Re: One Man Jihad at Fort Hood?
Sam the Bam
> >>>- FrontPage Magazine -http://frontpagemag.com-
>
> >>>Jihad at Fort Hood - by Robert Spencer
>
> >> You're a racist pig, Goldberg. This has nothing to do with a man
> >> being Muslim.
>
> simple fact is you have no idea what happened to this man, but you
> automatically hate him and blame his religion simply because he is a
> Muslim. typical Christian bigot.
Classic!
> same reason we invaded Iraq and murdered a million Muslims
> n cold blood.
> I can't imagine a decent Muslim man NOT being pissed off by that one.
double wow
In other words, "decent Muslims" are psychotic
homicidal maniacs? Which we must respect and
understand, because they are victimized persons
of color... can't hold them to the same standards as
white folks, that would be racist...
Lieberals are such robots, the only time they ever
tell the truth is when it slips out, inadvertently...
sing to the tune "There's no business like show business":
There's no racism like liberalism,
No racism at all...
Sam
Sam the Bam
> > > Why are your brothers feeding this shit by involving groups like the
> > > SPLC to rain racecard terror down on whites and to demagogue every
> > > SANE profiling initiative?
>
> > First, they ***ain't*** my 'brothers'.
>
> Markie, so antisemitic!!! Don't talk about your clan brothers like
> that.
>
> > Here we are, with a chance to drill down and get to the clear
> > understandings about the issues of the doctrine of 'Jihad' and the
> > normal people who are deformed by the doctrine to becoming
> > homicidal killers and the leftists who admire and support them,
> > and the causality and how to constructively understand and deal
> > with the chain of problems.
>
> No, Marky. We don't need to rehash the fuckin jihad shit again. We
> need to understand how we seem so clueless about it.
>
> Because until we wake up from this jewish-built fog that has descended
> upon the western world, we cannot see clearly who our friends and
> enemies are. Decades of media message conditioning, marxist
> "revisionism," and related efforts to reformulate popular perceptions
> have led people to believe that WE, the WASPs, are to blame. And
> so you are pissing up a rope on this.
>
> Haven't you figured out yet why NOBODY gets it, Marky, why NOBODY
> will listen to you? What you are saying is in DIRECT contravention
> to EVERYTHING that movie and tv studios have put out for decades,
> to the public advocacy through economic extortion that has been
> conducted by the NAACP and SPLC and related groups, and
> struggling against the mountainous weight of the money behind both!
>
> I don't have any issues whatsoever with religious jews; i've been
> perfectly clear about this. I DO have a problem with zionists as well
> as with marxist versions of the same. Those are the ones who
> built this apparatus of confusion. There is no way in hell anyone
> white would have said, hey, lemme produce movie after tv show
> after song that says I'm a worthless bum who deserves to be
> murdered and I want my daughter to have several illegitimate
> children by violent people with IQs of 85?
>
> White people were FIGHTING this "desegregation" against the
> weight of JEWISH MONEY and JEWISH GROUPS and a JEWISH
> public relations machine. These guys held up ANYTHING that was
> nonwhite as pure and good, while denigrating everything whites
> have ever done. So, now, along come the arabs and the muslims
> carrying THEIR degeneracies, which are as offensive and repugnant
> to civilization as that of blacks with their undending violence and
> criminality, and sure enough, the machine marches into movement
> to beat down ANY sane reflection on whether jeezus christ we ought
> to maybe think about whether there's a threat here? Society has
> been CONDITIONED to insist that there is no threat
> because nonwhite people are GOOD. They have been "advanced."
> White people actually feel *guilty* about recoiling in the face of their
> incivility. Mission accomplished.
>
> Why don't you carry your campaign against the rightful perpetrators of
> the decline of western civilization and the USA? You're certainly not
> the only jew to be calling attention to this, so you need to focus
> your energies on the people who are responsbile for it
>
> No...you'd rather keep pissing up a rope and hoping whitey wakes up
> before the ahabs kill you too and destroy everything good in the
> world. You won't like it when whitey wakes up, mark.
There's something I'm unclear about in your theory,
Trav... is this Joooish media conspiracy a deliberate
plot,. where the jooos have secret meetings and
committees and organizing? Or is it somehow an
'unconscious' plot, so to speak, where the jooos do
it naturally? Or is it just a bunch of anti-whites doing
their thing, and many of them happen to be joos, for
no explained reason?
Sam
trav...@aol.com
> Trav... is this Joooish media conspiracy a deliberate
> plot,. where the jooos have secret meetings and
> committees and organizing? Or is it somehow an
> 'unconscious' plot, so to speak, where the jooos do
> it naturally? Or is it just a bunch of anti-whites doing
> their thing, and many of them happen to be joos, for
> no explained reason?
>
> Sam
JFC...this is maddening.
Look, Sam, I have gone FAR FAR out of my way to EXPLICITLY say that
there IS NO CONSPIRACY.
How much MORE PLAIN can I be than that? Why is it when I say this
that everyone like you ASSUMES I intend to say there is a conspiracy?
There is NONE. No plot, no premeditation, no conspiracy. It's merely
an emergent phenomenon, like how fish school. It's concert of action
by LIKE MINDED actors.
I dont know why joos are so enamored of blacks...I mean, shit, this
black girl I know talked about how Julian Epstein (one of Clitton's
gang) was hitting on her and she says "like every jewish guy wants a
black girl." I don't get it. Some ballers in NYC were hitting on her
and I was like "they jewish?" she says shit like "of course." This is
not a racially unaware girl nor a typical black. My favorite from her
was "why do you tolerate african americans, they are useless."
Apparently, jewish men chase after her like nuts...so much so that the
stereotype is well, accurate.
That joos were behind the NAACP and SPLC and fought FOR integration by
force if necessary is inarguable. Don't ask me why, I have no clue.
I can't solve their neuroses or their mindset but I can recognize it
when for example a director like spielberg talks about how much he
admires Castro that you should expect that bent to come out of his
work. And it does and has. And he's by no means alone.
The early marxists, Lev Bronstein, the politburo, were almost all
jews. There's no argument to be had about it. Likewise, the
antisegregationists were funded by jews, jews ran the NAACP for 40
years, still run the SPLC, all of these are nominally "civil rights"
organizations but every time an arab gets held up in an airport, THEY
ARE THERE and they advocate multicultural shit and stampede in every
time a white guy or anyone anti-liberalist sneezes in the general
direction of someone with more skin pigment.
There's also no argument to be had about joos in media, especially the
movie studios. That they produce propaganda is unquestionable; in
fact movies like "In the Heat of the Night" were INTENDED to be! The
early communists, here and in the USSR were jews, they've been behind
it from the start.
Dunno why...nobody jewish has an answer for the fascination with
social engineering in favor of blacks and browns. I get the hatred of
whites, this is ancient shit and there've been many, many conflicts
over the centuries, usually in the whites' favor because we outnumber
them. Periodically, white societies tend to expel them en masse.
The media's narrative of this of course is the awful white man with
the innocent noble peaceful joo. But, spare me that bullshit, because
it's the same thing with the Sioux who slaughtered all the Crow, and
blacks, and hispanics, and EVERYbody. Same narrative with the
muslims. It's all WHITEY's fault, everyfuckinthing is. Marxists
obviously hate western society; even Marky would agree to this. And
there are a lotta fuckin marxists in hollywood. Every adversary of
the white man has been transmogriphied by the media propaganda into a
noble, peaceloving, innocent *victim* of the white man.
Marky can bring himself to hate marxists but not the people who are
marxists. You can't go there with him. I dunno, maybe joos love to
be victims, see some sort of glory in it, and that leads them to build
entire advocacy machines around history's losers.
Trav
Deadrat
e7f5c0...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 6, hal wrote:
>> >>>- FrontPage Magazine -http://frontpagemag.com-
>>
>> >>>Jihad at Fort Hood - by Robert Spencer
>>
>> >> You're a racist pig, Goldberg. �This has nothing to do with a man
>> >> being Muslim.
>>
>> simple fact is you have no idea what happened to this man, but you
>> automatically hate him and blame his religion simply because he is a
>> Muslim. typical Christian bigot.
>
> Classic!
>
>> same reason we invaded Iraq and murdered a million Muslims
>> n cold blood.
>> I can't imagine a decent Muslim man NOT being pissed off by that one.
>
> double wow
>
> In other words, "decent Muslims" are psychotic homicidal maniacs?
I think he said decent Muslims would be pissed off by our actions in
Iraq.
> Which we must respect and
> understand, because they are victimized persons
> of color... can't hold them to the same standards as
> white folks, that would be racist...
Wow! Where did this come from?
>
> Lieberals are such robots, the only time they ever
> tell the truth is when it slips out, inadvertently...
>
> sing to the tune "There's no business like show business":
>
> There's no racism like liberalism,
> No racism at all...
A little projection, rightard?
Just askin'.
>
>
> Sam
>
>
Deadrat
1b47-422d-90a...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>> There's something I'm unclear about in your theory,
>> Trav... is this Joooish media conspiracy a deliberate
>> plot,. where the jooos have secret meetings and
>> committees and organizing? �Or is it somehow an
>> 'unconscious' plot, so to speak, where the jooos do
>> it naturally? �Or is it just a bunch of anti-whites doing
>> their thing, and many of them happen to be joos, for
>> no explained reason?
>>
>> Sam
>
> JFC...this is maddening.
>
> Look, Sam, I have gone FAR FAR out of my way to EXPLICITLY say that
> there IS NO CONSPIRACY.
>
> How much MORE PLAIN can I be than that? Why is it when I say this
> that everyone like you ASSUMES I intend to say there is a conspiracy?
>
> There is NONE. No plot, no premeditation, no conspiracy. It's merely
> an emergent phenomenon, like how fish school. It's concert of action
> by LIKE MINDED actors.
Fish gotta school. Jews got a Yeshiva.
Got bad news for you, Trav. It *is* a conspiracy. The Jews all get
together after Shabbes services and plot the takeover of the world.
And, guess what? your name is on the agenda for tonight!
You're in trouble now, Trav.
> I dont know why joos are so enamored of blacks...
Do ya think it might be some shared sense of injustice?
Nah.
> I mean, shit, this
> black girl I know talked about how Julian Epstein (one of Clitton's
> gang) was hitting on her and she says "like every jewish guy wants a
> black girl." I don't get it. Some ballers in NYC were hitting on her
> and I was like "they jewish?" she says shit like "of course." This is
> not a racially unaware girl nor a typical black. My favorite from her
> was "why do you tolerate african americans, they are useless."
> Apparently, jewish men chase after her like nuts...so much so that the
> stereotype is well, accurate.
What more unbelievable? That you knew a black girl? (Hey, Trav.
dontchaknow that blacks don't say "of course"; they say "fa shizzle.")
Or that she knew all these Jews who were hittin' on her. Too funny.
Even the figments of your imagination have figments of their own
imaginations.
> That joos were behind the NAACP and SPLC and fought FOR integration by
> force if necessary is inarguable.
Yes, indeed. (Although the SPLC wasn't founded until 1971, some time
after the battles for integration.) By force? Were Schwerner, Chaney,
and Goodman (true, only two of them were Jews) running around the south
killing innocent segregationists? Did some cabal of Jews blow up a
church in Birmingham in 1963? Were there gangs of Jews at the Edmund
Pettus bridge turning hoses on crowds of innocent members of the
Daughters of the Confederacy.
What a pathetic wanker you are.
> Don't ask me why, I have no clue.
Oh, no argument there.
<snip>
Incoherent rant about Marxists and Hollywood film producers
</snip>
And here I thought you were a troll. But, no, you're suffering from Jew-
on-the-brain.
I'll offer up the excuse that it's often hard to tell.
> Trav
hal
<samth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 6, hal wrote:
>> >>>- FrontPage Magazine -http://frontpagemag.com-
>>
>> >>>Jihad at Fort Hood - by Robert Spencer
>>
>> >> You're a racist pig, Goldberg. =A0This has nothing to do with a man
>> >> being Muslim.
>>
>> simple fact is you have no idea what happened to this man, but you
>> automatically hate him and blame his religion simply because he is a
>> Muslim. typical Christian bigot.
>
>Classic!
>
>> same reason we invaded Iraq and murdered a million Muslims
>> n cold blood.
>> I can't imagine a decent Muslim man NOT being pissed off by that one.
>
>double wow
>
>In other words, "decent Muslims" are psychotic
>homicidal maniacs?
don't read so good, do you, moron.
> Which we must respect and
>understand, because they are victimized persons
>of color... can't hold them to the same standards as
>white folks, that would be racist...
>
>Lieberals are such robots, the only time they ever
>tell the truth is when it slips out, inadvertently...
>
>sing to the tune "There's no business like show business":
>
>There's no racism like liberalism,
>No racism at all...
there certainly is no stupidity like your own.
>
>
>Sam
>
Wes Groleau
>> I can't imagine a decent Muslim man NOT being pissed off by that one.
Reported as alcoholic. Inconsistent with what Muslims consider decent.
--
Wes Groleau
Third World Comes to the U.S.
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1505
trav...@aol.com
Who in the eff crossposted THIS thread too??
> Got bad news for you, Trav. It *is* a conspiracy. The Jews all get
> together after Shabbes services and plot the takeover of the world.
> And, guess what? your name is on the agenda for tonight!
No, it's not a conspiracy. I think I just explained that.
> You're in trouble now, Trav.
Why are you going to insult my intelligence again with your drivel?
> Do ya think it might be some shared sense of injustice?
The injustice is an illusion and joos have historically been
perpetrators as much as victims, as have blacks.
> What more unbelievable? That you knew a black girl? (Hey, Trav.
> dontchaknow that blacks don't say "of course"; they say "fa shizzle.")
> Or that she knew all these Jews who were hittin' on her. Too funny.
> Even the figments of your imagination have figments of their own
> imaginations.
Do you fucking know who Julian Epstein is? The rest of that racist
tripe you said, I'll just ignore.
> Yes, indeed. (Although the SPLC wasn't founded until 1971, some time
> after the battles for integration.) By force? Were Schwerner, Chaney,
> and Goodman (true, only two of them were Jews) running around the south
> killing innocent segregationists? Did some cabal of Jews blow up a
> church in Birmingham in 1963? Were there gangs of Jews at the Edmund
> Pettus bridge turning hoses on crowds of innocent members of the
> Daughters of the Confederacy.
Did I accuse joos of being violent?
> And here I thought you were a troll. But, no, you're suffering from Jew-
> on-the-brain.
Whatever, clown. Ignore reality if you choose to.
Trav
Deadrat
2513-4142-921...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>> Fish gotta school. �Jews got a Yeshiva.
>
> Who in the eff crossposted THIS thread too??
Some strange stuff comin' outta rec.m-a.
>> Got bad news for you, Trav. �It *is* a conspiracy. �The Jews all get
>> together after Shabbes services and plot the takeover of the world. �
>> And, guess what? your name is on the agenda for tonight!
>
> No, it's not a conspiracy. I think I just explained that.
I'm tellin' you, Trav. It's worse than you thought. It really *is* a
conspiracy. The banks, the newspapers, the movies -- you don't really
think that's some coincidental, "emergent" phenomenon, do you?
>> You're in trouble now, Trav.
