust denier.
>Why not write a few lines to the Museum at Dachau and point out that,
>despite their lengthy research and consultations with eminent
>historians in the field, you as an Internationally Recognised Usenet
>Fuckwit know better and _stress_ that they and their advisors are
>'Holocaust deniers'?
See --
http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
><snip>
>
>> >> Now tell me Dachau is Guantanamo.
>> >
>> >Dachau isn't 'Gitmo', no more than Dachau is Auschwitz, but Dachau and
>> >'Gitmo' were/are both concentration camps and only a Arab-hater would
>> >deny it... hang on, it's 'never trust an Arab' FuckWit who's saying
>> >it. As you were.
>> >
>> You were the one doing the comparison, Ol' Racist Nev. As I said
>> before and will continue to say.... I no longer argue Guantanamo...
>> there is much wrong with it... but NOT on the scale of Dachau...
>> Not conceivably by a hundred-thousand fold... no one has been
>> murdered in Guantanamo. Murders were a common occurrence
>> in Dachau,
>
>Do you think that on 22 March 1933, as crowds watched the first 200
>prisoners arrive at Dachau, they had any idea what would happen there?
>Give 'Gitmo' and TWAT twelve years, FW, who knows what further
>depravity the Merkins will sink to. Remember Vietnam (which naturally
>you deny involved the US murdering folk).
>
You sick shit... there is no longer a doubt that you are a holocaust denier....
now presuming to argue that Dachau relates to only 200 prisoners in
comparisons to Guantanamo. Nor have I ever attempted to defend
our actions in Vietnam. Vietnam was a moral catastrophe of a
dimension so huge it will be still be examined 50 years from now in
that context. It pales only to slavery, in terms of any American moral
failures. Yet comparisons of Vietnam to the holocaust would again
only hope to diminish the holocaust. In fact, there is NO EVENT IN
HISTORY which can be compared to the holocaust. There have been
other slaughters in the history of our species... but none brought to the
diabolical mechanical precision and analytical assembly-line methods
that existed in the holocaust. This was a methodical murdering madness...
salvaging and stockpiling clothing and shoes... removing gold from
the teeth of corpses. If we examine Vietnam 50 years from now...
we will still examine the holocaust a THOUSAND YEARS from now.
Yet... even in the catastrophe of Vietnam, which so ruptured any false
presumption that America 'always functioned from a moral framework,'
there were instances where we did. Almost as an apology for our
moral failure. Witness the 1.5 MILLION refugee Vietnamese that
are now members of U.S. society, and doing quite well, as a matter
of fact. Of course.. I firmly believe Vietnam was the greatest mistake,
and the most destructive act that the U.S. has ever taken, which was
totally without the slightest merit. Even the U.S.Civil war... pitting
brother against brother had a moral outcome, while there was only a
vast empty feeling on the part of every thinking American in the wake
of Vietnam.
But in the final analysis... irrespective of anything other than YOU AND I --
I am not a racist... you are.
I am not an anti-Semite.. you are.
I am not a holocaust denier... you are.
I have not suggested that the "unemployed or ill" be strung up... you did.
I have not suggested that you should be murdered ... you have suggested
that I WOULD be murdered if I visited Disneyshire.
And finally, I am not a liar... you are.
Thus... I consider myself far superior to you, in every respect. Intellectually...
morally... philosophically... and logically. But then again... it isn't that
difficult for ANYONE to find themselves far superior to you, sport.
><snip>
>
>> >> >Kindly desist from using my posts as a spring-board for yr vile
>> >> >anti-Jewish propaganda.
>> >> >
>> >> More denials. It goes well with your total Holocaust denial persona.
>> >
>> >FuckWit, if I was seeking to 'totally deny the Holocaust' I would
>> >hardly bring everybodys attention to the fact that Nazi death-camps
>> >existed to kill Jews, would I?
>> >
>> Ah.. there's denial... and then there is "denial."
>
>Really? And by reminding a.a.d-p of the Nazi death-camps, I denied
>what exactly?
>
See your own URL, sport... Nizkor CALLS you a holocaust denier.
Specifically, in the same meaning as you have used Simon Wiesenthal's
writings to argue "that the Holocaust was much more limited than has
been maintained and that the truth is finally coming out." See yourself
there. And recognize that you have yourself define what you see as
a holocaust denier, and then simply went on and demonstrated that you
were a holocaust denier -- See your own words --
First we have THIS comment from you where you define what in
your mind IS a holocaust denier --
"That'll be the Holocaust deniers who go out of their way to make a
distinction between concentration-camps (such as Dachau and Belson)
and death-camps such (as Treblinka, Sorbibor, etc.)."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0305300601.31e990fc%40posting.google.com
This demonstrates in your own words that you find someone who goes out
of their way to make a distinction between Nazi concentration-camps and
Nazi death-camps to be a holocaust denier. No question that it is YOUR
opinion that this is what a holocaust denier would do.
But then we ALSO have THIS comment from you --
"I must stress that Dachau, Belson, and Buchanwald were _not_ used as
death-camps for Jews."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0305290530.16495221%40posting.google.com
Gee... Ol' Racist Nev now ADMITS he IS the holocaust denier that he has
defined in his own words -- he must "STRESS" this difference... going
_out of his way_ to do so... exactly as he defined the methods of a holocaust
denier.
It's so refreshing to find that Ol' Racist Nev finally ADMITS he is a holocaust
denier. Don't you feel better.. now that' you've been 'outted,' Ol' Racist Nev?
><snip>
>
>> >> The fact is that in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE it is clearly defined that
>> >> a Jew is one born of Hebrew descent, HOWEVER that descent is
>> >> considered.
>> >
>> >In that case a daughter of a convert has 'Hebrew descent', mind you
>> >that also means the daughter of an Muslim convert has 'Islamic
>> >descent'.
>> >
>> So what? What do apples have to do with oranges?
>
>Heh.
Heh...indeed.
>At least I'm forcing you into being a _consistant_ twat. You've been
>saying one could _not_ be 'born Muslim'... LMAO!!
Of course one cannot be born a Muslim... I never said one could... You've
made that strange conclusion, and I simply ignored it as MEANINGLESS.
I certainly do not intend to even discuss something as absurd as being 'born
a Muslim.' Any more than one can be born a 'candy sugar cane.' While
most certainly one CAN be 'born an Arab.' Just as one CAN be 'born a Jew.'
Or would you argue that one CANNOT be 'born an Arab'? Are you now
intending to become anti-Arab as well as anti-Jewish? Can one be BORN
AN ARAB? How about that, Ol' Racist Nev? Is there such a thing as
a BORN ARAB? Or does one need to CHOOSE being an Arab? How
about English? Can one be born English? Or does BEING English
ONLY mean that one was BORN in England?
>> >> >That said, they are of course all mistaken in these beliefs, as far as
>> >> >we know.
>> >> >
>> >> If we are speaking of as far as _you_ know... we are speaking of how
>> >> far any of us could throw a 20 ton boulder.
>> >
>> >Prove just one of 'em.
>> >
>> Huh??? Prove just one of what? It's not my job to _prove_ your lies.
>> You do quite well in proving they are lies without any help from me.
>
>"... and orthodox Jewry believes that children of Jewish mothers
>(including new converts) are 'born Jewish'...", is not a lie, FW, you
>Jew-hater.
>
What the hell are you mumbling about? Are you so deep in denial that you
are now arguing that one CAN be 'born Jewish,' if a child of a Jewish
mother? Intending to prove your OWN AXIOM -- FALSE?
>> >> >> >You will note that one born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother is
>> >> >> >not considered to be 'born Jewish'... genetics don't even figure, you
>> >> >> >soft old coot, nor any 'Hebrew' ancestry.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Do you consider a child born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother
>> >> >> >to be 'born Jewish'?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Answer that one, FW... I dare you.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Love it.. just love it when someone proves MY point for me.
>> >> >
>> >> >And yr answer is...
>> >> >
>> >> That a child born of a Jewish mother, is born Jewish. Simple enough.
>> >
>> >In other words... you're an absolute fucking fuckwit!!!!! Answer the
>> >question.
>> >
>
><snip FW failing to answer the question _again_... I'm starting to
>wonder why...>
>
Too bad you haven't started to 'think.'
<snip Ol' Racist Nev's fixation on his desire for "human-animal sexual intercourse.">
>> >> So you DO ADMIT that one can be BORN JEWISH. Gee... I thought
>> >> you claimed it could not be?
>> >
>> >You can't... this is the 'orthodox' position... where the unscientific
>> >notion that one could be 'born Jewish' if yr mum's Jewish comes from.
>
><snip FW saying how he would "not touch" the orthodox position>
>
You provided the 'straight line,' you simpleton. Perhaps you prefer the
'missionary position,' was the presumed 'punch line,' that I would not
have mentioned.
>> No.. Ol' Racist Nev... You made a statement that you can neither
>> justify nor prove, while I have proven through many sources, including
>> the OED, and various URLs I've provided that a Jew is born Jewish.
>> You're just blowing smoke now... claiming it's now 'your POV.'
>> You may hold a POV that the sun will come up in the West tomorrow,
>> but I'm pretty sure you would be full of shit holding such a POV.
>
>But Fuckwit (I'm loving this one), you cannot prove that one is 'born
>Jewish' as you have claimed is the case.
Of course I can... every definition in the English language provides for that
proof... See
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Jew
Quoting -- Jew -- "2. * A member of the widely dispersed people originally
descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based
on Judaism."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/75/J0037500.html
The same
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/j/j0037500.html
The same
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Quote -- Jew -- "A person belonging to a continuation through descent or
conversion of the ancient Jewish people"
http://www.askoxford.com/dictionary/Jew
Quote -- Jew -- "person of Hebrew descent or whose religion is Judaism.
Cheee...
>You are asking me to accept a
>sexist tradition as fact when it is no such thing. It has come to the
>point when you will not answer a simple question, because you know
>that which ever way you answer it, you're fucked.
What the hell are you AGAIN mumbling about? Actually you have
claimed that --
"One is not 'born Jewish' anymore than one is 'born Cathy' or 'born Athiest'!!"
Obviously every definition I have provided shows that your argument is
FALSE. And obviously you refuse to address the question of a child born
of a Jewish mother, or a child born of both parents being Jewish. It is
you who is "fucked," sport.
>What happened to that psuedo-scientific 'evidence' regards Ashkenazi
>Jews that you deemed post-worthy and 'convincing' [sic] enough to sway
>a.a.d-p towards agreeing with yr notion of a 'Jewish race' (you evil
>Nazi).
I don't need to post it over and over to prove that an Ashkenazi Jew is
certainly a Jew by BIRTH, and thus totally disproves your statement.
It is a FACT... and thus your axiom is proven false.
>
>The emphasis of proof is on you, FW. You made the claim.
>
Actually, I've already provided a vast amount of proof... while you have
pathetically restated over and over a simplistic question of a Jewish father
and a Gentile mother, which actually proves or disproves not a fucking thing,
since it is only one of four possible combinations of birth through ethnic
descent.
PV
> Ol' Racist Nev
Ol' Racist Nev's murder threat to me if I ever visit Disneyshire --
FitzHerbert
> >> you well know that your Jew-baiting has become as famous as the Nameless
> >> One's racism here.
> >
> >Which, I am sure you will be the first to admit, is not very famous at
> >all.
> >
> Quite right...
I'm glad you admit yr deception.
<snip>
> >But then everybody knows you are partial to porky-pies when yr racist,
> >homophobic, Jew-hating, mysogenistic, fascist ways are being exposed.
>
> In your hysterical ravings... one can see the spittle forming on your monitor,
> Ol' Racist Nev. You can drop the act, since you've already admitted to
> being a holocaust denier, and Nizkor has confirmed that your comments
> meet the general standard of a holocaust denier.
In what why am I a holocaust denier, FW? And in what way does 'Nizkor'
confirm that?
> >I bet you will now go on another drinking-binge and won't even have
> >the guts to deny it... at least not for a few days.
> >
> Bacchus has drowned more men than Neptune, Ol' Racist Nev.. it is
> your libation of choice... not mine. I drink from the fountain of knowledge
> and truth. You wallow in the filthy rat and cockroach infested slime of
> racism and anti-Semitism. You really should come 'into the light.'
FuckWit, you could have at least sobered up before posting.
> >> Jews their birthright
> >
> >What 'birthright' is that, FW, you've gone all vague on me.
>
> Their "birthright" of "born Jewish," you fool.
A very sexist "birthright" as you define it.
> >> you argue that anti-Semitism doesn't exist,
> >
> >Quote me then, my dishonest interlocuter. I won't hold my breath.
>
> Hello... your arguments which deny the meaning of that phrase are more
> numerous than your arguments which deny the holocaust.
Quote [sic] notable by it's absence, even after two weeks of drunken
'Gogle' [sic] searches. Good job I wasn't holding my breath.
> ><snip FW comparing Dachau to a "health spa" [sic]>
>
> That's you, sport.
I han't even mentioned a "health spa" unless quoting yr vile
comparison above.
<snip>
> Jesus.. even your own URL to Nizkor
Yes, my own link to a site that combats holocaust denial...
Why would a 'holocaust denier' do that exactly?
LMAO!!
> confirms that your comments demonstrate your neo-Nazi and holocaust denial
> leanings. They confirm that those USING the past comments of Wiesenthal to
> argue that no death camps existed in Germany proper are Neo-Nazis.
You are deliberately misrepresented 'Nizkor', Nazi-boy.
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar03.html
"What is not given any recognition by the deniers is that the latest
"admission" by Wiesenthal is exactly what respectable historians have
been saying for the past 45 years, starting perhaps with the
Munich-based Institute for Contemporary History in 1950. This
selectivity amounts to nothing less than lying by omission and
innuendo."
Now, how many times have I 'recognised' that _no_ "respectable
historian" considers Dachau a 'death camp'?
> >> >FW, are you gonna say that I am a holocaust denier cos I say that most
> >> >Jews were killed in the death camps, _not concentration camps_?
> >> >
> >> No... I'm saying you are a holocaust denier because you've tried
> >> to minimize the _concentration camps_ to make them appear as
> >> _not so bad_. In just about every way possible... arguing how
> >> many non-Jews were kept there...
> >
> >You mean I have stated historical facts agreed upon by every Holocaust
> >historian of note? It is _fact_ that 10 out every 13 dead at Dachau
> >were non-Jews. Do you disagree? Seeing as how I have mentioned
> >Treblinka, Birkenhau etc. and stated that they were death-camps
> >designed to exterminate Jews... I do not see the denial. By calling me
> >a 'holocaust denier', you make a complete and utter tit of yousehn.
>
> You should read your own URL that you provided...given above...
> where Nizkor shows that you are simply a neo-Nazi having used the
> words of Simon Wiesenthal to presume some kind of admission that
> the Holocaust was much more limited than has been maintained and
> that the truth is finally coming out. It was illuminating that you provided
> the weapon that points to your own holocaust denial.
FW, very few holocaust deniers post links to Nizkor and other sites
listing Nazi extermination camps.
I normally wouldn't have to explain why this is they case, but then,
you are a bit thick.
<snip>
> >That out of all the things in the universe one may choose to be (be it
> >a Jew, a Cathy, a Lollipop man, a politician, a nurse, etc.), you
> >would _chose_ to indentify Jews with 'murderers, thieves, and rapists'
> >is, I think, _proof_ that you are a Jew-hater and a Nazi.