I have a copy of the minutes of the last meeting of the Jews, Trav, and
good news. The vote was against terminating you with extreme prejudice.
The prevailing opinion was that you came across as a complete buffoon,
who could only discredit his own position. It think spelling "Jews" as
"joos" had something to do with it.
Anyway, the vote wasn't even close. You're off the hook.
> Why are you going to insult my intelligence again with your drivel?
Bar's pretty low, dontcha think?
>> Do ya think it might be some shared sense of injustice?
>
> The injustice is an illusion
Don't know much history, do you, Trav?
> and joos have historically been perpetrators as much as victims,
That's right, Trav. All those Jewish crusades and Jewish pogroms.
> as have blacks.
That's right, Trav. Them darkies done enslaved themselfs.
>> What more unbelievable? �That you knew a black girl? �(Hey, Trav. �
>> dontchaknow that blacks don't say "of course"; they say "fa shizzle.")
> �
>> Or that she knew all these Jews who were hittin' on her. �Too funny.
> �
>> Even the figments of your imagination have figments of their own
>> imaginations.
>
> Do you fucking know who Julian Epstein is?
The chief counsel to the minority on the House Judiciary Committee during
the Clinton impeachment? I believe that he exists. But I don't believe
in your imaginary black girl, and if I'm wrong about her existence, I
don't believe she knew Epstein, and if I'm wrong about *that*, I don't
believe he hit on her, and if he did, so what? You don't say when this
imaginary event happened, but back in the day, JE was single.
> The rest of that racist tripe you said, I'll just ignore.
Run away, Brave Sir Robin. As always, your choice. I'll treasure always
the way you confirm your own prejudices -- by a conversation with an
imagingary black woman who had imaginary Jews hitting on her.
Hey, Trav! I once knew a black woman woman who *never* got hit on by
Jews. What does that do to your stereotyping?
>> Yes, indeed. �(Although the SPLC wasn't founded until 1971, some time
>> after the battles for integration.) �By force? Were Schwerner, Chaney,
>> and Goodman (true, only two of them were Jews) running around the
>> south
>> killing innocent segregationists? �Did some cabal of Jews blow up a
>> church in Birmingham in 1963? �Were there gangs of Jews at the Edmund
>> Pettus bridge turning hoses on crowds of innocent members of the
>> Daughters of the Confederacy.
>
> Did I accuse joos of being violent?
Snipped that context again. Here it is:
<quote>
That joos were behind the NAACP and SPLC and fought FOR integration by
force if necessary is inarguable.
</quote>
So what's that mean, Trav? "[B]y force if necessary"? That the NAACP
and the SPLC followed MLK's nonviolent philosophy but only *claimed* to
believe it, while they waited for the moment when they could use force, a
moment that didn't ever come?
C'mon, you little weasel, explain it to me.
>> And here I thought you were a troll. �But, no, you're suffering from
>> Jew-on-the-brain.
>
> Whatever, clown. Ignore reality if you choose to.
Hey, Trav! The voices in your head aren't reality.
>
> Trav
>
djinn
> "travis...@aol.cominyrface" <travis...@aol.com> wrote in news:aed77abd-
> 2513-4142-921b-e5383222f...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> Fish gotta school. Jews got a Yeshiva.
>
> > Who in the eff crossposted THIS thread too??
>
> Some strange stuff comin' outta rec.m-a.
>
trav...@aol.com
We already have a village idiot, though, so there isn't any need for
you here.
> I'm tellin' you, Trav. It's worse than you thought. It really *is* a
> conspiracy. The banks, the newspapers, the movies -- you don't really
> think that's some coincidental, "emergent" phenomenon, do you?
Yes, that's exactly what I think and I was patently clear.
> I have a copy of the minutes of the last meeting of the Jews, Trav, and
> good news. The vote was against terminating you with extreme prejudice.
> The prevailing opinion was that you came across as a complete buffoon,
> who could only discredit his own position. It think spelling "Jews" as
> "joos" had something to do with it.
Your pavlovian response is noted
> Bar's pretty low, dontcha think?
Yes, it is and you sail under it. I have very little toleration for
idiots.
> Don't know much history, do you, Trav?
I know substantially more than you do.
> That's right, Trav. All those Jewish crusades and Jewish pogroms.
Next you'll tell me about how they are committing genocide against the
Palestinians....
> That's right, Trav. Them darkies done enslaved themselfs.
Well actually, yeah, that's how it happened. Blacks on the continent,
as well as arabs, built the slave trade.
> The chief counsel to the minority on the House Judiciary Committee during
> the Clinton impeachment? I believe that he exists. But I don't believe
> in your imaginary black girl, and if I'm wrong about her existence, I
> don't believe she knew Epstein, and if I'm wrong about *that*, I don't
> believe he hit on her, and if he did, so what? You don't say when this
> imaginary event happened, but back in the day, JE was single.
Don't really care what you believe. Most of what you believe is
bullshit.
> Run away, Brave Sir Robin. As always, your choice. I'll treasure always
> the way you confirm your own prejudices -- by a conversation with an
> imagingary black woman who had imaginary Jews hitting on her.
You have no evidence upon which to claim that I fabricated it. In
fact, this is your typical stock-in-trade, pretend for example that I
am lying about being a JD, then get assaulted with reality, then claim
it doesn't matter. I am not a liar and I do not have time to proffer
proof to YOUR satisfaction nor are you entitled to it. You are little
more than a troll. You would not accept proof, fact, or anything else
that might refute your stupid assertions.
> Hey, Trav! I once knew a black woman woman who *never* got hit on by
> Jews. What does that do to your stereotyping?
If she was your friend, she was probably highly unattractive,
therefore as irrelevant as you are.
> Snipped that context again. Here it is:
>
> <quote>
> That joos were behind the NAACP and SPLC and fought FOR integration by
> force if necessary is inarguable.
> </quote>
Force is a broader concept than physical but I have no time to explain
this to you.
> So what's that mean, Trav? "[B]y force if necessary"? That the NAACP
> and the SPLC followed MLK's nonviolent philosophy but only *claimed* to
> believe it, while they waited for the moment when they could use force, a
> moment that didn't ever come?
When you sue someone and get a win, you are using force. When the
army comes out to enforce desegregation, that is force.
> C'mon, you little weasel, explain it to me.
Why should I? You won't listen. Your entire mindset is like that of
a dog who has been conditioned to salivate at a bell. One cannot
mention the unanimity of a particular ethnicity for example on the
FOMC without someone like you coming and CLAIMING however erroneously
that the person discussing it must be an anti-semite or suggesting
some kind of sinister conspiracy.
There's really no point in discussing anything with an idiot like you
because you are incapable of having a reasonable discussion on FACTS.
Your life experience reflects a paucity of real knowledge and a
heaping bushel full of complete nonsense. Maybe someday you will wake
the fuck up, but in the meantime you seem to be happily digesting and
internalizing patently antiwhite propaganda and making excuses for
groups for which there is none.
> Hey, Trav! The voices in your head aren't reality.
But the voices in your head are?
You're a trolling clown, just STFU and go away. If you want to have a
rational discussion without demagoguery and mischaracterization of
everything your opponent says, then fine. Otherwise, fuck off.
Trav
Deadrat
news:9dfc4218-3b84-4b37...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
<snip/>
>> I'm tellin' you, Trav. �It's worse than you thought. �It really *is*
>> a
>> conspiracy. �The banks, the newspapers, the movies -- you don't
>> really
> �
>> think that's some coincidental, "emergent" phenomenon, do you?
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I think and I was patently clear.
Those "joos" have got you fooled! Open your eyes!
>
>> I have a copy of the minutes of the last meeting of the Jews, Trav,
>> and good news. �The vote was against terminating you with extreme
>> prejudice
> . �
>> The prevailing opinion was that you came across as a complete
>> buffoon, who could only discredit his own position. �It think
>> spelling "Jews" as "joos" had something to do with it.
>
> Your pavlovian response is noted
Trav, Trav. This isn't *my* response. I'm must reporting what happened
at the last Plenary Meeting of the Jews.
>
>> Bar's pretty low, dontcha think?
>
> Yes, it is and you sail under it. I have very little toleration for
> idiots.
Or tolerance in general. So why doesn't your head just explode?
>
>> Don't know much history, do you, Trav?
>
> I know substantially more than you do.
Do the victory dance! You know what that means.
>
>> That's right, Trav. �All those Jewish crusades and Jewish pogroms.
>
> Next you'll tell me about how they are committing genocide against the
> Palestinians....
There are more Palestinians now than there have ever been, so it's hardly
genocide.
>> That's right, Trav. �Them darkies done enslaved themselfs.
>
> Well actually, yeah, that's how it happened. Blacks on the continent,
> as well as arabs, built the slave trade.
As a I said, nothin' to do with white people. They were as surprised as
anyone when Africans showed up in the slave markets.
>
>> The chief counsel to the minority on the House Judiciary Committee
>> during the Clinton impeachment? �I believe that he exists. �But I
>> don't believe
>> in your imaginary black girl, and if I'm wrong about her existence, I
>> don't believe she knew Epstein, and if I'm wrong about *that*, I
>> don't believe he hit on her, and if he did, so what? �You don't say
>> when this imaginary event happened, but back in the day, JE was
>> single.
>
> Don't really care what you believe. Most of what you believe is
> bullshit.
Hey, Trav. I'm not the one making up stories about black girls who make
up stories about Jews hitting on them. And then drawing sociological
implications.
>> Run away, Brave Sir Robin. �As always, your choice. �I'll treasure al
>> ways
>> the way you confirm your own prejudices -- by a conversation with an
>> imagingary black woman who had imaginary Jews hitting on her.
>
> You have no evidence upon which to claim that I fabricated it.
And you, the one making the claim and carrying the burden of proof, have
no evidence that it ever happened.
> In
> fact, this is your typical stock-in-trade, pretend for example that I
> am lying about being a JD, then get assaulted with reality, then claim
> it doesn't matter.
I'm calling bullshit on the black-girl-getting-hit-on-by-Jews story.
I'm not the one claiming you're lying about the JD. I'm officially
agnostic on that one. I am the one pointing out that it doesn't matter.
> I am not a liar and I do not have time to proffer
> proof to YOUR satisfaction nor are you entitled to it.
It's impossible to prove whether you're a liar, and no proffer of proof
about personal (and necesasrily irrelevant matters) on a newsgroup would
satisfy any thinking person. But I'm calling bullshit on the black-girl-
getting-hit-on-by-Jews story.
> You are little more than a troll.
In spite of what you apprently think, a troll is not someone you are
powerless to argue against successfully. A troll is someone who tries to
inflame a discussion by posting nonsense he doesn't believe just to watch
the response. I post things you can check. Go ahead, check what I
posted about US Attorneys. I'll wait.
I thought you were a troll, but it looks like you're just suffering from
Joo Fever. These conditions can be hard to tell apart, so I'm
withdrawing my claim about your trollery.
> You would not accept proof, fact, or anything else
> that might refute your stupid assertions.
Very close. I do not accept as evidence anecdotal assertions.
>
>> Hey, Trav! �I once knew a black woman woman who *never* got hit on by
>> Jews. �What does that do to your stereotyping?
>
> If she was your friend, she was probably highly unattractive,
> therefore as irrelevant as you are.
You think relevance and looks are related? Interesting.
But why isn't my friend as relevant as yours?
>
>> Snipped that context again. �Here it is:
>>
>> <quote>
>> That joos were behind the NAACP and SPLC and fought FOR integration
>> by force if necessary is inarguable.
>> </quote>
>
> Force is a broader concept than physical but I have no time to explain
> this to you.
You mean you have no capability of explaining. Or are you seriously
claiming that you meant that the NAACP used the force of logic or the
moral force of claiming equality before the law?
>
>> So what's that mean, Trav? �"[B]y force if necessary"? �That the NAAC
> P
>> and the SPLC followed MLK's nonviolent philosophy but only *claimed*
>> to believe it, while they waited for the moment when they could use
>> force, a moment that didn't ever come?
>
> When you sue someone and get a win, you are using force. When the
> army comes out to enforce desegregation, that is force.
>
>> C'mon, you little weasel, explain it to me.
>
> Why should I? You won't listen.
Run away, Brave Sir Robin. It's always your choice. But you can't
weasel out of the "by force" comment by blaming my mindset.
> Your entire mindset is like that of
> a dog who has been conditioned to salivate at a bell. One cannot
> mention the unanimity of a particular ethnicity for example on the
> FOMC without someone like you coming and CLAIMING however erroneously
> that the person discussing it must be an anti-semite or suggesting
> some kind of sinister conspiracy.
You are an antisemite, but not for claiming "unanimity of ethnicity."
And I think you know that.
And it *is* a conspiracy, Trav. Make no mistake about it. How can it be
otherwise when all Jews get together every week to plot the takeover of
the world? I'm telling you that I've got the minutes of the damn
meetings.
> There's really no point in discussing anything with an idiot like you
> because you are incapable of having a reasonable discussion on FACTS.
I quote you events from the time of the WPE. I quote you votes on
legislative acts. I explain how things work in the US Attorneys office.
These are all facts. Feel free to check them.
You're gonna have to take my word for it on the Jew meetings.
> Your life experience reflects a paucity of real knowledge and a
> heaping bushel full of complete nonsense.
You have no idea about my life experience or what it reflects. Why not
just concentrate on the factual things I've told you?
> Maybe someday you will wake
> the fuck up, but in the meantime you seem to be happily digesting and
> internalizing patently antiwhite propaganda and making excuses for
> groups for which there is none.
Again, you have no idea what I've internalized and what I've
externalized.
>
>> Hey, Trav! �The voices in your head aren't reality.
>
> But the voices in your head are?
I'm not hearing voices, Trav. I'm not the one suffering from Jew Fever.
>
> You're a trolling clown, just STFU and go away. If you want to have a
> rational discussion without demagoguery and mischaracterization of
> everything your opponent says, then fine.
And I'd like you to stop making up stuff about a black girl you
supposedly knew and then drawing broad conclusions from what she
supposedly said. I'd like you to learn a little bit about things like
the US Attorneys Office. I'd like you to stop speculating on what I am
and how I got to be the way I am. I'd like you to stop thinking that
credentials mean squat.
What are the chances of anything like that happening?
People in hell want ice water, too.
> Otherwise, fuck off.
Now that would have hurt my feelings. If I had any.
>
> Trav
>
Jerry B. Altzman
> "trav...@aol.cominyrface" <trav...@aol.com> wrote in news:aed77abd-
> 2513-4142-921...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
> I have a copy of the minutes of the last meeting of the Jews, Trav, and
> good news. The vote was against terminating you with extreme prejudice.
> The prevailing opinion was that you came across as a complete buffoon,
> who could only discredit his own position. It think spelling "Jews" as
> "joos" had something to do with it.
(Gawd, I haven't posted on s.c.j since 1993 or something.)
Speaking on behalf of the cabal, you're full of it, Mr. Rat.
//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jba...@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.
trav...@aol.com
What are you, some kind of a kook?
> Trav, Trav. This isn't *my* response. I'm must reporting what happened
> at the last Plenary Meeting of the Jews.
You're a nutjob.
> Or tolerance in general. So why doesn't your head just explode?
Why would it?
> Do the victory dance! You know what that means.
Huh? It was just a simple observation.