> >
> Actually I have EXCLUDED them from any of those who YOU identify
> the Jew with... A born Jew is born as pure as the driven snow... as is
> EVERY human. You identify the Jew with those who CHOOSE
Ah, I see: you likened CHOOSING [sic] to be a Jew, to CHOOSING [sic]
to be a 'murderer' [sic] or a 'thief' [sic] or a 'rapist' [sic]...
what a nasty little Jew-hater you are.
<snip>
> >> >And they were not. Is Simon Wiesenthal "DEFENDING those Nazis camps"
> >> >when he says Dachau was not a death-camp for Jews?
> >> >
> >> I don't think he uses the word "stress" which would leave one with the feeling
> >> that they _weren't all that bad_.
> >
> >ROTFLMAO!!! You've done it, FW... kipper-time again!
> >
> Actually... after reading the URL you offered..
I don't think you did read it, FW... LMAO!!
<snip>
> >> Are you presuming that a great number
> >> of humans, many of them Jewish didn't perish because of CONDITIONS
> >> in Dachau? With your use of the word "stress," you seem to be saying ==>
> >> _no deaths actually happened there, because I must STRESS that it
> >> wasn't a death camp_. Why do you find it necessary to STRESS that
> >> fact... why not just "say it"?
> >
> >I had 'said it', and Danny didn't belive me (just as you didn't), so I
> >said it again with emphasis. The difference is (to young Daniel's
> >credit) that he didn't go on to call Simon Wiesenthal a 'holocaust
> >denier': only you sunk that low.
> >
> You maniac... I have NEVER called Simon Wiesenthal a 'holocaust
> denier.'
Hang on, "there were no extermination camps on German soil"... that's
what I (and every reputable historian of the period) has been saying.
<snip>
> I have argued that it is denial of the holocaust to presume
> that Dachau was _only a concentration camp_. You have argued that
> Dachau WAS _only a concentration camp_. You connect the dots...
Yes, you _are_ calling Simon Wiesenthal a 'holocaust denier' aren't
you, FW, you daft old duffer.
> if your intellect is sufficient to figure it out.
>
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >Firstly, 10 out of every 13 dead at Dachau were non-Jews. In fact,
> >> >Jews were only brought to Dachau en masse in the last few months of
> >> >the War. THis is historic fact.
> >> >
> >> See what I mean? The big denial that the Jew was actually the focus
> >> of the holocaust.
> >
> >You keep mentioning Dachau (you term it a "health spa [sic]" ,
>
> Actually, I said that YOU termed it a health spa, since you seem to
> be obsessive in your attempts to argue that _it wasn't all that bad_.
You termed Dachau a "health spa [sic]", Nazi-boy. I didn't.
> >Nazi-boy, whereas I prefer the term 'concentration camp'), and it is a
> >_fact_... sorry a FACT [sic] that Dachau's dead was mainly non-Jewish.
> >This was not the case in the death-camps, which you, of course, refuse
> >to acknowledge as such.
> >
> Read again the URL from Nizkor that you provided and see that it terms
> you a neo-Nazi for the views you are expressing.
Now you've gone way too far... quote 'Nizkor' saying that people who
claim that more non-Jews than Jews died at Dachau are 'holocaust
deniers'.
I can see you merely wish to discredit 'Nizkor'in the eyes of a.a.d-p
with yr porkies.
Nazi scum.
> >> >Secondly, in Dachau today (and you know the German laws on Holocaust
> >> >denial) the gas chamber has a sign in it saying it was "never used".
> >> >[1]
> >> >
> >> Oh, well.. of course.. if there's a "sign".... That's sarcasm again, BTW.
> >
> >"How MANY died in those gas chambers is a matter of speculation, which
> >is generally the domain of the holocaust denier who expects everyone
> >to believe they existed (sometimes even denying that) but were never
> >used"
> >
> My God... it seems you are again admitting to what has already been proven...
> that YOU are a holocaust denier.
Er... I'm quoting you... hardly a reliable source, are you?
> >Why not write a few lines to the Museum at Dachau and point out that,
> >despite their lengthy research and consultations with eminent
> >historians in the field, you as an Internationally Recognised Usenet
> >Fuckwit know better and _stress_ that they and their advisors are
> >'Holocaust deniers'?
>
> See --
> http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
Why?
"Although the administrative authorities at Dachau, some famous
prisoners and many historians are quick to point out that the large
gas chamber at the camp was never used for homicidal purposes, there
is at least some evidence to the contrary."
That's a more or less standard opinion on the subject.
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >> Now tell me Dachau is Guantanamo.
> >> >
> >> >Dachau isn't 'Gitmo', no more than Dachau is Auschwitz, but Dachau and
> >> >'Gitmo' were/are both concentration camps and only a Arab-hater would
> >> >deny it... hang on, it's 'never trust an Arab' FuckWit who's saying
> >> >it. As you were.
> >> >
> >> You were the one doing the comparison, Ol' Racist Nev. As I said
> >> before and will continue to say.... I no longer argue Guantanamo...
> >> there is much wrong with it... but NOT on the scale of Dachau...
> >> Not conceivably by a hundred-thousand fold... no one has been
> >> murdered in Guantanamo. Murders were a common occurrence
> >> in Dachau,
> >
> >Do you think that on 22 March 1933, as crowds watched the first 200
> >prisoners arrive at Dachau, they had any idea what would happen there?
> >Give 'Gitmo' and TWAT twelve years, FW, who knows what further
> >depravity the Merkins will sink to. Remember Vietnam (which naturally
> >you deny involved the US murdering folk).
> >
> You sick shit... there is no longer a doubt that you are a holocaust
> denier...
LMAO!
FW, you are a greasy little fascist who is on record as saying that
that the United States (and only the US) cannot murder "by
definition". Yr opinion regards 'Gitmo' and it's long-term potential
is thus null and void.
<snip>
> >> >> >Kindly desist from using my posts as a spring-board for yr vile
> >> >> >anti-Jewish propaganda.
> >> >> >
> >> >> More denials. It goes well with your total Holocaust denial persona.
> >> >
> >> >FuckWit, if I was seeking to 'totally deny the Holocaust' I would
> >> >hardly bring everybodys attention to the fact that Nazi death-camps
> >> >existed to kill Jews, would I?
> >> >
> >> Ah.. there's denial... and then there is "denial."
> >
> >Really? And by reminding a.a.d-p of the Nazi death-camps, I denied
> >what exactly?
> >
> See your own URL, sport... Nizkor CALLS you a holocaust denier.
> Specifically, in the same meaning as you have used Simon Wiesenthal's
> writings to argue "that the Holocaust was much more limited than has
> been maintained and that the truth is finally coming out." See yourself
> there. And recognize that you have yourself define what you see as
> a holocaust denier, and then simply went on and demonstrated that you
> were a holocaust denier -- See your own words --
>
> First we have THIS comment from you where you define what in
> your mind IS a holocaust denier --
>
> "That'll be the Holocaust deniers who go out of their way to make a
> distinction between concentration-camps (such as Dachau and Belson)
> and death-camps such (as Treblinka, Sorbibor, etc.)."
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0305300601.31e990fc%40posting.google.com
LOL!
That'll be like St. George's 'apology' [sic]:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=21gnots518o1hd8nsh5jgb7f73ekmvffe9%404ax.com
Yr dishonesty knows no bounds.
> This demonstrates in your own words that you find someone who goes out
> of their way to make a distinction between Nazi concentration-camps and
> Nazi death-camps to be a holocaust denier. No question that it is YOUR
> opinion that this is what a holocaust denier would do.
>
<snip>
> >> >> The fact is that in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE it is clearly defined that
> >> >> a Jew is one born of Hebrew descent, HOWEVER that descent is
> >> >> considered.