> There are more Palestinians now than there have ever been, so it's hardly
> genocide.
Read the old testament then. Or study the history of fractional
banking by goldsmiths. Jeezus, learn something so you're not so
ignorant for the rest of your life.
> As a I said, nothin' to do with white people. They were as surprised as
> anyone when Africans showed up in the slave markets.
They were buyers. They didn't start the slave trade, which was
occuring for 1000 years before whitey showed up on the continent.
Again, learn some history, ignoramus.
Blacks, whites, chinese, arabs...all participated in the purchase of
black slaves. So there is no entitlement by blacks to feel that
injustice has been perpetrated by *white* people per se. Their own
kind perpetrated and STILL perpetrates this injustice upon them.
> Hey, Trav. I'm not the one making up stories about black girls who make
> up stories about Jews hitting on them. And then drawing sociological
> implications.
I'm not making up stories either. And it was merely a case in point,
one data point among many, idiot. Do you honestly think I'd draw a
conclusion from ONE fucking example? It was an ILLUSTRATION of the
point, you moron. Good lord, you're worthless.
> And you, the one making the claim and carrying the burden of proof, have
> no evidence that it ever happened.
Of course I do. My own testimony, which stands unrebutted.
> I'm calling bullshit on the black-girl-getting-hit-on-by-Jews story.
That's not my problem, now is it? You are entitled to be wrong. I'm
not going to stop you.
> I'm not the one claiming you're lying about the JD. I'm officially
> agnostic on that one. I am the one pointing out that it doesn't matter.
You fuckin liar.
> It's impossible to prove whether you're a liar, and no proffer of proof
> about personal (and necesasrily irrelevant matters) on a newsgroup would
> satisfy any thinking person. But I'm calling bullshit on the black-girl-
> getting-hit-on-by-Jews story.
I DON'T CARE, ok? If you're unaware of the phenomenon then that means
nothing more than that YOU are ignorant! It's not MY problem, is it?
> In spite of what you apprently think, a troll is not someone you are
> powerless to argue against successfully. A troll is someone who tries to
> inflame a discussion by posting nonsense he doesn't believe just to watch
> the response. I post things you can check. Go ahead, check what I
> posted about US Attorneys. I'll wait.
Do you think I give a fuck what you posted about US Attorneys? I
couldn't be less interested in reading more of the low quality tripe
you infest usenet with, dude.
> I thought you were a troll, but it looks like you're just suffering from
> Joo Fever. These conditions can be hard to tell apart, so I'm
> withdrawing my claim about your trollery.
Not one thing I have said about joos is indicative of irrationality.
Not one thing. Your pavlovian response to it is what is irrational.
> Very close. I do not accept as evidence anecdotal assertions.
You don't accept ANYTHING!
You're a fucking democrap partisan cheerleader! How much MORE stupid
could somebody get than to be that? Your mere affiliation with that
political party exposes you as a complete IDIOT. I have no respect
whatsoever for anything you believe, claim, or say on account of
that. Your intellect is meager.
> You think relevance and looks are related? Interesting.
>
> But why isn't my friend as relevant as yours?
I think that you are irrelevant and a liar. If you cared to
investigate what I am saying, rather than kneejerk, you'd find that I
am correct.
> You mean you have no capability of explaining. Or are you seriously
> claiming that you meant that the NAACP used the force of logic or the
> moral force of claiming equality before the law?
No, I'm claiming they used the force of law, economic extortion, and a
host of other means to force desegregation onto those who did not want
it.
> You are an antisemite, but not for claiming "unanimity of ethnicity."
> And I think you know that.
What SPECIFICALLY have I said that is antisemitic? I mean, this is
just ridiculously absurd.
You are fucking PATHETIC. Another "your a racist" epithet? Get the
fuck out of here.
> And it *is* a conspiracy, Trav. Make no mistake about it. How can it be
> otherwise when all Jews get together every week to plot the takeover of
> the world? I'm telling you that I've got the minutes of the damn
> meetings.
I'm telling you you are a fucking KOOK and a NUTBALL if you claim
that.
> I quote you events from the time of the WPE. I quote you votes on
> legislative acts. I explain how things work in the US Attorneys office.
> These are all facts. Feel free to check them.
"WPE" alone exposes you as a irredeemable partisan. There's no POINT
in having a discussion with a partisan clown cheerleader like you...on
ANYTHING.
Your narrow mindset will not ALLOW you to have ANY discussion on
race. If I say blacks commit 54% of the homicides in the US, you will
first deny its truth, then when pointed to fact, will fucking say it
doesn't matter, start making excuses for it, claim "racism" and
ultimately blame WHITE PEOPLE for it.
It's a playbook that is intellectually BANKRUPT. You cannot DEAL with
facts. If someone points out the preponderance of joos in finance,
media, marxism, "civil rights," you will do the SAME TYPE of
shit...always BLAME WHITE PEOPLE.
Are you white? is it YOUR fault? You're a fucking TOOL, dude. Free
your goddamned mind for fuck's sake.
> You have no idea about my life experience or what it reflects. Why not
> just concentrate on the factual things I've told you?
Anybody who ACTUALLY thinks Busch was the WPE is a fool and factually
wrong. Just like those who think he was the best ever.
> Again, you have no idea what I've internalized and what I've
> externalized.
It drips off of your writing just as surely as my jizz dripping off
your mom's chin.
> I'm not hearing voices, Trav. I'm not the one suffering from Jew Fever.
I'm not either and I have absolutely no fucking clue what that means
or what you think it means. Joo fever? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> And I'd like you to stop making up stuff about a black girl you
> supposedly knew and then drawing broad conclusions from what she
> supposedly said. I'd like you to learn a little bit about things like
Who in the FUCK ever said that I DREW a conclusion from what SHE
said? I already KNEW what she was going to say, DIPSHIT. I'm not the
only one on the planet aware of certain politically INCORRECT facts!
I don't constrain myself by your mentally dissonant and intellectually
bankrupt ideologies.
> the US Attorneys Office. I'd like you to stop speculating on what I am
> and how I got to be the way I am. I'd like you to stop thinking that
> credentials mean squat.
I think YOU are squat. My credentials mean that I know FAR more about
the law than YOU do and you should STFU and listen to me instead of
spouting your obstructionist BULLSHIT which essentially...why the
fuck do you even BOTHER? You're a fucking partisan cheerleader for
fuck's sake; you're only embarrassing yourself by even trying to HAVE
a substantive argument. Just fucking say WPE and chant Change We Need
to Hope for or Change we can Suspend Disbelief In or what the fuck
ever his bullshit, empty, recycled slogans were.
> Now that would have hurt my feelings. If I had any.
I guess this means that I cannot insult your intelligence either.
Trav
Deadrat
news:e9fdbfa6-398f-4025...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
>> Those "joos" have got you fooled! �Open your eyes!
>
> What are you, some kind of a kook?
>
>> Trav, Trav. �This isn't *my* response. �I'm must reporting what
>> happened at the last Plenary Meeting of the Jews.
>
> You're a nutjob.
Just trying to help.
>
>> Or tolerance in general. �So why doesn't your head just explode?
>
> Why would it?
Hint: it was a rhetorical question.
>
>> Do the victory dance! �You know what that means.
>
> Huh? It was just a simple observation.
Dance, dance, dance.
>
>> There are more Palestinians now than there have ever been, so it's
>> hardly genocide.
>
> Read the old testament then.
The Old Testament is not a history book. And in any case there are no
Palestinians in it. At least, not in the modern sense of the word.
> Or study the history of fractional
> banking by goldsmiths. Jeezus, learn something so you're not so
> ignorant for the rest of your life.
As irony meters explode everywhere.
>
>> As a I said, nothin' to do with white people. �They were as surprised
>> as
>> anyone when Africans showed up in the slave markets.
>
> They were buyers. They didn't start the slave trade, which was
> occuring for 1000 years before whitey showed up on the continent.
> Again, learn some history, ignoramus.
No one says they started the slave trade.
>
> Blacks, whites, chinese, arabs...all participated in the purchase of
> black slaves. So there is no entitlement by blacks to feel that
> injustice has been perpetrated by *white* people per se. Their own
> kind perpetrated and STILL perpetrates this injustice upon them.
Still and nevertheless, chattel slavery in the US was almost entirely a
white institution to exploit black labor.
>> Hey, Trav. �I'm not the one making up stories about black girls who
>> make
>> up stories about Jews hitting on them. �And then drawing sociological
>> implications.
>
> I'm not making up stories either.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
> And it was merely a case in point, one data point among many, idiot.
You've got more stories of imaginary black people? You've got a fertile
imagaination.
> Do you honestly think I'd draw a
> conclusion from ONE fucking example?
Oh, but you did, Trav. Here's your own words:
<quote>
Apparently, jewish men chase after her like nuts...so much so that the
stereotype is well, accurate.
</quote>
> It was an ILLUSTRATION of the point, you moron.
What point is that, Trav? What about my story about the black woman I
knew?
> Good lord, you're worthless.
Could be, but beside the point.
>> And you, the one making the claim and carrying the burden of proof,
>> have no evidence that it ever happened.
>
> Of course I do. My own testimony, which stands unrebutted.
I've rebutted it. It's a fantasy.
>
>> I'm calling bullshit on the black-girl-getting-hit-on-by-Jews story.
>
> That's not my problem, now is it?
You've got bigger problems that that, Trav. You've got Jew Fever.
> You are entitled to be wrong. I'm not going to stop you.
>
>> I'm not the one claiming you're lying about the JD. �I'm officially
>> agnostic on that one. �I am the one pointing out that it doesn't
>> matter.
>
> You fuckin liar.
No, really. You're thinking of Iarnrod. I've just said that it's easy to
play a lawyer in cyberspace.
>> It's impossible to prove whether you're a liar, and no proffer of
>> proof about personal (and necesasrily irrelevant matters) on a
>> newsgroup would satisfy any thinking person. �But I'm calling
>> bullshit on the black-girl-getting-hit-on-by-Jews story.
>
> I DON'T CARE, ok? If you're unaware of the phenomenon then that means
> nothing more than that YOU are ignorant! It's not MY problem, is it?
Oh, c'mon, Trav. You care.
>> In spite of what you apprently think, a troll is not someone you are
>> powerless to argue against successfully. �A troll is someone who
>> tries to
>> inflame a discussion by posting nonsense he doesn't believe just to
>> watch the response. �I post things you can check. �Go ahead, check
>> what I posted about US Attorneys. �I'll wait.
>
> Do you think I give a fuck what you posted about US Attorneys? I
> couldn't be less interested in reading more of the low quality tripe
> you infest usenet with, dude.
Your evasion is noted. But, see you could actually check to find out
whether I'm right about US Attorneys. But your black-girl-getting-hit-on-
by-Jews story? Not so much.
>> I thought you were a troll, but it looks like you're just suffering
>> from Joo Fever. �These conditions can be hard to tell apart, so I'm
>> withdrawing my claim about your trollery.
>
> Not one thing I have said about joos is indicative of irrationality.
Oh, Trav, get help. Jew Fever will ruin your life. From your black-girl-
getting-hit-on-by-Jews story, to your refusal to spell Jews properly, to
your claims of Jewish genocide, to your silly "emergent behavior" theory --
it's all nuts.
> Not one thing. Your pavlovian response to it is what is irrational.
>
>> Very close. �I do not accept as evidence anecdotal assertions.
>
> You don't accept ANYTHING!
I'll accept evidence that I can check. Your JD? Can't check it. Your
black-girl-getting-hit-on-by-Jews story? Can't check it.
> You're a fucking democrap partisan cheerleader! How much MORE stupid
> could somebody get than to be that? Your mere affiliation with that
> political party exposes you as a complete IDIOT. I have no respect
> whatsoever for anything you believe, claim, or say on account of
> that. Your intellect is meager.
Calm down, trav. You're gonna blow a gasket.
>> You think relevance and looks are related? �Interesting.
>>
>> But why isn't my friend as relevant as yours?
>
> I think that you are irrelevant and a liar. If you cared to
> investigate what I am saying, rather than kneejerk, you'd find that I
> am correct.
Now how am I gonna do that? I don't know who's really posting; I don't
knew if you have a JD. I don't know whether your black-girl-getting-hit-
on-by-Jews story is true. (No, I'm sure that one is just bullshit.)
Try giving me something I can check out. Genocide against the
Palestinians? All I have to do is check UN population figures to know
that's a lie.
>
>> You mean you have no capability of explaining. �Or are you seriously
>> claiming that you meant that the NAACP used the force of logic or the
>> moral force of claiming equality before the law?
>
> No, I'm claiming they used the force of law, economic extortion, and a
> host of other means to force desegregation onto those who did not want
> it.
Oh, no! They used, *sob*, force of law! How dare they?
Economic extortion? Like in Birmingham, when black riders simply refused
to ride segregated buses? You got a problem with that?
Seems you've got a problem with public accommodation laws, too.
Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
>
>> You are an antisemite, but not for claiming "unanimity of ethnicity."
>> � And I think you know that.
>
> What SPECIFICALLY have I said that is antisemitic? I mean, this is
> just ridiculously absurd.
Let's start out with "Joos." If you can't even have the courtesy to call
someone by the name they prefer, then I'm gonna call animus on you.
How about negative stereotyping?
How about absurd claims of collectivist action via non-existent "emergent"
group behavior?
How about blood libel? Like killing all the Palestinians? Because that's
what genocide means.
>
> You are fucking PATHETIC. Another "your a racist" epithet? Get the
> fuck out of here.
Shoe. Fits. Wear it.
>> And it *is* a conspiracy, Trav. �Make no mistake about it. �How can i
> t be
>> otherwise when all Jews get together every week to plot the takeover
>> of the world? �I'm telling you that I've got the minutes of the damn
>> meetings.
>
> I'm telling you you are a fucking KOOK and a NUTBALL if you claim
> that.
But it's true. I've got the meeting notes. You're just lucky they think
you're an ignorable buffoon.
>> I quote you events from the time of the WPE. �I quote you votes on
>> legislative acts. �I explain how things work in the US Attorneys
>> office
> . �
>> These are all facts. �Feel free to check them.
>
> "WPE" alone exposes you as a irredeemable partisan. There's no POINT
> in having a discussion with a partisan clown cheerleader like you...on
> ANYTHING.
I may be a partisan, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. C'mon. Check it
out. Stopped clock and all that.
>
> Your narrow mindset will not ALLOW you to have ANY discussion on
> race. If I say blacks commit 54% of the homicides in the US, you will
> first deny its truth,
No, it's true.
> then when pointed to fact, will fucking say it
> doesn't matter, start making excuses for it, claim "racism" and
> ultimately blame WHITE PEOPLE for it.
You blaming skin color, Trav?
> It's a playbook that is intellectually BANKRUPT. You cannot DEAL with
> facts. If someone points out the preponderance of joos in finance,
> media, marxism, "civil rights," you will do the SAME TYPE of
> shit...always BLAME WHITE PEOPLE.
There aren't any marxists left, except in academia perhaps. And there are
lots of Jews in finance, civil rights, and the movie industry. Also on the
list of Nobel Laureates.
Tell me your conclusion, and I'll tell you whether you're a racist.
>
> Are you white?
How could you know if I told you.
> is it YOUR fault? You're a fucking TOOL, dude. Free
> your goddamned mind for fuck's sake.
>
>> You have no idea about my life experience or what it reflects. �Why
>> not just concentrate on the factual things I've told you?
>
> Anybody who ACTUALLY thinks Busch was the WPE is a fool and factually
> wrong.
I've given you a list. You can't refute one item.
> Just like those who think he was the best ever.
>
>> Again, you have no idea what I've internalized and what I've
>> externalized.
>
> It drips off of your writing just as surely as my jizz dripping off
> your mom's chin.
Get help, Trav.
>> I'm not hearing voices, Trav. �I'm not the one suffering from Jew
>> Fever
> .
> I'm not either and I have absolutely no fucking clue what that means
> or what you think it means. Joo fever? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It means an unhealthy obsession with Jews as a group and their alleged
influence.
>
>> And I'd like you to stop making up stuff about a black girl you
>> supposedly knew and then drawing broad conclusions from what she
>> supposedly said. �I'd like you to learn a little bit about things
>> like
>
> Who in the FUCK ever said that I DREW a conclusion from what SHE
> said?
You did, Trav. I reposted what you snipped.
> I already KNEW what she was going to say, DIPSHIT. I'm not the
> only one on the planet aware of certain politically INCORRECT facts!
> I don't constrain myself by your mentally dissonant and intellectually
> bankrupt ideologies.
Yeah, my "intellectually bankrupt ideology" of actually demanding evidence
to back up claims.
>> the US Attorneys Office. �I'd like you to stop speculating on what I
>> am and how I got to be the way I am. �I'd like you to stop thinking
>> that credentials mean squat.
>
> I think YOU are squat. My credentials mean that I know FAR more about
> the law than YOU do and you should STFU and listen to me instead of
> spouting your obstructionist BULLSHIT which essentially...why the
> fuck do you even BOTHER? You're a fucking partisan cheerleader for
> fuck's sake; you're only embarrassing yourself by even trying to HAVE
> a substantive argument. Just fucking say WPE and chant Change We Need
> to Hope for or Change we can Suspend Disbelief In or what the fuck
> ever his bullshit, empty, recycled slogans were.
Calm down, Trav. You'll burst a blood vessel.
>> Now that would have hurt my feelings. �If I had any.
>
> I guess this means that I cannot insult your intelligence either.
Well, no. But for a different reason.
>
> Trav
>
Deadrat
news:6b2dndZOLsf...@giganews.com:
> on 11/8/2009 1:17 AM Deadrat said the following:
>> "trav...@aol.cominyrface" <trav...@aol.com> wrote in
>> news:aed77abd-
>> 2513-4142-921...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>>>> You're in trouble now, Trav.
>> I have a copy of the minutes of the last meeting of the Jews, Trav,
>> and good news. The vote was against terminating you with extreme
>> prejudice. The prevailing opinion was that you came across as a
>> complete buffoon, who could only discredit his own position. It
>> think spelling "Jews" as "joos" had something to do with it.
>
> (Gawd, I haven't posted on s.c.j since 1993 or something.)
> Speaking on behalf of the cabal, you're full of it, Mr. Rat.
>
> //jbaltz
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. It doesn't seem clever enough
to be a continuation in the same vein. But then it hardly seems likely
that anyone with half a brain would take me seriously.
I'll tell you what. Hop on over to misc.legal, read more of the thread in
which I have a conversation with Ol' Trav. If you still think I'm "full of
it," let me know.
I usually restrict my disapproving comments to the ignorance of my
correspondent. But in that case, I'm willing to call you stupid.
Deal?
Greendistantstar
I wouldn't call Jerry 'stupid'.
OTOH, he's married, has kids and does karate.....
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Deadrat
news:FNednQE7rNRrF2rX...@westnet.com.au:
I haven't. Yet.
>
> OTOH,
Is what follows really an "other hand"?
> he's married, has kids and does karate.....
So what are you suggesting he's gonna do if I call him stupid? Pack the
wife and kids in his car, come over, and karate chop me to death?
> GDS
Jerry B. Altzman
> I wouldn't call Jerry 'stupid'.
> OTOH, he's married, has kids and does karate.....
In other words, you WOULD.
Thanks for the backup there, Peter. Sheesh.
> GDS
Greendistantstar
I don't think you will.
>> OTOH,
>
> Is what follows really an "other hand"?
Perhaps not....
>> he's married, has kids and does karate.....
>
> So what are you suggesting he's gonna do if I call him stupid? Pack the
> wife and kids in his car, come over, and karate chop me to death?
Nope, and I know the answer cos he's threatened me with it, too.
He'll pack the wife and kids in the car and leave them with you.
Oy vey, there are some fates worse than being karate chopped to death!
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Deadrat
news:IoadncdZY-AQDWrX...@westnet.com.au:
Hey, Jer! What I meant was that I would never *ever* call you stupid.
Now please put the car keys back in your pocket.
>
> GDS
>
> "Let's roll!"
>
Greendistantstar
> on 11/8/2009 9:22 PM Greendistantstar said the following:
>> I wouldn't call Jerry 'stupid'.
>> OTOH, he's married, has kids and does karate.....
>
> In other words, you WOULD.
>
> Thanks for the backup there, Peter. Sheesh.
Makes ya wonder WTF is wrong with polygamists.
IS ONE WHINING WIFE NOT ENOUGH FOR THEM????
Ok, so I've had a tough morning...
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Sam the Bam
> social engineering in favor of blacks and browns. I get the hatred of
> whites, this is ancient shit and there've been many, many conflicts
> over the centuries, usually in the whites' favor because we outnumber
> them. Periodically, white societies tend to expel them en masse.
>
> The media's narrative of this of course is the awful white man with
> the innocent noble peaceful joo. But, spare me that bullshit, because
> it's the same thing with the Sioux who slaughtered all the Crow, and
> blacks, and hispanics, and EVERYbody. Same narrative with the
> muslims. It's all WHITEY's fault, everyfuckinthing is. Marxists
> obviously hate western society; even Marky would agree to this.
> the media propaganda into a
> noble, peaceloving, innocent *victim* of the white man.
>
40% of white folks only believe in evolution...
is that a race worth saving?
Sam
Mark Goldberg
> "trav...@aol.cominyrface"<trav...@aol.com> wrote in news:aed77abd-
> 2513-4142-921...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>
> Snipped that context again. Here it is:
>
> <quote>
> That joos were behind the NAACP and SPLC and fought FOR integration by
> force if necessary is inarguable.
> </quote>
>
> So what's that mean, Trav? "[B]y force if necessary"? That the NAACP
> and the SPLC followed MLK's nonviolent philosophy but only *claimed* to
> believe it, while they waited for the moment when they could use force, a
> moment that didn't ever come?
>
> C'mon, you little weasel, explain it to me.
>
>>> And here I thought you were a troll. But, no, you're suffering from
>>> Jew-on-the-brain.
>>
>> Whatever, clown. Ignore reality if you choose to.
>
> Hey, Trav! The voices in your head aren't reality.
You might want to enjoy reading his claims of the history of the
anglo-saxon ethics and morality that were corrupted by the jews.
I think it was about may 1st or so on RMA. It was ridiculous, self
invented faux history from the neurotic tribe of himself to justify
himself. And his idiotic pretentions.
hal
<Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>Jerry B. Altzman wrote:
>> on 11/8/2009 9:22 PM Greendistantstar said the following:
>>> I wouldn't call Jerry 'stupid'.
>>> OTOH, he's married, has kids and does karate.....
>>
>> In other words, you WOULD.
>>
>> Thanks for the backup there, Peter. Sheesh.
>
>Makes ya wonder WTF is wrong with polygamists.
>
>IS ONE WHINING WIFE NOT ENOUGH FOR THEM????
if you ever wonder why Mormons are so damned grouchy.
trav...@aol.com
> 40% of white folks only believe in evolution...
> is that a race worth saving?
>
> Sam
Anyone who has read much of what I've written would understand that I
am not a racialist.
I think the masses of EVERY race are essentially worthless. Most
people are stupid, simple as that. I'm not sure how you can get
confused when I say sterilize EVERY person with an IQ below 100.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
No you aren't, you're insane.
> Hint: it was a rhetorical question.
It was a stupid question.
> Dance, dance, dance.
Who are you, lady gaga?
> The Old Testament is not a history book. And in any case there are no
> Palestinians in it. At least, not in the modern sense of the word.
Jews got that plot of land originally exactly how? Hint: same way
whitey came up on America.
> No one says they started the slave trade.
So why the sense of injustice at whites?
> Still and nevertheless, chattel slavery in the US was almost entirely a
> white institution to exploit black labor.
SO WHAT?
Where the fuck is the SPLC in AFRICA? There is NO discussion of
slavery BEYOND white peoples dids it. The popular perception is that
ONLY whites EVER owned ANY slaves and they were ALWAYS black. The
entire thing is just another bullshit narrative. Somebody is
producing movies and media and publishing books that tell ONLY that
side of the story.
> You've got more stories of imaginary black people? You've got a fertile
> imagaination.
It's your imagination, not mine. You imagine yourself to be
intelligent and imagine that what I say is false.
> Oh, but you did, Trav. Here's your own words:
>
> <quote>
> Apparently, jewish men chase after her like nuts...so much so that the
> stereotype is well, accurate.
> </quote>
Yes, jewish men go after her like nuts. She's a shapely, attractive
black female. It's like being in brazil and watching german tourists.
> I've rebutted it. It's a fantasy.
You haven't marshalled a SINGLE thing against it other than claiming
it to be fabricated.
> You've got bigger problems that that, Trav. You've got Jew Fever.
No, I don't. You just can't read and you are conditioned.
> Oh, c'mon, Trav. You care.
No, not particularly. You are a joo, right?
Give me the narrative about how the innocent peaceloving joos were
just fucked in the ass by the awful white people again. Same as with
every other. I've had this discussion before with joos; the political
incorrect ones dismiss ab initio the absurd notion that the injuns
were peaceloving and innocent, or the arabs, or the blacks, or any
other group that happened to get conquered in the past 500 years. But
they cannot induce from that that their own narrative is flawed.
> Oh, Trav, get help. Jew Fever will ruin your life. From your black-girl-
> getting-hit-on-by-Jews story, to your refusal to spell Jews properly, to
> your claims of Jewish genocide, to your silly "emergent behavior" theory --
> it's all nuts.
No, it's factually correct. I expect the work product of people to
mirror their personal biases. If Farrakhan makes a movie, it's going
to reflect his beliefs. This is just natural. The slant of a
newspaper reflects the editors' biases. It's really very simple.
Right now, the weight of media and policy is decidedly antiWASP. I'm
willing to stipulate that the progenitors of this philosophy or dogma
have long since left the industries, but the culture of the
organization carries on. Only people who have some deep sense of
injustice at whites that they feel needs redress join organizations
like the SPLC. They don't fuckin do it for fun. They believe in the
cause.
As for TV and newspapers, you get Duke Lacrosse pounded on every
channel but Newsom/Christian is barely a peep. The race of
perpetrators is not mentioned, people complain that Cops and First 48
are racist...goddamn, man, look around you.
> I'll accept evidence that I can check. Your JD? Can't check it. Your
> black-girl-getting-hit-on-by-Jews story? Can't check it.
You can't check much of anything.
> Calm down, trav. You're gonna blow a gasket.
I AM calm. You don't get it, do you?
> Now how am I gonna do that? I don't know who's really posting; I don't
> knew if you have a JD. I don't know whether your black-girl-getting-hit-
> on-by-Jews story is true. (No, I'm sure that one is just bullshit.)
I guess you're just ignorant then.
> Try giving me something I can check out. Genocide against the
> Palestinians? All I have to do is check UN population figures to know
> that's a lie.
This must set you at odds with the non-joos in the libtard party.
> Oh, no! They used, *sob*, force of law! How dare they?
>
> Economic extortion? Like in Birmingham, when black riders simply refused
> to ride segregated buses? You got a problem with that?
>
> Seems you've got a problem with public accommodation laws, too.
>
> Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
No, quite the opposite.
> Let's start out with "Joos." If you can't even have the courtesy to call
> someone by the name they prefer, then I'm gonna call animus on you.
The joos here use joos. For fuck's sake, how much more hypersensitive
could ANYBODY be?
> How about negative stereotyping?
Where was the negative?
> How about absurd claims of collectivist action via non-existent "emergent"
> group behavior?
That is antisemitic to point out that when you have a significant
portion of the activist population with a particular political bent
you should expect a certain outcome???
> How about blood libel? Like killing all the Palestinians? Because that's
> what genocide means.
Ok, you left the realm of the sane...blood libel. Good lord. Not
gonna read the rest.
Trav
Deadrat
news:8326f182-f5b4-4019...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com:
<snip/>
>> The Old Testament is not a history book. �And in any case there are
>> no Palestinians in it. �At least, not in the modern sense of the
>> word.
>
> Jews got that plot of land originally exactly how? Hint: same way
> whitey came up on America.
Not even close. But the short answer is the UN.
>
>> No one says they started the slave trade.
>
> So why the sense of injustice at whites?
Ya know, Trav, if you knew how little time black people spent thinking
about you, you might be surprised.
>
>> Still and nevertheless, chattel slavery in the US was almost entirely
>> a white institution to exploit black labor.
>
> SO WHAT?
So get over it. No one is blaming you personally.
>
> Where the fuck is the SPLC in AFRICA?
Who cares?
> There is NO discussion of slavery BEYOND white peoples dids it.
That there's much discussion of slavery at all is a figment of your
imagination.
> The popular perception is that
> ONLY whites EVER owned ANY slaves and they were ALWAYS black. The
> entire thing is just another bullshit narrative. Somebody is
> producing movies and media and publishing books that tell ONLY that
> side of the story.
In 1860, there were 4M black slaves. How many white slaves were there?
>
>> You've got more stories of imaginary black people? �You've got a
>> fertile imagaination.
>
> It's your imagination, not mine. You imagine yourself to be
> intelligent and imagine that what I say is false.
Sure you do. But you're an ignoramus.
>> Oh, but you did, Trav. �Here's your own words:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Apparently, jewish men chase after her like nuts...so much so that
>> the stereotype is well, accurate.
>> </quote>
>
> Yes, jewish men go after her like nuts. She's a shapely, attractive
> black female. It's like being in brazil and watching german tourists.
More fever dreams.
>
>> I've rebutted it. �It's a fantasy.
>
> You haven't marshalled a SINGLE thing against it other than claiming
> it to be fabricated.
Just about on par with your claim that it's true.
>
>> You've got bigger problems that that, Trav. �You've got Jew Fever.
>
> No, I don't. You just can't read and you are conditioned.
>
>> Oh, c'mon, Trav. �You care.
>
> No, not particularly. You are a joo, right?
That important to you, Trav? If I said one way or the other, how could
you know whether I was telling the truth?
>
> Give me the narrative about how the innocent peaceloving joos were
> just fucked in the ass by the awful white people again. Same as with
> every other. I've had this discussion before with joos; the political
> incorrect ones dismiss ab initio the absurd notion that the injuns
> were peaceloving and innocent, or the arabs, or the blacks, or any
> other group that happened to get conquered in the past 500 years. But
> they cannot induce from that that their own narrative is flawed.
Just about every group has a mythology is clings to. So what?