> >> >
> >> >In that case a daughter of a convert has 'Hebrew descent', mind you
> >> >that also means the daughter of an Muslim convert has 'Islamic
> >> >descent'.
> >> >
> >> So what? What do apples have to do with oranges?
> >
> >Heh.
>
> Heh...indeed.
>
> >At least I'm forcing you into being a _consistant_ twat. You've been
> >saying one could _not_ be 'born Muslim'... LMAO!!
>
> Of course one cannot be born a Muslim... I never said one could...
Yeah, I said one could be 'born Islamic' using yr logic and you agreed
with:
"So what?"
<snip>
> > You are asking me to accept a sexist tradition as fact when it is no such
> > thing. It has come to the point when you will not answer a simple question, > > because you know that which ever way you answer it, you're fucked.
>
> What the hell are you AGAIN mumbling about? Actually you have
> claimed that --
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
<snip>
> I don't need to post it over and over to prove that an Ashkenazi Jew is
> certainly a Jew by BIRTH, and thus totally disproves your statement.
Is the child of an (Ashkenazi) Jewish father and a Gentile mother
'born Jewish'?
> It is a FACT... and thus your axiom is proven false.
> >
> >The emphasis of proof is on you, FW. You made the claim.
> >
>
> Actually, I've already provided a vast amount of proof... while you have
> pathetically restated over and over a simplistic question of a Jewish father
> and a Gentile mother, which actually proves or disproves not a fucking thing,
In that case you won't mind answering the question:
Is the child of a Jewish father and a Gentile mother 'born Jewish'?
*snigger*
A Planet Visitor
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:<19xGa.43305$rO.42...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
> > >> you well know that your Jew-baiting has become as famous as the Nameless
> > >> One's racism here.
> > >
> > >Which, I am sure you will be the first to admit, is not very famous at
> > >all.
> > >
> > Quite right...
>
> I'm glad you admit yr deception.
>
racism can certainly not be characterized as "famous," and can only be
called "infamous," comparable to what history tells us of Genghis Khan.
> <snip>
>
> > >But then everybody knows you are partial to porky-pies when yr racist,
> > >homophobic, Jew-hating, mysogenistic, fascist ways are being exposed.
> >
> > In your hysterical ravings... one can see the spittle forming on your monitor,
> > Ol' Racist Nev. You can drop the act, since you've already admitted to
> > being a holocaust denier, and Nizkor has confirmed that your comments
> > meet the general standard of a holocaust denier.
>
> In what why am I a holocaust denier, FW? And in what way does 'Nizkor'
> confirm that?
>
Let's see -- You said --
"I must stress that Dachau, Belson, and Buchanwald were _not_ used as
death-camps for Jews."
And then you used as PROOF of that the words of Simon Wiesenthal -
"I should point out (as many Merkins seem confused about this) that
Holocaust historians (inc. Simon Wiesenthal) do not call Dachau a
'death-camp'. Also the "four smaller gass chambers" mentioned were
disinfection chambers and the actual gas-chamber was not extensively
used:"
And then you provided a link to Nizkor which confirmed Wiesenthal's
words. BUT you actually neglected to read Nizkor's comment and
Wiesenthal's reflection on his past words -- Where Wiesenthal remarks
of those who USED his past words to make statements such as you
just made -- "Because there were no extermination camps on German
soil the Neo-Nazis are using this as proof that these crimes did not happen"
You see, neo-Nazi Nev... he was referring to YOU. And Nizkor went on
to elaborate on those such as you who have USED Wiesenthal's past
words to diminish the holocaust, by remarking -- "What is not given any
recognition by the deniers is that the latest "admission" by Wiesenthal
is exactly what respectable historians have been saying for the past 45
years, starting perhaps with the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary
History in 1950. This selectivity amounts to nothing less than lying by
omission and innuendo."
See where they call YOU a 'denier"?
> > >I bet you will now go on another drinking-binge and won't even have
> > >the guts to deny it... at least not for a few days.
> > >
> > Bacchus has drowned more men than Neptune, Ol' Racist Nev.. it is
> > your libation of choice... not mine. I drink from the fountain of knowledge
> > and truth. You wallow in the filthy rat and cockroach infested slime of
> > racism and anti-Semitism. You really should come 'into the light.'
>
> FuckWit, you could have at least sobered up before posting.
Calm down, Ol' Racist Nev... I didn't mean to spank you quite that hard.
> > >> Jews their birthright
> > >
> > >What 'birthright' is that, FW, you've gone all vague on me.
> >
> > Their "birthright" of "born Jewish," you fool.
>
> A very sexist "birthright" as you define it.
>
No... I don't "define" it, sport. I leave that to ignorant swine such as
yourself who would try to redefine the English Language and its definitions.
The more sexist "birthright," if such existed, would be the first born
son, who usually is granted all the assets of the family in some cultures.
> > >> you argue that anti-Semitism doesn't exist,
> > >
> > >Quote me then, my dishonest interlocuter. I won't hold my breath.
> >
> > Hello... your arguments which deny the meaning of that phrase are more
> > numerous than your arguments which deny the holocaust.
>
> Quote [sic] notable by it's absence, even after two weeks of drunken
> 'Gogle' [sic] searches. Good job I wasn't holding my breath.
>
See above.. your exact words. Plus, we have you defining what you
believe a holocaust denier IS... and then in a subsequent post doing
the very thing you claim a holocaust denier DOES --
First we have THIS comment from you where YOU define what in
YOUR mind IS a holocaust denier --
"That'll be the Holocaust deniers who go out of their way to make a
distinction between concentration-camps (such as Dachau and Belson)
and death-camps such (as Treblinka, Sorbibor, etc.)."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0305300601.31e990fc%40posting.google.com
And then we ALSO have THIS comment from you admitting that
you meet the exact criteria that you have yourself defined as a holocaust
denier --
"I must stress that Dachau, Belson, and Buchanwald were _not_ used as
death-camps for Jews."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0305290530.16495221%40posting.google.com
> > ><snip FW comparing Dachau to a "health spa" [sic]>
> >
> > That's you, sport.
>
> I han't even mentioned a "health spa" unless quoting yr vile
> comparison above.
>
Ah... you COMPARED Dachau to what amounted to a "health
spa," since you continually argued how _great it was_ in respect
to the Jews. I have ALWAYS argued that it fits some of the very
real descriptions of a death camp, and to characterize it as
ONLY a concentration camp, is in fact an attempt to "sanitize"
it. Which has been your purpose from the beginning, hoping to
make it the SAME as Guantanamo, and thus rather "purify"
Dachau, in respect to the murder of the Jews... which you
have also argued quite strongly were, to paraphrase you, not
actually murdered to a great extent in Dachau. What was it
again? Only 2 out of 13? And by this selective "purification" of
Dachau that you hoped to perpetrate, you hoped to diminish the
holocaust itself. Just as Wiesenthal states in the URL you
provided.
> <snip>
>
> > Jesus.. even your own URL to Nizkor
>
> Yes, my own link to a site that combats holocaust denial...
>
> Why would a 'holocaust denier' do that exactly?
>
> LMAO!!
>
So you find the holocaust "funny"? Of course I already knew that.
But you would post that link because you didn't actually READ
it, stupid. As I've pointed out before... having a third-grade education
has left you intellectually deprived You simply ASSUMED that
Nizkor was QUOTING Simon Wiesenthal to CONFIRM your claim
that Dachau was not a _death camp_. But had you READ the URL
you provided, Nizkor tells you that by arguing as you do, you are
both a neo-Nazi and a holocaust denier.
> > confirms that your comments demonstrate your neo-Nazi and holocaust denial
> > leanings. They confirm that those USING the past comments of Wiesenthal to
> > argue that no death camps existed in Germany proper are Neo-Nazis.
>
> You are deliberately misrepresented 'Nizkor', Nazi-boy.
Actually, the words are there for all to read. Wiesenthal clearly
states that those who USE his past comments regarding "no death
camps in Germany," ARE NEO-NAZIS.
> > http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar03.html
>
> "What is not given any recognition by the deniers is that the latest
> "admission" by Wiesenthal is exactly what respectable historians have
> been saying for the past 45 years, starting perhaps with the
> Munich-based Institute for Contemporary History in 1950. This
> selectivity amounts to nothing less than lying by omission and
> innuendo."
Quite true... they are calling YOU that "denier," they speak of.
> Now, how many times have I 'recognised' that _no_ "respectable
> historian" considers Dachau a 'death camp'?
>
You really DO have a reading comprehension problem... don't you?
They state that doing as you do... is "nothing less than lying by
omission and innuendo."
> > >> >FW, are you gonna say that I am a holocaust denier cos I say that most
> > >> >Jews were killed in the death camps, _not concentration camps_?
> > >> >
> > >> No... I'm saying you are a holocaust denier because you've tried
> > >> to minimize the _concentration camps_ to make them appear as
> > >> _not so bad_. In just about every way possible... arguing how
> > >> many non-Jews were kept there...
> > >
> > >You mean I have stated historical facts agreed upon by every Holocaust
> > >historian of note? It is _fact_ that 10 out every 13 dead at Dachau
> > >were non-Jews. Do you disagree? Seeing as how I have mentioned
> > >Treblinka, Birkenhau etc. and stated that they were death-camps
> > >designed to exterminate Jews... I do not see the denial. By calling me
> > >a 'holocaust denier', you make a complete and utter tit of yousehn.
> >
> > You should read your own URL that you provided...given above...
> > where Nizkor shows that you are simply a neo-Nazi having used the
> > words of Simon Wiesenthal to presume some kind of admission that
> > the Holocaust was much more limited than has been maintained and
> > that the truth is finally coming out. It was illuminating that you provided
> > the weapon that points to your own holocaust denial.
>
> FW, very few holocaust deniers post links to Nizkor and other sites
> listing Nazi extermination camps.
That's because you are too stupid to actually comprehend what Nizkor
was saying, Ol' Racist Nev. But many racists and neo-Nazis have
reading skill deficiencies.
> I normally wouldn't have to explain why this is they case, but then,
> you are a bit thick.
Read and understand, neo-Nazi Nev.
> <snip>
>
> > >That out of all the things in the universe one may choose to be (be it
> > >a Jew, a Cathy, a Lollipop man, a politician, a nurse, etc.), you
> > >would _chose_ to indentify Jews with 'murderers, thieves, and rapists'
> > >is, I think, _proof_ that you are a Jew-hater and a Nazi.
> > >
> > Actually I have EXCLUDED them from any of those who YOU identify
> > the Jew with... A born Jew is born as pure as the driven snow... as is
> > EVERY human. You identify the Jew with those who CHOOSE
>
> Ah, I see: you likened CHOOSING [sic] to be a Jew, to CHOOSING [sic]
> to be a 'murderer' [sic] or a 'thief' [sic] or a 'rapist' [sic]...
> what a nasty little Jew-hater you are.
>
First, perhaps you should look at
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=choose
In any case, YOU stated that a Jew can ONLY choose to be a Jew.
Certainly one is not BORN any of those things you've mentioned.
One is only BORN innocent. Of course, that's where your confusion
lies... since you find Jews to be born GUILTY... since you find the
Nazi laws were LEGAL... and those laws found the Jew was BORN
GUILTY.
> <snip>
>
> > >> >And they were not. Is Simon Wiesenthal "DEFENDING those Nazis camps"
> > >> >when he says Dachau was not a death-camp for Jews?
> > >> >
> > >> I don't think he uses the word "stress" which would leave one with the feeling
> > >> that they _weren't all that bad_.
> > >
> > >ROTFLMAO!!! You've done it, FW... kipper-time again!
> > >
> > Actually... after reading the URL you offered..
>
> I don't think you did read it, FW... LMAO!!
>
Your problem is that YOU didn't read it!!
> <snip>
>
> > >> Are you presuming that a great number
> > >> of humans, many of them Jewish didn't perish because of CONDITIONS
> > >> in Dachau? With your use of the word "stress," you seem to be saying ==>
> > >> _no deaths actually happened there, because I must STRESS that it
> > >> wasn't a death camp_. Why do you find it necessary to STRESS that
> > >> fact... why not just "say it"?
> > >
> > >I had 'said it', and Danny didn't belive me (just as you didn't), so I
> > >said it again with emphasis. The difference is (to young Daniel's
> > >credit) that he didn't go on to call Simon Wiesenthal a 'holocaust
> > >denier': only you sunk that low.
> > >
> > You maniac... I have NEVER called Simon Wiesenthal a 'holocaust
> > denier.'
>
> Hang on, "there were no extermination camps on German soil"... that's
> what I (and every reputable historian of the period) has been saying.
>
Read the Nizkor URL again, Ol' Racist Nev... and see how your pathetic
repeating of that is seen as simple neo-Nazi ravings... just as Wiesenthal
comments.
> <snip>
>
> > I have argued that it is denial of the holocaust to presume
> > that Dachau was _only a concentration camp_. You have argued that
> > Dachau WAS _only a concentration camp_. You connect the dots...
>
> Yes, you _are_ calling Simon Wiesenthal a 'holocaust denier' aren't
> you, FW, you daft old duffer.
>
No... HE is calling YOU a holocaust denier... as is Nizkor.
> > if your intellect is sufficient to figure it out.
> >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >> >Firstly, 10 out of every 13 dead at Dachau were non-Jews. In fact,
> > >> >Jews were only brought to Dachau en masse in the last few months of
> > >> >the War. THis is historic fact.
> > >> >
> > >> See what I mean? The big denial that the Jew was actually the focus
> > >> of the holocaust.
> > >
> > >You keep mentioning Dachau (you term it a "health spa [sic]" ,
> >
> > Actually, I said that YOU termed it a health spa, since you seem to
> > be obsessive in your attempts to argue that _it wasn't all that bad_.
>
> You termed Dachau a "health spa [sic]", Nazi-boy. I didn't.
>
No... clearly I stated that YOU felt it was a _health spa_. In fact, I
have always argued that it was WORSE than a concentration camp...
clearly a death-camp, but to a lesser extent than those that existed
outside of Germany. I referred you to this URL, which clearly showed
that murders in gas chambers had taken place in Dachau -- see
http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
> > >Nazi-boy, whereas I prefer the term 'concentration camp'), and it is a
> > >_fact_... sorry a FACT [sic] that Dachau's dead was mainly non-Jewish.
> > >This was not the case in the death-camps, which you, of course, refuse
> > >to acknowledge as such.
> > >
> > Read again the URL from Nizkor that you provided and see that it terms
> > you a neo-Nazi for the views you are expressing.
>
> Now you've gone way too far... quote 'Nizkor' saying that people who
> claim that more non-Jews than Jews died at Dachau are 'holocaust
> deniers'.
>
Actually, that is quite a bit what Nizkor implies. Using the words
"amounts to nothing less than lying by omission and innuendo." You
USING that "argument" is "lying by omission and innuendo," and makes
you a holocaust denier, according to the URL you provided.
> I can see you merely wish to discredit 'Nizkor'in the eyes of a.a.d-p
> with yr porkies.
>
> Nazi scum.
Actually, THEY have discredited YOU. Thus, I can see now that YOU
are trying to discredit them. In fact, I am hardly discredited them.. Since
I am using their comments to PROVE they call you both a neo-Nazi
and a denier.