>
>> Oh, Trav, get help. �Jew Fever will ruin your life. �From your black-
> girl-
>> getting-hit-on-by-Jews story, to your refusal to spell Jews properly,
>> to your claims of Jewish genocide, to your silly "emergent behavior"
>> theory
> --
>> it's all nuts.
>
> No, it's factually correct. I expect the work product of people to
> mirror their personal biases. If Farrakhan makes a movie, it's going
> to reflect his beliefs. This is just natural. The slant of a
> newspaper reflects the editors' biases. It's really very simple.
>
> Right now, the weight of media and policy is decidedly antiWASP.
Bummer. Good thing they own everything, eh?
> I'm
> willing to stipulate that the progenitors of this philosophy or dogma
> have long since left the industries, but the culture of the
> organization carries on. Only people who have some deep sense of
> injustice at whites that they feel needs redress join organizations
> like the SPLC.
The SPLC tracks Kluxers.
> They don't fuckin do it for fun. They believe in the cause.
>
> As for TV and newspapers, you get Duke Lacrosse pounded on every
> channel but Newsom/Christian is barely a peep. The race of
> perpetrators is not mentioned, people complain that Cops and First 48
> are racist...goddamn, man, look around you.
Look at yourself first, Trav. Mote, beam, eye, ya know.
>> I'll accept evidence that I can check. �Your JD? �Can't check it. �
> Your
>> black-girl-getting-hit-on-by-Jews story? �Can't check it.
>
> You can't check much of anything.
You can, but you won't.
>
>> Calm down, trav. �You're gonna blow a gasket.
>
> I AM calm. You don't get it, do you?
Sure thing, trav.
>> Now how am I gonna do that? �I don't know who's really posting; I
>> don't knew if you have a JD. �I don't know whether your
>> black-girl-getting-hit-
>> on-by-Jews story is true. �(No, I'm sure that one is just bullshit.)
>
> I guess you're just ignorant then.
We're all ignorant, trav. You, willfully so.
>
>> Try giving me something I can check out. �Genocide against the
>> Palestinians? �All I have to do is check UN population figures to
>> know that's a lie.
>
> This must set you at odds with the non-joos in the libtard party.
>
>> Oh, no! �They used, *sob*, force of law! �How dare they?
>>
>> Economic extortion? �Like in Birmingham, when black riders simply
>> refused
>> to ride segregated buses? �You got a problem with that?
>>
>> Seems you've got a problem with public accommodation laws, too.
>>
>> Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
>
> No, quite the opposite.
Then what's with all the whining then?
>
>> Let's start out with "Joos." �If you can't even have the courtesy to
>> call
>> someone by the name they prefer, then I'm gonna call animus on you.
>
> The joos here use joos. For fuck's sake, how much more hypersensitive
> could ANYBODY be?
The "joos here"! Bwahahahahahaha! "Joos in Cyberspace"? or "Joos
inside your head"?
>
>> How about negative stereotyping?
> Where was the negative?
All them horny joos hittin' on imaginary black gals.
>> How about absurd claims of collectivist action via non-existent
>> "emergent" group behavior?
>
> That is antisemitic to point out that when you have a significant
> portion of the activist population with a particular political bent
> you should expect a certain outcome???
When you see joos behind every tree? Yeah.
>
>> How about blood libel? �Like killing all the Palestinians? Because
>> that's what genocide means.
>
> Ok, you left the realm of the sane...blood libel. Good lord. Not
> gonna read the rest.
Run away, Brave Sir Robin. As always, it's up to you. Come back when
you can document a Palestinian genocide.
>
> Trav
>
Sam the Bam
> > I dunno, Trav, I just saw a survey, where only
> > 40% of white folks only believe in evolution...
> > is that a race worth saving?
>
> am not a racialist.
>
> I think the masses of EVERY race are essentially worthless. Most
> people are stupid, simple as that. I'm not sure how you can get
> confused when I say sterilize EVERY person with an IQ below 100.
What happens to the IQ curve after you do that?
Sam
trav...@aol.com
Fuck, Moses went in front of the UN? God damn, I had no clue about
that.
> Ya know, Trav, if you knew how little time black people spent thinking
> about you, you might be surprised.
In between thinking of what, murder?
> Who cares?
You should; they should be attacking slavery.
> That there's much discussion of slavery at all is a figment of your
> imagination.
LOL...now this is the dumbest thing you've ever said. In EVERY
discussion of race, it exists.
> In 1860, there were 4M black slaves. How many white slaves were there?
WHO CARES? That is IMMATERIAL to the grander issue of slavery.
> That important to you, Trav? If I said one way or the other, how could
> you know whether I was telling the truth?
I'd assume you were probably lying.
> Just about every group has a mythology is clings to. So what?
Other groups don't have the power to actualize their mythologies.
> Bummer. Good thing they own everything, eh?
Like the banks, media, and FOMC.
> The SPLC tracks Kluxers.
All fucking THREE of them?
> Then what's with all the whining then?
Our nation is being destroyed.
> The "joos here"! Bwahahahahahaha! "Joos in Cyberspace"? or "Joos
> inside your head"?
On this forum, you freakin IDIOT.
> All them horny joos hittin' on imaginary black gals.
Why did you assume that this was negative? Your reactions betray you.
> When you see joos behind every tree? Yeah.
You're a nutcase.
> Run away, Brave Sir Robin. As always, it's up to you. Come back when
> you can document a Palestinian genocide.
I assumed you were a gentile libtard, in which case you'd have been
screaming about it.
Obviously, there is no genocide of palestinians and never was, but
you'd be suprised what libtards who are gentiles would assert.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
>
> Sam
It stays bell shaped
Trav
Deadrat
328a-4878-b16...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>> Not even close. �But the short answer is the UN.
>
> Fuck, Moses went in front of the UN? God damn, I had no clue about
> that.
Remember, trav. The Old Testament isn't a land deed. Modern Israel owes
its legal existence to the UN.
>
>> Ya know, Trav, if you knew how little time black people spent thinking
>> about you, you might be surprised.
>
> In between thinking of what, murder?
What a kneeslapper! That's right, trav. That's all black people think
aobut, murder. And being murdered, since they are out-of-proportion the
victims too. But you're not a racist. You're a *humorist*
>
>> Who cares?
>
> You should; they should be attacking slavery.
<?/>
>> That there's much discussion of slavery at all is a figment of your
>> imagination.
>
> LOL...now this is the dumbest thing you've ever said. In EVERY
> discussion of race, it exists.
Mostly folks avoid the discussion of race. You're the one obsessed by
it.
>> In 1860, there were 4M black slaves. �How many white slaves were
>> there?
>
> WHO CARES? That is IMMATERIAL to the grander issue of slavery.
Ah, so you throw out this big claim that US slavery wasn't restricted to
black people, but when challenged, you run. Typical.
>> That important to you, Trav? �If I said one way or the other, how
>> could you know whether I was telling the truth?
>
> I'd assume you were probably lying.
So why ask?
>> Just about every group has a mythology is clings to. �So what?
>
> Other groups don't have the power to actualize their mythologies.
Oh, but they do, trav. The Turks have the power to actualize their myths
about the Armenians. The Khmer Rouge had the power to actualized their
myths about the perfect agrarian society. The Chinese have the power to
actualize their mythology about Tibet. But when you've got Jew Fever, so
all you can see are Jews (or Joos).
>> Bummer. �Good thing they own everything, eh?
>
> Like the banks, media, and FOMC.
That's right, trav. Them Joos own everything! Look, quick, behind that
tree. It's a Joo!
>> The SPLC tracks Kluxers.
>
> All fucking THREE of them?
And the Aryan Nation and other crazies. If you don't think that's
worthwhile, then don't contribute. But the SPLC isn't nourishing any
sense of outrage at white people in general.
>> Then what's with all the whining then?
>
> Our nation is being destroyed.
See? It does suck to be you.
>> The "joos here"! �Bwahahahahahaha! �"Joos in Cyberspace"? �or "Joos
>> inside your head"?
>
> On this forum, you freakin IDIOT.
How can you tell whether anyone is Jewish on this forum, trav?
>> All them horny joos hittin' on imaginary black gals.
>
> Why did you assume that this was negative? Your reactions betray you.
Ah, it's a *good* thing! Why didn't you say so?
My reaction isn't to whether some Jews hit on some black girls or not.
I'm not really interested in who's hookin' up with whom. That's *your*
bag, apparently. I'm laughing at your laughable "evidence."
>> When you see joos behind every tree? �Yeah.
>
> You're a nutcase.
I'm not the one with Jew Fever.
>> Run away, Brave Sir Robin. �As always, it's up to you. �Come back
>> when you can document a Palestinian genocide.
>
> I assumed you were a gentile libtard,
Assume away, trav. It's all inside your head.
> in which case you'd have been screaming about it.
I hear Palestinians and their supporters talking about Israeli apartheid,
but not genocide.
> Obviously, there is no genocide of palestinians and never was, but
> you'd be suprised what libtards who are gentiles would assert.
More voices inside your head.
> Trav
>
Tupac Chopra
<trav...@aol.com> wrote:
>Dunno why...nobody jewish has an answer for the fascination with
>social engineering in favor of blacks and browns.
"The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American
population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all
be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a
Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.We [Jews]
have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for
about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the
heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible
-- and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more
practical than ever."
(Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin, 1993 February 19, 23)
Alexander
Yeah, Right! Thats why Jewish Bolsheviks have murdered more people then
the 2 world wars. Wars they instigated and started.
>
>
>
>
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
You're goin' on the list. Next week. Count on it.
Tupac Chopra
Your Jew Claw doesn't frighten me. I wear Kevlar.
Alexander
What is the red spot on your forehead? Oh.. It looks like a laser site. ;-p
trav...@aol.com
> its legal existence to the UN.
you obviously haven't been around here long, man...
do you know how many times I have talked about the Partition and the
various wars? JFC, dude.
Besides, your statement is incorrect unless you assert that the UN was
a participant in the War of Independence. Israeli guns and manpower
is to what Israel owes its present existence.
> What a kneeslapper! That's right, trav. That's all black people think
> aobut, murder. And being murdered, since they are out-of-proportion the
> victims too. But you're not a racist. You're a *humorist
It's nobody's fault but their own. As far as interracial violent
crime goes, though, 85% of it is by blacks, and they commit more
violent crime against whites than they do against blacks. So yeah,
pretty much, booty and violence. I mean, what the fuck other themes
are there in rap music? Look what i gots, fuck tha bitchez, smokes me
a blunt, kill whitey, gibs me dat. Black culture in a nutshell.
> Mostly folks avoid the discussion of race. You're the one obsessed by
> it.
Don't organizations like the NAACP still exist? Aren't there libtards
screaming racist every fuckin day?
> Ah, so you throw out this big claim that US slavery wasn't restricted to
> black people, but when challenged, you run. Typical.
I never made such a claim. I claimed that SLAVERY was not confined to
blacks being slaves of whites.
> So why ask?
Just to get a laugh out of your response.
> Oh, but they do, trav. The Turks have the power to actualize their myths
> about the Armenians. The Khmer Rouge had the power to actualized their
> myths about the perfect agrarian society. The Chinese have the power to
> actualize their mythology about Tibet. But when you've got Jew Fever, so
> all you can see are Jews (or Joos).
WTF is it with you? Failure to mention some OTHER issue or even
genocide does not have anything to do with my recognition of it! The
SUBJECT in this case was NOT tibet or the fuckin Khmer Rouge!
> That's right, trav. Them Joos own everything! Look, quick, behind that
> tree. It's a Joo!
You need to do better than that. I mean, this type of evasion is
pathetic. The constitution of the FOMC is unanimously jooish. An
uncommon coincidence, no?
> And the Aryan Nation and other crazies. If you don't think that's
> worthwhile, then don't contribute. But the SPLC isn't nourishing any
> sense of outrage at white people in general.
Of course they are, that's their purpose. When I had cable I got to
listen to them imply that tea partiers were racists, birthers were
racists, basically everyfuckinbody is a racist. That congress guy who
said you lie was a racist. Every white person is according to them.
Who has fever? Joos do. WASP fever.
> See? It does suck to be you.
Not really...I'll find a new nation.
> How can you tell whether anyone is Jewish on this forum, trav?
Well, one is named GOLDBERG and SAYS HE IS A FUCKING JOO and the other
one is Altzman and he says he is a joo too. JFC, are you THAT stupid?
> Ah, it's a *good* thing! Why didn't you say so?
>
> My reaction isn't to whether some Jews hit on some black girls or not.
> I'm not really interested in who's hookin' up with whom. That's *your*
> bag, apparently. I'm laughing at your laughable "evidence."
It wasn't evidence, it was an anecdote intended to demonstrate a
point.
> I'm not the one with Jew Fever.
You must have had some dementia-inducing fever then.
> I hear Palestinians and their supporters talking about Israeli apartheid,
> but not genocide.
Then you're hard of fucking hearing, seriously.
Trav
Deadrat
news:bkmhf55ltb9n006o3...@4ax.com:
You're safe then. A head shot wouldn't even phase you.
Majd al-Din
>> Remember, trav. The Old Testament isn't a land deed. Modern Israel owes
>> its legal existence to the UN.
>
> you obviously haven't been around here long, man...
>
> do you know how many times I have talked about the Partition and the
> various wars? JFC, dude.
>
> Besides, your statement is incorrect unless you assert that the UN was
> a participant in the War of Independence. Israeli guns and manpower
> is to what Israel owes its present existence.
Israel is a parasite nation that was given for use by the UN and heavily
subsidized by the hard working American taxpayer that has been
doublecrossed and had its sons murdered by the Israeli Jews. Don't
forget that Germany subsidized Israel for 50 long hard years for a war
the damned Jews instigated. The International Congress of Jews declared
war on Germany in 1932.
Deadrat
news:da2dd19a-c468-4358...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>> Remember, trav. �The Old Testament isn't a land deed. �Modern Israel
>> owes its legal existence to the UN.
>
> you obviously haven't been around here long, man...
>
> do you know how many times I have talked about the Partition and the
> various wars? JFC, dude.
No, I don't. Going on what I've seen, I assume you pulled it all out of
your ass.
> Besides, your statement is incorrect unless you assert that the UN was
> a participant in the War of Independence.
Which, of course, I never said. Next time, why don't you snip what I
wrote so you can lie about it without being contradicted 14 lines above?
"Legal existence." No one claims the UN took part in the 1948 war.
> Israeli guns and manpower is to what Israel owes its present existence.
Israel owes it's de jure existence to the UN. It owes it's survival to
the IDF.
>> What a kneeslapper! �That's right, trav. �That's all black people thi
> nk
>> aobut, murder. �And being murdered, since they are out-of-proportion
>> th
> e �
>> victims too. �But you're not a racist. �You're a *humorist
>
> It's nobody's fault but their own. As far as interracial violent
> crime goes, though, 85% of it is by blacks, and they commit more
> violent crime against whites than they do against blacks.
There are more than 3 times the number of non-blacks killed by blacks
than blacks killed by non-blacks. But there are over 8 times as many
non-blacks as blacks in the population. Do the math.
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/03/debunking-buc-3.html
> So yeah, pretty much, booty and violence.
So you've decided that most crimes are committed by blacks, therefore
most blacks are criminals. What an ignoramus you are!
> I mean, what the fuck other themes
> are there in rap music? Look what i gots, fuck tha bitchez, smokes me
> a blunt, kill whitey, gibs me dat. Black culture in a nutshell.
Yeah, rap music. That's the ticket.
>> Mostly folks avoid the discussion of race. �You're the one obsessed
>> by it.
>
> Don't organizations like the NAACP still exist? Aren't there libtards
> screaming racist every fuckin day?
Why shouldn't the NAACP still exist? And no, there may be screamers
about race -- you're one, for instance -- but the screamers get the
attention.
>> Ah, so you throw out this big claim that US slavery wasn't restricted
>> to black people, but when challenged, you run. �Typical.
>
> I never made such a claim. I claimed that SLAVERY was not confined to
> blacks being slaves of whites.
In the US, we can make this statement to a very high degree of
approximation.
>> So why ask?
>
> Just to get a laugh out of your response.
>
>> Oh, but they do, trav. �The Turks have the power to actualize their
>> myths
>> about the Armenians. �The Khmer Rouge had the power to actualized
>> their myths about the perfect agrarian society. �The Chinese have the
>> power to
>> actualize their mythology about Tibet. �But when you've got Jew
>> Fever, so all you can see are Jews (or Joos).
>
> WTF is it with you? Failure to mention some OTHER issue or even
> genocide does not have anything to do with my recognition of it! The
> SUBJECT in this case was NOT tibet or the fuckin Khmer Rouge!
No, it was to contradict your absurd statement about Jews being the only
people able to "actualize" their mythology. Try to keep up.
>> That's right, trav. �Them Joos own everything! �Look, quick, behind
>> that tree. �It's a Joo!
>
> You need to do better than that. I mean, this type of evasion is
> pathetic. The constitution of the FOMC is unanimously jooish. An
> uncommon coincidence, no?
If it were true, but it's not.
>> And the Aryan Nation and other crazies. �If you don't think that's
>> worthwhile, then don't contribute. �But the SPLC isn't nourishing any
>> sense of outrage at white people in general.
>
> Of course they are, that's their purpose. When I had cable I got to
> listen to them imply that tea partiers were racists, birthers were
> racists, basically everyfuckinbody is a racist.
Only people who say racist things, trav. You've got to stop getting all
your info from Fox.
And I don't believe that the SPLC has much presence on cable. What
channels were you getting?
> That congress guy who said you lie was a racist.
No, he's just an ignoramus. Like you.
> Every white person is according to them.
Jew Fever talking.
>
> Who has fever? Joos do. WASP fever.
Bwahahahahahahaha! Got some more anecdotes for me, trav? Maybe some
WASP chick who talked to you?
>> See? �It does suck to be you.
>
> Not really...I'll find a new nation.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
>> How can you tell whether anyone is Jewish on this forum, trav?
>
> Well, one is named GOLDBERG and SAYS HE IS A FUCKING JOO and the other
> one is Altzman and he says he is a joo too. JFC, are you THAT stupid?
Sure, he *says* his name is Goldberg, and he *says* he's Jewish. You
bought it, eh? The evidence bar is pretty low for you, isn't it, trav?
>
>> Ah, it's a *good* thing! �Why didn't you say so?
>>
>> My reaction isn't to whether some Jews hit on some black girls or
>> not.
> �
>> I'm not really interested in who's hookin' up with whom. �That's
>> *your* bag, apparently. �I'm laughing at your laughable "evidence."
>
> It wasn't evidence, it was an anecdote intended to demonstrate a
> point.
It was an anecdote you used to confirm your stereotype. Your own words
that. An anecdote you just made up, too.
>
>> I'm not the one with Jew Fever.
>
> You must have had some dementia-inducing fever then.
>
>> I hear Palestinians and their supporters talking about Israeli
>> apartheid, but not genocide.
>
> Then you're hard of fucking hearing, seriously.
Please, quote some sources.
It could happen. There's a first time for everything.
>
> Trav
>
Deadrat
news:7lsb60F...@mid.individual.net:
> trav...@aol.cominyrface wrote:
>>> Remember, trav. The Old Testament isn't a land deed. Modern Israel
>>> owes its legal existence to the UN.
>>
>> you obviously haven't been around here long, man...
>>
>> do you know how many times I have talked about the Partition and the
>> various wars? JFC, dude.
>>
>> Besides, your statement is incorrect unless you assert that the UN
>> was a participant in the War of Independence. Israeli guns and
>> manpower is to what Israel owes its present existence.
>
>
> Israel is a parasite nation that was given for use by the UN and
> heavily subsidized by the hard working American taxpayer that has been
> doublecrossed and had its sons murdered by the Israeli Jews. Don't
> forget that Germany subsidized Israel for 50 long hard years for a war
> the damned Jews instigated.
Too bad the Jews own everhting. Man, it sucks to be you, doesn't it?
> The International Congress of Jews declared war on Germany in 1932.
Cite? (Bwahahahahahahaha!)
<snip/>
Spanky
Greendistantstar
> Sure, he *says* his name is Goldberg, and he *says* he's Jewish. You
> bought it, eh?
Generally speaking, such observations about usenet 'facts' are correct, however in this case, you're
wrong.
> The evidence bar is pretty low for you, isn't it, trav?
It's more that you're not aware of the evidence.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
American Eagle
No the Jews claim to own everything that belongs to others. They even
claim all inventions, breakthroughs etc belong to them also. Jewish
greed is vast and well known. The Horrors the Jews have committed in
just the last 1oo years is unspeakable.
>
>> The International Congress of Jews declared war on Germany in 1932.
>
> Cite? (Bwahahahahahahaha!)
Read the news of the day you fucking ignorant Jew asshole.
How typically stupid.
> <snip/>
NefeshBarYohai
> Deadrat wrote:
> > Majd al-Din <Is...@Sucks.com> wrote in
> >news:7lsb60F...@mid.individual.net:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are a filthy goyisher heathen that should be put out of your
misery before you contaminate more innocent Jews.
Linda
> Majd al-Din <Is...@Sucks.com> wrote innews:7lsb60F...@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Remember, trav. The Old Testament isn't a land deed. Modern Israel
> >>> owes its legal existence to the UN.
>
> >> you obviously haven't been around here long, man...
>
> >> do you know how many times I have talked about the Partition and the
> >> various wars? JFC, dude.
>
> >> Besides, your statement is incorrect unless you assert that the UN
> >> was a participant in the War of Independence. Israeli guns and
> >> manpower is to what Israel owes its present existence.
>
> > Israel is a parasite nation that was given for use by the UN and
> > heavily subsidized by the hard working American taxpayer that has been
> > doublecrossed and had its sons murdered by the Israeli Jews. Don't
> > forget that Germany subsidized Israel for 50 long hard years for a war
> > the damned Jews instigated.
>
> Too bad the Jews own everhting. Man, it sucks to be you, doesn't it?
>
> > The International Congress of Jews declared war on Germany in 1932.
>
> Cite?
Judea Declares War On Germany March 1933
http://www.historybuff.org/judea.jpg
(Bwahahahahahahaha!)
> <snip/>
American Eagle
There is no such thing as an innocent Jew, you nasty smelly insane
little traitor.
YumYumPandaburger
lol @the "neglect the lubrication" ad
YumYumPandaburger
wrote:
> Deadrat wrote:
> > "Jerry B. Altzman" <jba...@altzman.com> wrote in
> >news:6b2dndZOLsf...@giganews.com:
>
> >> on 11/8/2009 1:17 AM Deadrat said the following:
> >>> "travis...@aol.cominyrface" <travis...@aol.com> wrote in
> >>> news:aed77abd-
> >>> 2513-4142-921b-e5383222f...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
> >>>>> You're in trouble now, Trav.
> >>> I have a copy of the minutes of the last meeting of the Jews, Trav,
> >>> and good news. The vote was against terminating you with extreme
> >>> prejudice. The prevailing opinion was that you came across as a
> >>> complete buffoon, who could only discredit his own position. It
> >>> think spelling "Jews" as "joos" had something to do with it.
> >> (Gawd, I haven't posted on s.c.j since 1993 or something.)
> >> Speaking on behalf of the cabal, you're full of it, Mr. Rat.
>
> >> //jbaltz
>
> > I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. It doesn't seem clever enough
> > to be a continuation in the same vein. But then it hardly seems likely
> > that anyone with half a brain would take me seriously.
>
> > I'll tell you what. Hop on over to misc.legal, read more of the thread in
> > which I have a conversation with Ol' Trav. If you still think I'm "full of
> > it," let me know.
>
> > I usually restrict my disapproving comments to the ignorance of my
> > correspondent. But in that case, I'm willing to call you stupid.
>
> > Deal?
>
> I wouldn't call Jerry 'stupid'.
Off course not. With karate he'd kick your ass.
> OTOH, he's married, has kids and does karate.....
lol
YumYumPandaburger
> Deadrat wrote:
> > "travis...@aol.cominyrface"<travis...@aol.com> wrote in news:aed77abd-
> > 2513-4142-921b-e5383222f...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> > <quote>
> > That joos were behind the NAACP and SPLC and fought FOR integration by
> > force if necessary is inarguable.
> > </quote>
>
> > So what's that mean, Trav? "[B]y force if necessary"? That the NAACP
> > and the SPLC followed MLK's nonviolent philosophy but only *claimed* to
> > believe it, while they waited for the moment when they could use force, a
> > moment that didn't ever come?
>
> > C'mon, you little weasel, explain it to me.
>
> >>> And here I thought you were a troll. But, no, you're suffering from
> >>> Jew-on-the-brain.
>
> >> Whatever, clown. Ignore reality if you choose to.
>
> > Hey, Trav! The voices in your head aren't reality.
>
> You might want to enjoy reading his claims of the history of the
> anglo-saxon ethics and morality that were corrupted by the jews.
> I think it was about may 1st or so on RMA. It was ridiculous, self
> invented faux history from the neurotic tribe of himself to justify
> himself.
Your last sentence makes my mind spin. I suspect a jewish conspiracy
to confuse me ;-)
trav...@aol.com
> your ass.
Once again, your problem, and your ignorance.
> Which, of course, I never said. Next time, why don't you snip what I
> wrote so you can lie about it without being contradicted 14 lines above?
> "Legal existence." No one claims the UN took part in the 1948 war.
"Legal existence"??? ROTFL. There is no such thing.
> Israel owes it's de jure existence to the UN. It owes it's survival to
> the IDF.
It owes its existence both de facto and de jure to the army.
> There are more than 3 times the number of non-blacks killed by blacks
> than blacks killed by non-blacks. But there are over 8 times as many
> non-blacks as blacks in the population. Do the math.
Nothing I said was inaccurate. What you are saying is that blacks are
astoundingly more likely to kill nonblacks than vice versa.
> So you've decided that most crimes are committed by blacks, therefore
> most blacks are criminals. What an ignoramus you are!
?? If you want to attack the converse to my statement, we certainly
can. I said only that most crime was black. I would not assume that
this implied that the converse is true. The converse can be proved by
statistical data on arrest and incarceration rates.
> Why shouldn't the NAACP still exist? And no, there may be screamers
> about race -- you're one, for instance -- but the screamers get the
> attention.
The NAACP is a racist organization, so it should not exist.
> In the US, we can make this statement to a very high degree of
> approximation.
I did not SO QUALIFY my statement, moron!
> No, it was to contradict your absurd statement about Jews being the only
> people able to "actualize" their mythology. Try to keep up.
In the US, they certainly are, and they are unique among groups that
cling to "victim" status.
> Only people who say racist things, trav. You've got to stop getting all
> your info from Fox.
FOX? you think Fox is racist and that I watch Fox? Neither of these
statements is true.
And you proved my point about libtards and the race card. Fox is in
no way shape or form racist.
> And I don't believe that the SPLC has much presence on cable. What
> channels were you getting?
They put their spokesman or president on whichever cable program they
can.
> Jew Fever talking.
Yet you just claimed Fox was racist.
> Bwahahahahahahaha! Got some more anecdotes for me, trav? Maybe some
> WASP chick who talked to you?
huh?
> Sure, he *says* his name is Goldberg, and he *says* he's Jewish. You
> bought it, eh? The evidence bar is pretty low for you, isn't it, trav?
Good lord...wow. Do you know how many YEARS we've all been on this
forum? JFC, what a tard you are.
> It was an anecdote you used to confirm your stereotype. Your own words
> that. An anecdote you just made up, too.
It's just another data point to me, man.
Trav
Deadrat
news:WbOdnaA3K7VguWTX...@westnet.com.au:
> Deadrat wrote:
>
>> Sure, he *says* his name is Goldberg, and he *says* he's Jewish. You
>> bought it, eh?
>
> Generally speaking, such observations about usenet 'facts' are
> correct, however in this case, you're wrong.
Generally speaking, such an observation about a usenet "fact" is
unverifiable.
>
>> The evidence bar is pretty low for you, isn't it, trav?
>
> It's more that you're not aware of the evidence.
And you are, I suppose. And I should take your word for that, because?
>
> GDS
>
> "Let's roll!"
>
>
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> Majd al-Din <Is...@Sucks.com> wrote in
>> news:7lsb60F...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> trav...@aol.cominyrface wrote:
>>>>> Remember, trav. The Old Testament isn't a land deed. Modern
Israel
>>>>> owes its legal existence to the UN.
>>>> you obviously haven't been around here long, man...
>>>>
>>>> do you know how many times I have talked about the Partition and the
>>>> various wars? JFC, dude.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, your statement is incorrect unless you assert that the UN
>>>> was a participant in the War of Independence. Israeli guns and
>>>> manpower is to what Israel owes its present existence.
>>>
>>> Israel is a parasite nation that was given for use by the UN and
>>> heavily subsidized by the hard working American taxpayer that has
been
>>> doublecrossed and had its sons murdered by the Israeli Jews. Don't
>>> forget that Germany subsidized Israel for 50 long hard years for a
war
>>> the damned Jews instigated.
>>
>> Too bad the Jews own everhting. Man, it sucks to be you, doesn't it?
>
>
> No the Jews claim to own everything that belongs to others.
No Jew has ever claimed anything I own, so it can't be everything. I'll
bet no Jew has ever claimed anything you own, either.
> They even claim all inventions,
No Jew has ever claimed the invention of the light bulb. So it can't be
all inventions. I'll bet you never invented anything but a few stories,
probably about Jews.
> breakthroughs etc belong to them also.
No Jew ever claimed to have made the breakthrough of determining the
structure of DNA. So it can't be all breakthroughs.
> Jewish greed is vast and well known.
Another one with Jew Fever. Get help.
> The Horrors the Jews have committed in
> just the last 1oo years is unspeakable.
>>
>>> The International Congress of Jews declared war on Germany in 1932.
>>
>> Cite? (Bwahahahahahahaha!)
>
> Read the news of the day
Sorry, still laughing about the "International Congress of Jews." Did
they attack Germany from the east or the west? Can't seem to find that
in the "news of the day."
> you fucking ignorant Jew asshole.
How do you know I'm Jewish?
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:5d2ba779-554d-47f3...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
So you're quoting an unsourced newspaper article? And it turns out that
it's a figure of speech for Jewish opposition to Hitler? See my comment
below
> |
> |
> v
> (Bwahahahahahahaha!)