> > >> >Secondly, in Dachau today (and you know the German laws on Holocaust
> > >> >denial) the gas chamber has a sign in it saying it was "never used".
> > >> >[1]
> > >> >
> > >> Oh, well.. of course.. if there's a "sign".... That's sarcasm again, BTW.
> > >
> > >"How MANY died in those gas chambers is a matter of speculation, which
> > >is generally the domain of the holocaust denier who expects everyone
> > >to believe they existed (sometimes even denying that) but were never
> > >used"
> > >
> > My God... it seems you are again admitting to what has already been proven...
> > that YOU are a holocaust denier.
>
> Er... I'm quoting you... hardly a reliable source, are you?
Ummm... I was describing YOU... Since you have presumed the gas chambers
EXISTED but were never used. I have ALWAYS contended that they WERE
used, but to a much lesser extent that outside of Germany. The holocaust
denier, as outlined in the Nizkor URL you offer, always argues that they
were NOT used. Doing so to diminish the holocaust itself. Once again,
see the URL I have provided.
> > >Why not write a few lines to the Museum at Dachau and point out that,
> > >despite their lengthy research and consultations with eminent
> > >historians in the field, you as an Internationally Recognised Usenet
> > >Fuckwit know better and _stress_ that they and their advisors are
> > >'Holocaust deniers'?
> >
> > See --
> > http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
>
> Why?
>
> "Although the administrative authorities at Dachau, some famous
> prisoners and many historians are quick to point out that the large
> gas chamber at the camp was never used for homicidal purposes, there
> is at least some evidence to the contrary."
>
> That's a more or less standard opinion on the subject.
>
Ah.. but you've been denying that over and over... claimed that you
had to STRESS that Dachau was ONLY a concentration camp.
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >> >> Now tell me Dachau is Guantanamo.
> > >> >
> > >> >Dachau isn't 'Gitmo', no more than Dachau is Auschwitz, but Dachau and
> > >> >'Gitmo' were/are both concentration camps and only a Arab-hater would
> > >> >deny it... hang on, it's 'never trust an Arab' FuckWit who's saying
> > >> >it. As you were.
> > >> >
> > >> You were the one doing the comparison, Ol' Racist Nev. As I said
> > >> before and will continue to say.... I no longer argue Guantanamo...
> > >> there is much wrong with it... but NOT on the scale of Dachau...
> > >> Not conceivably by a hundred-thousand fold... no one has been
> > >> murdered in Guantanamo. Murders were a common occurrence
> > >> in Dachau,
> > >
> > >Do you think that on 22 March 1933, as crowds watched the first 200
> > >prisoners arrive at Dachau, they had any idea what would happen there?
> > >Give 'Gitmo' and TWAT twelve years, FW, who knows what further
> > >depravity the Merkins will sink to. Remember Vietnam (which naturally
> > >you deny involved the US murdering folk).
> > >
> > You sick shit... there is no longer a doubt that you are a holocaust
> > denier...
>
> LMAO!
>
I know you find you being a holocaust denier quite funny... as you found it
"funny" when spike suggested that the "unemployed or" should be strung
up. All of that fits in perfectly with your persona.
> <snip>
>
> > >> >> >Kindly desist from using my posts as a spring-board for yr vile
> > >> >> >anti-Jewish propaganda.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> More denials. It goes well with your total Holocaust denial persona.
> > >> >
> > >> >FuckWit, if I was seeking to 'totally deny the Holocaust' I would
> > >> >hardly bring everybodys attention to the fact that Nazi death-camps
> > >> >existed to kill Jews, would I?
> > >> >
> > >> Ah.. there's denial... and then there is "denial."
> > >
> > >Really? And by reminding a.a.d-p of the Nazi death-camps, I denied
> > >what exactly?
> > >
> > See your own URL, sport... Nizkor CALLS you a holocaust denier.
> > Specifically, in the same meaning as you have used Simon Wiesenthal's
> > writings to argue "that the Holocaust was much more limited than has
> > been maintained and that the truth is finally coming out." See yourself
> > there. And recognize that you have yourself define what you see as
> > a holocaust denier, and then simply went on and demonstrated that you
> > were a holocaust denier -- See your own words --
> >
> > First we have THIS comment from you where you define what in
> > your mind IS a holocaust denier --
> >
> > "That'll be the Holocaust deniers who go out of their way to make a
> > distinction between concentration-camps (such as Dachau and Belson)
> > and death-camps such (as Treblinka, Sorbibor, etc.)."
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0305300601.31e990fc%40posting.google.com
>
> LOL!
>
Once again.. I know you find the holocaust very funny.
> That'll be like St. George's 'apology' [sic]:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=21gnots518o1hd8nsh5jgb7f73ekmvffe9%404ax.com
>
> Yr dishonesty knows no bounds.
God... you're pathetic... A link to a post having nothing to do with
your own comment.
> > This demonstrates in your own words that you find someone who goes out
> > of their way to make a distinction between Nazi concentration-camps and
> > Nazi death-camps to be a holocaust denier. No question that it is YOUR
> > opinion that this is what a holocaust denier would do.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
Hey... are you DENYING those are YOUR EXACT WORDS? But I notice
that you <clipped> the part of your EXACT WORDS that confirms you did
exactly what you claim a holocaust denier does. Those words being --
"I must stress that Dachau, Belson, and Buchanwald were _not_ used as
death-camps for Jews."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0305290530.16495221%40posting.google.com
Those few words CONDEMN you, Ol' Racist Nev... CONDEMN you as
a neo-Nazi and a holocaust denier through your own definition and the
words of Wiesenthal in the Nizkor URL you provided.
> > >> >> The fact is that in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE it is clearly defined that
> > >> >> a Jew is one born of Hebrew descent, HOWEVER that descent is
> > >> >> considered.
> > >> >
> > >> >In that case a daughter of a convert has 'Hebrew descent', mind you
> > >> >that also means the daughter of an Muslim convert has 'Islamic
> > >> >descent'.
> > >> >
> > >> So what? What do apples have to do with oranges?
> > >
> > >Heh.
> >
> > Heh...indeed.
> >
> > >At least I'm forcing you into being a _consistant_ twat. You've been
> > >saying one could _not_ be 'born Muslim'... LMAO!!
> >
> > Of course one cannot be born a Muslim... I never said one could...
>
> Yeah, I said one could be 'born Islamic' using yr logic and you agreed
> with:
>
> "So what?"
>
That doesn't signify agreement. You might say that the sun comes up
in the west... and I could well remark "so what?" because you are too
stupid to argue with. Certainly one CANNOT be born a Muslim. One
CAN be born an Arab... and one CAN be born a Jew.
> <snip>
<snip> indeed... Avoiding a great number of questions... Two of which
are essential to your claim that a person cannot be born Jewish. Those
questions which you certainly are unable to answer without either
appearing anti-Arab or anti-English, were --
1) Can one be BORN ARAB?
2) Can one be BORN ENGLISH?
> > > You are asking me to accept a sexist tradition as fact when it is no such
> > > thing. It has come to the point when you will not answer a simple question,
> > > because you know that which ever way you answer it, you're fucked.
> >
> > What the hell are you AGAIN mumbling about? Actually you have
> > claimed that --
>
> ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>
Actually, it is a non-question, since it does not prove anything.
The only question you COULD ask which might PROVE your
axiom would be "can a person be born Jewish?" And for YOUR
axiom to be true the answer to that question would have to be
"NO." But the answer to that question is "YES." Thus, your
original statement is FALSE.
> <snip>
>
> > I don't need to post it over and over to prove that an Ashkenazi Jew is
> > certainly a Jew by BIRTH, and thus totally disproves your statement.
>
> Is the child of an (Ashkenazi) Jewish father and a Gentile mother
> 'born Jewish'?
>
Once again... the question has no validity to YOUR statement.