Deadrat
And no such thing as a sane antisemite.
Greendistantstar
> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
> news:WbOdnaA3K7VguWTX...@westnet.com.au:
>
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, he *says* his name is Goldberg, and he *says* he's Jewish. You
>>> bought it, eh?
>> Generally speaking, such observations about usenet 'facts' are
>> correct, however in this case, you're wrong.
>
> Generally speaking, such an observation about a usenet "fact" is
> unverifiable.
Except when it is.
>>> The evidence bar is pretty low for you, isn't it, trav?
>> It's more that you're not aware of the evidence.
> And you are, I suppose.
Yes I am.
> And I should take your word for that, because?
You don't have to take my word for it. There's plenty of newsgroups where people know each other. As
Kirk and several others have already told you, this is the case with rm-a.
I'm not having a go; I find your contributions interesting and amusing, just sayin'....
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Deadrat
a11e-42c9-bce...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>> No, I don't. �Going on what I've seen, I assume you pulled it all out
o
> f
>> your ass.
>
> Once again, your problem, and your ignorance.
Won't change the burden: your claim, you supply the evidence.
>
>> Which, of course, I never said. �Next time, why don't you snip what I
>> wrote so you can lie about it without being contradicted 14 lines
above?
>> "Legal existence." �No one claims the UN took part in the 1948 war.
>
> "Legal existence"??? ROTFL. There is no such thing.
Has been since 1945.
>> Israel owes it's de jure existence to the UN. �It owes it's survival
>> to the IDF.
>
> It owes its existence both de facto and de jure to the army.
Add the definitin of "de jure" to the list of things you dont' know.
>> There are more than 3 times the number of non-blacks killed by blacks
>> than blacks killed by non-blacks. �But there are over 8 times as many
>> non-blacks as blacks in the population. �Do the math.
>
> Nothing I said was inaccurate. What you are saying is that blacks are
> astoundingly more likely to kill nonblacks than vice versa.
And whites are astoundingly more likely to commit suicide that they are
to be killed by blacks. What do you conclude from that?
>> So you've decided that most crimes are committed by blacks, therefore
>> most blacks are criminals. �What an ignoramus you are!
>
> ?? If you want to attack the converse to my statement, we certainly
> can. I said only that most crime was black.
Hardly. Your little foray into crime statistics is a way to libel an
entire community.
<snip/>
>> Why shouldn't the NAACP still exist? �And no, there may be screamers
>> about race -- you're one, for instance -- but the screamers get the
>> attention.
>
> The NAACP is a racist organization,
Does it exclude white people? Villify them?
> so it should not exist.
You're a racist. Should you exist?
>> In the US, we can make this statement to a very high degree of
>> approximation.
>
> I did not SO QUALIFY my statement, moron!
You should have.
>> No, it was to contradict your absurd statement about Jews being the
>> only people able to "actualize" their mythology. �Try to keep up.
>
> In the US, they certainly are,
More Jew Fever talking.
> and they are unique among groups that cling to "victim" status.
Bwahahahahaha! Right after the poor persecuted rightards screaming about
the war on Christmas. What an ignoramus you are!
>> Only people who say racist things, trav. �You've got to stop getting
>> all your info from Fox.
>
> FOX? you think Fox is racist
Fox is the media arm of the Republican Party and the playtoy of Rupert
Murdoch. He's in it for the money; I doubt he cares about race or any
other topic.
> and that I watch Fox? Neither of these statements is true.
I suppose it could be a coincidence. Bwahahahahahaha!
>
> And you proved my point about libtards and the race card. Fox is in
> no way shape or form racist.
Fox is an operation dedicated to making money by advertising to fools.
>> And I don't believe that the SPLC has much presence on cable. �What
>> channels were you getting?
>
> They put their spokesman or president on whichever cable program they
> can.
Name one.
>> Jew Fever talking.
>
> Yet you just claimed Fox was racist.
No, *you* claimed that I claimed that.
>> Bwahahahahahahaha! �Got some more anecdotes for me, trav? �Maybe some
>> WASP chick who talked to you?
>
> huh?
Stop snipping context. It makes the Baby Jesus cry. Here's the line you
cut:
<quote>
TRAV: Who has fever? Joos do. WASP fever.
</quote>
So I'm asking for evidence of this WASP fever and looking forward to some
anecdote about a WASP chick who told you something. You know, like that
black chick who told you something.
>
>> Sure, he *says* his name is Goldberg, and he *says* he's Jewish. �You
>> bought it, eh? �The evidence bar is pretty low for you, isn't it,
>> trav?
>
> Good lord...wow. Do you know how many YEARS we've all been on this
> forum?
Oh, I get it. The unsupported word of people you don't know and can't
identify gets *stronger* the more you're on a forum.
> JFC, what a tard you are.
Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me a tard.
>
>> It was an anecdote you used to confirm your stereotype. �Your own
words
>> that. �An anecdote you just made up, too.
>
> It's just another data point to me, man.
It's easy to get the curve you want when you get to make up the data
points, man.
Tell us another story.
>
> Trav
>
Deadrat
news:7LGdnZ21EOQyE2TX...@westnet.com.au:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>> news:WbOdnaA3K7VguWTX...@westnet.com.au:
>>
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sure, he *says* his name is Goldberg, and he *says* he's Jewish.
>>>> You bought it, eh?
>>> Generally speaking, such observations about usenet 'facts' are
>>> correct, however in this case, you're wrong.
>>
>> Generally speaking, such an observation about a usenet "fact" is
>> unverifiable.
>
> Except when it is.
Which it never is, unless of course you're posting next to your buddy.
>
>>>> The evidence bar is pretty low for you, isn't it, trav?
>>> It's more that you're not aware of the evidence.
>
>> And you are, I suppose.
>
> Yes I am.
>
>> And I should take your word for that, because?
>
> You don't have to take my word for it. There's plenty of newsgroups
> where people know each other. As Kirk and several others have already
> told you, this is the case with rm-a.
This may be true. Who knows? And the point: who can tell on a
newsgroup?
> I'm not having a go;
And neither am I. For all I know, you and your buddies on rec.m-a really
do know each other personally because you get together to post after
showing each other passports.
My point is that anecdotal postings to newsgroups aren't evidence to
those not in the present-passport-and-post group.
Now, you can draw the line anywhere you want on evidence, up to and
including adopting the solipcism of the present moment. I don't find
that last reasonable, but YMMV. I also don't find your unsupported word
on personal anecdotes dispositive. Entertaining, sure, but not
convincing. This isn't about your veracity. And I wouldn't expect you
to treat my anecdotes as anything more than at most incidentally amusing.
After all, even my wife is getting tired of them.
And you don't even know whether I'm married.
> I find your contributions interesting and amusing,
I live to serve.
just sayin'....
Just, indeed.
> GDS
>
> "Let's roll!"
trav...@aol.com
Try google, you stupid fuck. My posts on Israel are all over this
forum.
> Has been since 1945.
UN Partition was 1947, moron.
> Add the definitin of "de jure" to the list of things you dont' know.
LOL...add the assumption that anything the UN says is de jure to the
list of things you don't know.
> And whites are astoundingly more likely to commit suicide that they are
> to be killed by blacks. What do you conclude from that?
That blacks are very dangerous.
> Hardly. Your little foray into crime statistics is a way to libel an
> entire community.
Truth. Defense. Libel.
> Does it exclude white people? Villify them?
Yep.
> You're a racist. Should you exist?
What have I said that is racist?
> More Jew Fever talking.
Nope. Truth talking.
> Bwahahahahaha! Right after the poor persecuted rightards screaming about
> the war on Christmas. What an ignoramus you are!
There is a war on Christmas. And everything white and christian.
> Fox is the media arm of the Republican Party and the playtoy of Rupert
> Murdoch. He's in it for the money; I doubt he cares about race or any
> other topic.
These are some of the most absurd libtardedly insane things you've
ever said.
> Fox is an operation dedicated to making money by advertising to fools.
But...the other networks aren't, right? MSNBC tells the truth.
You're a complete fuckin joke. Sorry man, I'm not even gonna read the
rest of your post. I cannot even PRETEND to have a serious
conversation with a libtard or a partisan democrap.
ROTFL
Trav
Deadrat
296b-48ee-a8d...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>> Won't change the burden: �your claim, you supply the evidence.
>
> Try google, you stupid fuck.
Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me stupid.
> My posts on Israel are all over this forum.
Your posts don't mean squat.
>
>> Has been since 1945.
>
> UN Partition was 1947, moron.
UN was founded in 1945, ignoramus.
>> Add the definitin of "de jure" to the list of things you dont' know.
>
> LOL...add the assumption that anything the UN says is de jure to the
> list of things you don't know.
More confirming evidence that you don't know what "de jure" means.
>> And whites are astoundingly more likely to commit suicide that they
>> are to be killed by blacks. �What do you conclude from that?
>
> That blacks are very dangerous.
Get help.
>> Hardly. �Your little foray into crime statistics is a way to libel an
>> entire community.
>
> Truth. Defense. Libel.
And that's what makes you a racist. You think that there's such a thing
as "black people," and that you can draw universal conclusions about
them.
>> Does it exclude white people? Villify them?
>
> Yep.
Sorry, neither is the right answer.
>
>> You're a racist. �Should you exist?
>
> What have I said that is racist?
What haven't you said?
>
>> More Jew Fever talking.
>
> Nope. Truth talking.
>
>> Bwahahahahaha! �Right after the poor persecuted rightards screaming
>> about the war on Christmas. �What an ignoramus you are!
>
> There is a war on Christmas. And everything white and christian.
As I said, it really sucks to be you, doesn't it?
>> Fox is the media arm of the Republican Party and the playtoy of Rupert
>> Murdoch. �He's in it for the money; I doubt he cares about race or any
>> other topic.
>
> These are some of the most absurd libtardedly insane things you've
> ever said.
You think Murdoch cares about race? Why?
Do you know who Roger Ailes is?
>> Fox is an operation dedicated to making money by advertising to fools.
>
> But...the other networks aren't, right? MSNBC tells the truth.
MSNBC is dedicated to making money by making fun of people like you.
> You're a complete fuckin joke. Sorry man, I'm not even gonna read the
> rest of your post.
Run away, Brave Sir Robin, run away. As always, it's up to you.
> I cannot even PRETEND to have a serious conversation
Well, that's not true. You can pretend.
> with a libtard or a partisan democrap.
Can't stand the heat? Fine, Brave Sir Robin.
> ROTFL
>
> Trav
>
Tupac Chopra
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:03:57 -0800 (PST), "travis...@aol.cominyrface"
>
> <travis...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Dunno why...nobody jewish has an answer for the fascination with
> >social engineering in favor of blacks and browns.
>
> "The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American
> population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all
> be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a
> Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.We [Jews]
> have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for
> about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the
> heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible
> -- and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more
> practical than ever."
> (Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin, 1993 February 19, 23)
See also:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/02/theory-of-ruling-underclass.html
A little long; here's the conclusion:
--------------------------------------------------------
And I haven't even stated my theory yet.
Fortunately, it's not my theory. It is a very old theory. Perhaps it
even predates Mencius himself. It comes from China, so he would
recognize it, and it has a catchy name: yi yi zhi yi.
This roughly translates as "using the barbarians to control the
barbarians." Typically the implication is that when you have a problem
with some tribe of barbarians, what you need to do is look for a bunch
of even nastier barbarians, and sic them on the original barbarians.
Ideally, the nastier barbarians are so barbaric that they are not
conceivably a threat to you, the sophisticated mandarins of the Middle
Kingdom, but still nasty enough to distract your real enemies on the
frontiers, who may have learned to read and write or something. When
the Romans unleashed the Huns against the Germans, it was a classic
case of yi yi zhi yi.
Does this remind anyone of the real meaning of diversity? I'd like to
think it's obvious. But perhaps I should just spell it out.
Basically, the Brahmins have every possible Machiavellian interest in
encouraging an invasion of Third World barbarians. The more, the
nastier, the better. Their real hereditary enemy is the native
barbarian - the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie
redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America
Firster and Coolidge voter. In the dim, distant past, the spectre of
Davis and Lee and Ben Hill looms grimly up.
They will take all the Huns they can get against this breed of
barbarian. They are quite aware that if their real enemies ever seize
real power, it's lamppost time. Huns are not available these days, but
J.T. is. And if the nationalist, nativist American right ever regrows
some little pocket of testicular tissue, he is one more speed bump
they'll have to go through on their way to DC. It never hurts to have
a few more well-armed thugs on your team. At least not if you're a
progressive, and you believe in peace and love and hugs and puppies.
Yes, we can!
Of course, I'm not saying that the people who believe in peace and
love, etc, actually thought up this strategy and have secret meetings
where they gloat about how well it's all working. They don't need to.
However they explain it to themselves, yi yi zhi yi is what they're
doing. And you can't exactly call it a failure.
Did you watch that Mandela video? The man next to Mandela is Joe
Slovo. One of South Africa's leading progressives active in the
liberation struggle. Or, as some might say, Communist terrorists. Do
you wonder why this pasty-faced fellow is comfortable in a crowd full
of people chanting "kill the whites?"
Actually, the captions on the video are mistranslated. The word in the
song is amaBhulu, a Xhosa racial slur which refers not to all whites,
but specifically to Afrikaners. Which Slovo (being a cosmopolitan
Anglophone) is most definitely not. So the crowd is essentially
chanting "kill the rednecks," ie, Slovo's hereditary tribal enemies.
No wonder he has a smile on his face. Yi yi zhi yi.
djinn
>
> And you don't even know whether I'm married.
>
I don't even know if you exist. Only have your internet postings to go
by.....
Linda
You asked for the cite.
> And it turns out that it's a figure of speech for Jewish opposition to Hitler?
No, it wasn't.
Within a week of Judea's Declaration of War Against Germany, the rank
and file members of the so-called nation of Israel held mass meetings
in cities around the world to pressure Governments around the world to
collaborate with the socalled nation of Israel's Declaration of
{Unconventional} War on Germany by other financiers joining Jewish
financiers international boycott of German trade, finances and
Industry.
For example, on March 27/28, 1933 approximately 40,000 American
members of the socalled Nation of Israel held 2 mass meetings in
Madison Square Garden in a show of support for Judea's call for the
Mass Murder of the German people via the certain mass starvation of
the German people consequent to an International Boycott of German
Trade, Finances and Industry during the GREAT DEPRESSION.
Since I am a Citizen of the United State, and, the United States of
America no longer makes any distinction between Conventional and
Unconventional Warfare since it's addition of Section M
"Unconventional Warfare" to the US Military Manual, I'm no longer
required to make believe the Unconventional Warfare which members of
the socalled nation of Israel engage in against the Sovereign Nations
it invades isn't out and out War, albeit a "War of Terror",
economic and/or otherwise.
NefeshBarYohai
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm deem thee Linda hog body fat fuck.
Deadrat
65a073...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
True. I could be a computer program.
Tell me more about these internet postings.
(Just a little Eliza in-joke.)
Deadrat
news:86bcbc4b-9939-47dd...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 10, 7:54�am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:5d2ba779-554d-47f3-b7d7-f3730
> 12f...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
<snip/>
>> >> > The International Congress of Jews declared war on Germany in
>> >> > 1932.