Since an Ashkenazi Jew is one born of both parents being
Ashkenazi Jews... which effectively eliminates any silly argument
in respect to sexism. So you answer the question... Is a person
born of BOTH parents being Ashkenazi Jews, a Jew? And if
you answer yes... than your original statement is proven false.
> > It is a FACT... and thus your axiom is proven false.
> > >
> > >The emphasis of proof is on you, FW. You made the claim.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, I've already provided a vast amount of proof... while you have
> > pathetically restated over and over a simplistic question of a Jewish
> > father and a Gentile mother, which actually proves or disproves not
> > a fucking thing,
>
> In that case you won't mind answering the question:
>
> Is the child of a Jewish father and a Gentile mother 'born Jewish'?
>
> *snigger*
>
A child born of a Jewish father and a Jewish mother is born Jewish.
Which effectively disproves your original statement. Do you agree
with that?
PV
> Neo-Nazi Nev (NNN)
FitzHerbert
<snip>
> Hardly a deception... since both your Jew-Baiting and the Nameless One's
> racism can certainly not be characterized as "famous," and can only be
> called "infamous," comparable to what history tells us of Genghis Khan.
Okay, FW, who else has called me a "Jew-baiter"?
Just you then is it?
Ho hum.
<snip>
> BUT you actually neglected to read Nizkor's comment and
> Wiesenthal's reflection on his past words -- Where Wiesenthal remarks
> of those who USED his past words to make statements such as you
> just made -- "Because there were no extermination camps on German
> soil the Neo-Nazis are using this as proof that these crimes did not happen"
FW, the Jews weren't gassed at Dachau, they were gassed in the East.
When have I misused this _fact_ to claim the "crimes did not happen"?
Only you seem to have a problem with refering to the death camps as
such, Nazi-boy.
> You see, neo-Nazi Nev... he was referring to YOU.
Nazi-boy, why are you out to misrepresent both Wiesenthal's words and
'Nizkor'?
They are not Wiesenthal's "past words" on the subject! He hasn't
changed his mind, nor have the historians. In another of yr recent
posts you implied even more strongly that Wiesenthal made a 'mistake'
or a 'slip' when he made the comment... or in other words: a "kind
of admission that the Holocaust was much more limited than has been
maintained and that the truth is finally coming out."
'Nizkor' is talking about you, Nazi-boy.
> And Nizkor went on
> to elaborate on those such as you who have USED Wiesenthal's past
> words to diminish the holocaust, by remarking -- "What is not given any
> recognition by the deniers is that the latest "admission" by Wiesenthal
> is exactly what respectable historians have been saying for the past 45
> years, starting perhaps with the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary
> History in 1950. This selectivity amounts to nothing less than lying by
> omission and innuendo."
>
> See where they call YOU a 'denier"?
No, FW, where? It is you who is trying to make Wiesenthal's words an
"admission" rather than a plain statement of fact.
I do believe I quoted (as my first source in this debate to show how
Dachau was not a death-camp), a site dedicated mainly to information
about the actual camps themsen and nothing to do with Wiesenthal:
Daniel Hogg says:
"In any event, you misrepresent Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald,
each of which were either alone, or together with other camps,
concentration camps designed to remove (principally) Jews..."
Neville FitzHerbert, esq says:
"Daniel, if you think the camps I mentioned housed "(principally)
Jews", you are v. v. mistaken: the vast majority of inmates in those
three were Soviet POWS and political-prisoners (i.e. Commies and other
dissidents).
For example Dachau:
"The majority of the prisoners at Dachau were Christian. It was
primarily a camp for political prisoners, German criminals, and
Christian clergymen who opposed the Nazis...
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauFAQ " [1]
In the same post I linked to:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi_police_state.htm
In the next post I quote 'Nizkor' about the gas-chamber and it's use.
Unlike you I've made no attempt to show how Wiesenthal made a
'mistake'.
As you were, Nazi-boy.
> > > >I bet you will now go on another drinking-binge and won't even have
> > > >the guts to deny it... at least not for a few days.
> > > >
> > > Bacchus has drowned more men than Neptune, Ol' Racist Nev.. it is
> > > your libation of choice... not mine. I drink from the fountain of knowledge
> > > and truth. You wallow in the filthy rat and cockroach infested slime of
> > > racism and anti-Semitism. You really should come 'into the light.'
> >
> > FuckWit, you could have at least sobered up before posting.
>
> Calm down, Ol' Racist Nev... I didn't mean to spank you quite that hard.
FuckWit, lay off the booze, if only for yr poor wifey. How many doors
has she walked into now, FW?
> > > >> Jews their birthright
> > > >
> > > >What 'birthright' is that, FW, you've gone all vague on me.
> > >
> > > Their "birthright" of "born Jewish," you fool.
> >
> > A very sexist "birthright" as you define it.
> >
> No... I don't "define" it, sport. I leave that to ignorant swine such as
> yourself who would try to redefine the English Language and its definitions.
> The more sexist "birthright," if such existed, would be the first born
> son, who usually is granted all the assets of the family in some cultures.
Sexism is sexism, FW, whether it's against the male or against the
female.
<snip the St. George's 'apology' [sic] gimmick [2]>
> > > ><snip FW comparing Dachau to a "health spa" [sic]>
> > >
> > > That's you, sport.
> >
> > I han't even mentioned a "health spa" unless quoting yr vile
> > comparison above.
> >
> Ah... you COMPARED Dachau to what amounted to a "health
> spa," since you continually argued how _great it was_ in respect
> to the Jews. I have ALWAYS argued that it fits some of the very
> real descriptions of a death camp, and to characterize it as
> ONLY a concentration camp, is in fact an attempt to "sanitize"
> it.
You han't got a fucking clue, have you?
> Which has been your purpose from the beginning, hoping to
> make it the SAME as Guantanamo, and thus rather "purify"
> Dachau, in respect to the murder of the Jews... which you
> have also argued quite strongly were, to paraphrase you, not
> actually murdered to a great extent in Dachau. What was it
> again? Only 2 out of 13?
3 out of 13.
HOLOCAUST DENIER!!!!! [sic]
> And by this selective "purification" of
> Dachau that you hoped to perpetrate, you hoped to diminish the
> holocaust itself. Just as Wiesenthal states in the URL you
> provided.
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Jesus.. even your own URL to Nizkor
> >
> > Yes, my own link to a site that combats holocaust denial...
> >
> > Why would a 'holocaust denier' do that exactly?
> >
> > LMAO!!
> >
> So you find the holocaust "funny"? Of course I already knew that.
> But you would post that link because you didn't actually READ
> it, stupid. As I've pointed out before... having a third-grade education
> has left you intellectually deprived You simply ASSUMED that
> Nizkor was QUOTING Simon Wiesenthal to CONFIRM your claim
> that Dachau was not a _death camp_. But had you READ the URL
> you provided, Nizkor tells you that by arguing as you do, you are
> both a neo-Nazi and a holocaust denier.
ROTFLMAO!!!
FuckWit, go back and read it yoursen.
And then ask yoursen, "Why does Nev always manage to bitch-slap me? Is
it cos I'm a fuckwit?"
> > > confirms that your comments demonstrate your neo-Nazi and holocaust denial
> > > leanings. They confirm that those USING the past comments of Wiesenthal to
> > > argue that no death camps existed in Germany proper are Neo-Nazis.
> >
> > You are deliberately misrepresented 'Nizkor', Nazi-boy.
>
> Actually, the words are there for all to read. Wiesenthal clearly
> states that those who USE his past comments regarding "no death
> camps in Germany," ARE NEO-NAZIS.
No he doesn't. And 'Nizkor' states that it those who (like you) make
out Wiesenthal's words were a 'mistake' or a 'slip' who misuse them. I
implore anyone to visit the site and see what a silly little fuckwit
FuckWit is.
> > > http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar03.html
> >
> > "What is not given any recognition by the deniers is that the latest
> > "admission" by Wiesenthal is exactly what respectable historians have
> > been saying for the past 45 years, starting perhaps with the
> > Munich-based Institute for Contemporary History in 1950. This
> > selectivity amounts to nothing less than lying by omission and
> > innuendo."
>
> Quite true... they are calling YOU that "denier," they speak of.
See how thick FuckWit is?
> > Now, how many times have I 'recognised' that _no_ "respectable
> > historian" considers Dachau a 'death camp'?
> >
> You really DO have a reading comprehension problem... don't you?
> They state that doing as you do... is "nothing less than lying by
> omission and innuendo."
Oh my fucking god!
You really hate 'Nizkor' don't you?
<snip>
> > FW, very few holocaust deniers post links to Nizkor and other sites
> > listing Nazi extermination camps.
>
> That's because you are too stupid to actually comprehend what Nizkor
> was saying
Oh the irony, Nazi-boy!
> Ol' Racist Nev. But many racists and neo-Nazis have reading skill
> deficiencies.
Oh the irony, Nazi-boy!
> > I normally wouldn't have to explain why this is they case, but then,
> > you are a bit thick.
>
> Read and understand, neo-Nazi Nev.
Okay FW, why would a 'holocaust denier' treat it as _fact_ that the
Nazis operated death-camps to kill Jews in?
Explain yr logic, if you can.
<snip>
> > > You maniac... I have NEVER called Simon Wiesenthal a 'holocaust
> > > denier.'
> >
> > Hang on, "there were no extermination camps on German soil"... that's
> > what I (and every reputable historian of the period) has been saying.
> >
> Read the Nizkor URL again, Ol' Racist Nev... and see how your pathetic
> repeating of that is seen as simple neo-Nazi ravings... just as Wiesenthal
> comments.
For the last time, scum, Wiesenthal didn't make a 'mistake' and the
truth is 'not finally going to come out'. What Wiesenthal said is the
accepted version, and pretty much always has been.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I have argued that it is denial of the holocaust to presume
> > > that Dachau was _only a concentration camp_. You have argued that
> > > Dachau WAS _only a concentration camp_. You connect the dots...
> >
> > Yes, you _are_ calling Simon Wiesenthal a 'holocaust denier' aren't
> > you, FW, you daft old duffer.
> >
> No... HE is calling YOU a holocaust denier... as is Nizkor.
FW, they are calling you a 'holocaust denier'. Wiesenthal didn't 'slip
up'.
> > > >> >Firstly, 10 out of every 13 dead at Dachau were non-Jews. In fact,
> > > >> >Jews were only brought to Dachau en masse in the last few months of
> > > >> >the War. THis is historic fact.
> > > >> >
> > > >> See what I mean? The big denial that the Jew was actually the focus
> > > >> of the holocaust.
> > > >
> > > >You keep mentioning Dachau (you term it a "health spa [sic]" ,
> > >
> > > Actually, I said that YOU termed it a health spa, since you seem to
> > > be obsessive in your attempts to argue that _it wasn't all that bad_.
> >
> > You termed Dachau a "health spa [sic]", Nazi-boy. I didn't.
> >
> No... clearly I stated that YOU felt it was a _health spa_. In fact, I
> have always argued that it was WORSE than a concentration camp...
> clearly a death-camp
To call Dachau a death-camp, is to refuse to acknowledge what a death
camp was/is.
Nazi, window-licking scum.
<snip>
> > > >Nazi-boy, whereas I prefer the term 'concentration camp'), and it is a
> > > >_fact_... sorry a FACT [sic] that Dachau's dead was mainly non-Jewish.
> > > >This was not the case in the death-camps, which you, of course, refuse
> > > >to acknowledge as such.
> > > >
> > > Read again the URL from Nizkor that you provided and see that it terms
> > > you a neo-Nazi for the views you are expressing.
> >
> > Now you've gone way too far... quote 'Nizkor' saying that people who
> > claim that more non-Jews than Jews died at Dachau are 'holocaust
> > deniers'.
> >
> Actually, that is quite a bit what Nizkor implies.
?
No they don't. You complete and utter fuckwit.
> Using the words
> "amounts to nothing less than lying by omission and innuendo." You
> USING that "argument" is "lying by omission and innuendo," and makes
> you a holocaust denier, according to the URL you provided.
Let's get this straight, FW, 'Nizkor' is quite clearly calling _you_ a
'holocaust denier'.
<snip>
> > > My God... it seems you are again admitting to what has already been proven...
> > > that YOU are a holocaust denier.
> >
> > Er... I'm quoting you... hardly a reliable source, are you?
>
> Ummm... I was describing YOU... Since you have presumed the gas chambers
> EXISTED but were never used.
No, the disinfection chambers were definately used.
> I have ALWAYS contended that they WERE used, but to a much lesser extent that > outside of Germany. The holocaust denier, as outlined in the Nizkor URL you > offer, always argues that they were NOT used.
Seeing as how I quoted 'Nizkor' as my _first_ source on the gas
chamber at Dachau, how have I 'always argued that they [sic] were NOT
[sic] used'?
> Doing so to diminish the holocaust itself.
If you refer to the Jewish holocaust, then the Dachau gas chamber
almost certainly played no part in it.
> Once again, see the URL I have provided.
>
> > > >Why not write a few lines to the Museum at Dachau and point out that,
> > > >despite their lengthy research and consultations with eminent
> > > >historians in the field, you as an Internationally Recognised Usenet
> > > >Fuckwit know better and _stress_ that they and their advisors are
> > > >'Holocaust deniers'?
Have you sent that letter yet, FW?
<snip>
> > That'll be like St. George's 'apology' [sic]:
>
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=21gnots518o1hd8nsh5jgb7f73ekmvffe9%404ax.com
> >
> > Yr dishonesty knows no bounds.
>
> God... you're pathetic... A link to a post having nothing to do with
> your own comment.
Well, it involves you ("lying twat"), making out that St. George had
apologised to you for a comment when he had patently done no such
thing.
A bit like the following exchange:
------
FuckWit says:
"Any fool can see you are trying to TRIVIALIZE Dachau. And then
arguing that _Dachau wasn't so bad_, since it wasn't "actually" a
death camp. Jesus, Ol' Racist Nev... the holocaust deniers never had
a bigger supporter than you."
Neville FitzHerbert, esq. says:
"That'll be the Holocaust deniers who go out of their way to make a
distinction between concentration-camps (such as Dachau and Belson)
and death-camps such (as Treblinka, Sorbibor, etc.).
LM*F*AO!!!!"
------
Now quite clearly a holocaust denier would not acknowledge death-camps
as fact. My "LM*F*AO!!!!" was also a clue. But then, as is often
mentioned, English is not yr first language.
And dirtdog's comment is as true today as it ever was:
"We all know that when he [FuckWit] is confronted with an argument he
cannot win, he will deceptively misquote the words of others and
attempt to pass them off as truths"
<snip>
> "I must stress that Dachau, Belson, and Buchanwald were _not_ used as
> death-camps for Jews."
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0305290530.16495221%40posting.google.com
>
> Those few words CONDEMN you, Ol' Racist Nev... CONDEMN you as
> a neo-Nazi and a holocaust denier through your own definition and the
> words of Wiesenthal in the Nizkor URL you provided.
Well, the St George's 'apology' [sic] gimmick aside, do either
Wiesenthal or 'Nizkor' claim that those camps were used as death
camps, for Jews or anybody else?
And the answer is...
Yrs,
As ever,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
[1] http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2034626501d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=a5ec705.0305281228.5e184afd%40posting.google.com
[2] http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=21gnots518o1hd8nsh5jgb7f73ekmvffe9%404ax.com