>>
>> >> Cite? �
>>
>> > Judea Declares War On Germany March 1933
>> >http://www.historybuff.org/judea.jpg
>>
>> So you're quoting an unsourced newspaper article?
>
> You asked for the cite.
So it's *my* fault you couldn't actually come up with one that supports a
declaration of war by some organization called the "International
Congress of Jews"?
>>�And it turns out that it's a figure of speech for Jewish opposition
>> to Hitler? �
>
> No, it wasn't.
>
> Within a week of Judea's Declaration of War Against Germany,
There is no such thing as "Judea" today, and there wasn't in 1933.
> the rank and file members of the so-called nation of Israel
The "so-called nation of Israel" didn't exist until 1948. These entities
are figments of a mind consumed with Jew Fever.
> held mass meetings
> in cities around the world to pressure Governments around the world to
> collaborate with the socalled nation of Israel's Declaration of
> {Unconventional} War on Germany by other financiers joining Jewish
> financiers international boycott of German trade, finances and
> Industry.
Ah! You mean that Jews around the world exercised their rights of free
speech and assembly to try to get governments to oppose Hitler. Not
exactly a "declaration of war" as most people understand the term. But
tell me, what are you agaist, Jews expressing themselves or anybody
opposing Hitler? Or both?
> For example, on March 27/28, 1933 approximately 40,000 American
> members of the socalled Nation of Israel held 2 mass meetings in
> Madison Square Garden in a show of support for Judea's call for the
> Mass Murder of the German people via the certain mass starvation of
> the German people consequent to an International Boycott of German
> Trade, Finances and Industry during the GREAT DEPRESSION.
In other words, they called for a boycott. Kinda like we're doing to
North Korea and Iran. A boycott that went nowhere. Nice try.
>
> Since I am a Citizen of the United State, and, the United States of
> America no longer makes any distinction between Conventional and
> Unconventional Warfare since it's addition of Section M
> "Unconventional Warfare" to the US Military Manual,
You ignoramus, the US recognizes the difference. UW is essentially
guerilla war.
> I'm no longer
> required to make believe the Unconventional Warfare which members of
> the socalled nation of Israel engage in against the Sovereign Nations
> it invades isn't out and out War, albeit a "War of Terror",
> economic and/or otherwise.
Who cares what you're required to believe?
Linda
Calling me names won't alter the historical facts.
Deadrat
news:07b572d0-a65a-4187...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 10, 3:01�pm, NefeshBarYohai <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 3:32�pm, Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 10, 7:54�am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote
>> > > innews:5d2ba779-554d-47f3-b7d7-f
> 37301...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > > > On Nov 9, 10:17�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> > > >> Majd al-Din <Is...@Sucks.com> wrote
>> > > >> innews:7lsb60F...@mid.individual
>> > > > .net:
>>
>> > > >> > travis...@aol.cominyrface wrote:
>> > > >> >>> Remember, trav. �The Old Testament isn't a land deed. �Mod
Just to be clear, since my name appears in this thread, I'm not calling
you names. The worst I call you is ignoramus, which is a demonstrable
description of your state of mind, not an epithet directed at your
appearance.
But please tell us what you object to, the fact that Jews protested in
1933 or that anybody objected to Hitler in 1933.
And as for "historical facts," look up "declaration of war" and then get
back to us with an honest description of your evidence.
I'll wait.
Greendistantstar
> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
> news:7LGdnZ21EOQyE2TX...@westnet.com.au:
>
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>>> news:WbOdnaA3K7VguWTX...@westnet.com.au:
>>>
>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sure, he *says* his name is Goldberg, and he *says* he's Jewish.
>>>>> You bought it, eh?
>>>> Generally speaking, such observations about usenet 'facts' are
>>>> correct, however in this case, you're wrong.
>>> Generally speaking, such an observation about a usenet "fact" is
>>> unverifiable.
>> Except when it is.
> Which it never is, unless of course you're posting next to your buddy.
Uh? Dude, do NOT get all ontological with me.
>>>>> The evidence bar is pretty low for you, isn't it, trav?
>>>> It's more that you're not aware of the evidence.
>>> And you are, I suppose.
>> Yes I am.
>>
>>> And I should take your word for that, because?
>> You don't have to take my word for it. There's plenty of newsgroups
>> where people know each other. As Kirk and several others have already
>> told you, this is the case with rm-a.
>
> This may be true.
And in this case it is.
> Who knows?
All the regs here.
> And the point: who can tell on a
> newsgroups?
You're applying the general to the specific. On THIS newsgroup it IS the case.
>> I'm not having a go;
>
> And neither am I. For all I know, you and your buddies on rec.m-a really
> do know each other personally because you get together to post after
> showing each other passports.
>
> My point is that anecdotal postings to newsgroups aren't evidence to
> those not in the present-passport-and-post group.
>
> Now, you can draw the line anywhere you want on evidence, up to and
> including adopting the solipcism of the present moment.
There's only one known and declared solipsist here.....
> I don't find
> that last reasonable, but YMMV. I also don't find your unsupported word
> on personal anecdotes dispositive. Entertaining, sure, but not
> convincing. This isn't about your veracity. And I wouldn't expect you
> to treat my anecdotes as anything more than at most incidentally amusing.
> After all, even my wife is getting tired of them.
At a certain level of philosophical strictness (at say where one doubts the existence of material
objects) this is so; refer Russell's 'teapot in orbit' analogy. For all practical applications, not so.
> And you don't even know whether I'm married.
That's because I don't know you.
>> I find your contributions interesting and amusing,
>
> I live to serve.
Just like your Mom.
> just sayin'....
>
> Just, indeed.
Said however with incontrovertible proof.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Deadrat
news:cI6dnVYSidjngGfX...@westnet.com.au:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>> news:7LGdnZ21EOQyE2TX...@westnet.com.au:
>>
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>>>> news:WbOdnaA3K7VguWTX...@westnet.com.au:
>>>>
>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, he *says* his name is Goldberg, and he *says* he's Jewish.
>>>>>> You bought it, eh?
>>>>> Generally speaking, such observations about usenet 'facts' are
>>>>> correct, however in this case, you're wrong.
>>>> Generally speaking, such an observation about a usenet "fact" is
>>>> unverifiable.
>>> Except when it is.
>
>> Which it never is, unless of course you're posting next to your
>> buddy.
>
> Uh? Dude, do NOT get all ontological with me.
I usually don't get ontological with people unless I know them *really*
well, but in your case I'll make an exception. This is what we're
discussing -- how we know things and what convinces us that we know them.
>
>>>>>> The evidence bar is pretty low for you, isn't it, trav?
>>>>> It's more that you're not aware of the evidence.
>>>> And you are, I suppose.
>>> Yes I am.
>>>
>>>> And I should take your word for that, because?
>>> You don't have to take my word for it. There's plenty of newsgroups
>>> where people know each other. As Kirk and several others have
>>> already told you, this is the case with rm-a.
>>
>> This may be true.
>
> And in this case it is.
So you say. Not much of an argument, is it?
>> Who knows?
>
> All the regs here.
Who, as far as I know (there's that word again), may all be you posting
under different nyms.
>
>> And the point: who can tell on a newsgroups?
>
> You're applying the general to the specific. On THIS newsgroup it IS
> the case.
So you say. Not much of an argument, is it?
>
>>> I'm not having a go;
>>
>> And neither am I. For all I know, you and your buddies on rec.m-a
>> really do know each other personally because you get together to post
>> after showing each other passports.
>>
>> My point is that anecdotal postings to newsgroups aren't evidence to
>> those not in the present-passport-and-post group.
>>
>> Now, you can draw the line anywhere you want on evidence, up to and
>> including adopting the solipcism of the present moment.
>
> There's only one known and declared solipsist here.....
If you say so. It ain't me.
>> I don't find
>> that last reasonable, but YMMV. I also don't find your unsupported
>> word on personal anecdotes dispositive. Entertaining, sure, but not
>> convincing. This isn't about your veracity. And I wouldn't expect
>> you to treat my anecdotes as anything more than at most incidentally
>> amusing. After all, even my wife is getting tired of them.
>
> At a certain level of philosophical strictness (at say where one
> doubts the existence of material objects) this is so; refer Russell's
> 'teapot in orbit' analogy. For all practical applications, not so.
Sorry, but this has confused me. Perhaps because Russel's teapot
concerns the burden of proof in an argument and is an analogy to the
existence of God. It has nothing to do with objectivism. Perhaps
because it's not clear to me what you refer to. Literally taken, you're
saying that except at an unworkable level of "philosophical strictness,"
you can trust my anecdotes, including the one about my wife's finding
them tedious.
Although it's not unreasonable that someone would find my anecdotes
tedious, you don't really know with any certainty that I'm married. I
can say, as you do, "it IS the case." And it may be, but my saying so
couldn't help you know.
> And you don't even know whether I'm married.
>
> That's because I don't know you.
You know me as well as I know you. Does that help the equation?
>
>>> I find your contributions interesting and amusing,
>>
>> I live to serve.
>
> Just like your Mom.
Not possible.
>> just sayin'....
>>
>> Just, indeed.
>
> Said however with incontrovertible proof.
No, said with incontrovertible conviction. The proof is missing a few
steps.
> GDS
Greendistantstar
> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
> news:cI6dnVYSidjngGfX...@westnet.com.au:
>
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>>> news:7LGdnZ21EOQyE2TX...@westnet.com.au:
>>>
>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>>>>> news:WbOdnaA3K7VguWTX...@westnet.com.au:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, he *says* his name is Goldberg, and he *says* he's Jewish.
>>>>>>> You bought it, eh?
>>>>>> Generally speaking, such observations about usenet 'facts' are
>>>>>> correct, however in this case, you're wrong.
>>>>> Generally speaking, such an observation about a usenet "fact" is
>>>>> unverifiable.
>>>> Except when it is.
>>> Which it never is, unless of course you're posting next to your
>>> buddy.
>> Uh? Dude, do NOT get all ontological with me.
>
> I usually don't get ontological with people unless I know them *really*
> well, but in your case I'll make an exception. This is what we're
> discussing -- how we know things and what convinces us that we know them.
No, that's epistemology. Ontology is to do with the nature and categorization of being, reality and
existence.
>>>>>>> The evidence bar is pretty low for you, isn't it, trav?
>>>>>> It's more that you're not aware of the evidence.
>>>>> And you are, I suppose.
>>>> Yes I am.
>>>>
>>>>> And I should take your word for that, because?
>>>> You don't have to take my word for it. There's plenty of newsgroups
>>>> where people know each other. As Kirk and several others have
>>>> already told you, this is the case with rm-a.
>>> This may be true.
>> And in this case it is.
>
> So you say. Not much of an argument, is it?
To YOU it's a priori, to ME it's a posteriori.
>>> Who knows?
>> All the regs here.
>
> Who, as far as I know (there's that word again), may all be you posting
> under different nyms.
>>> And the point: who can tell on a newsgroups?
>> You're applying the general to the specific. On THIS newsgroup it IS
>> the case.
>
> So you say. Not much of an argument, is it?
It is when it's supported by personal experience. Conversely, I might ask you, what would provide
you with sufficient proof? If your answer is 'nothing' then your argument is an epic fail. The
'something' however would be what? Personal experience? Dayum.....
>>>> I'm not having a go;
>>> And neither am I. For all I know, you and your buddies on rec.m-a
>>> really do know each other personally because you get together to post
>>> after showing each other passports.
>>>
>>> My point is that anecdotal postings to newsgroups aren't evidence to
>>> those not in the present-passport-and-post group.
>>>
>>> Now, you can draw the line anywhere you want on evidence, up to and
>>> including adopting the solipcism of the present moment.
>> There's only one known and declared solipsist here.....
>
> If you say so. It ain't me.
I know. Do you know who this is? I suggest this is another example of your not knowing
who and what is and has been going on on rm-a. No-one expects you to know of course, as most of the
regs have been active here for 10 years+. An anonymous newcomer disputing the facts of who knows
whom etc looks naive, at best.
>>> I don't find
>>> that last reasonable, but YMMV. I also don't find your unsupported
>>> word on personal anecdotes dispositive. Entertaining, sure, but not
>>> convincing. This isn't about your veracity. And I wouldn't expect
>>> you to treat my anecdotes as anything more than at most incidentally
>>> amusing. After all, even my wife is getting tired of them.
>> At a certain level of philosophical strictness (at say where one
>> doubts the existence of material objects) this is so; refer Russell's
>> 'teapot in orbit' analogy. For all practical applications, not so.
>
> Sorry, but this has confused me. Perhaps because Russel's teapot
> concerns the burden of proof in an argument and is an analogy to the
> existence of God.
I know....
> It has nothing to do with objectivism.
Yes it does. Objective truths are discovered, and you have some discovering to do.
> Perhaps
> because it's not clear to me what you refer to. Literally taken, you're
> saying that except at an unworkable level of "philosophical strictness,"
> you can trust my anecdotes, including the one about my wife's finding
> them tedious.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
> Although it's not unreasonable that someone would find my anecdotes
> tedious, you don't really know with any certainty that I'm married. I
> can say, as you do, "it IS the case." And it may be, but my saying so
> couldn't help you know.
Of course, and that's what you're missing. If I was to meet you, would that be sufficient proof for
me that you (and your putative and possibly humourless wife) exist, at least as far as I am assured
your textual self is identical to the person who claims to be you?
>> And you don't even know whether I'm married.
>>
>> That's because I don't know you.
>
> You know me as well as I know you. Does that help the equation?
A little. Many here have met face-to-face and communicated in other ways that adds weight to the
presumption of objective reality. You have not been afforded such experiences, thus your claims of
unsubstantiation are personally valid. However, demanding the burden of proof from those who DO have
additional a posteriori knowledge is logically somewhat late in addition to being factually incorrect.
>>>> I find your contributions interesting and amusing,
>>> I live to serve.
>> Just like your Mom.
>
> Not possible.
Very possible.
>>> just sayin'....
>>>
>>> Just, indeed.
>> Said however with incontrovertible proof.
> No, said with incontrovertible conviction.
Born from proof with which you are unaquainted.
> The proof is missing a few steps.
The proof is there, irrespective of your being unaquainted with it, and the burden to discover it is
not upon those who have already done so.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Deadrat
news:_Iydne-FDOBirGfX...@westnet.com.au:
> Deadrat wrote:
<snip/>
>>>> And the point: who can tell on a newsgroups?
>>> You're applying the general to the specific. On THIS newsgroup it IS
>>> the case.
>>
>> So you say. Not much of an argument, is it?
>
> It is when it's supported by personal experience.
Which, of course, is impossible for reasonable purposes on a newsgroup.
> Conversely, I might
> ask you, what would provide you with sufficient proof?
I've already told you. I identify you via a passport, watch you post some
personal anecdote, and interview the people named in the story.
Hardly feasible here.
<snip/>
>>>>> I'm not having a go;
>>>> And neither am I. For all I know, you and your buddies on rec.m-a
>>>> really do know each other personally because you get together to
>>>> post after showing each other passports.
>>>>
>>>> My point is that anecdotal postings to newsgroups aren't evidence
>>>> to those not in the present-passport-and-post group.
>>>>
>>>> Now, you can draw the line anywhere you want on evidence, up to and
>>>> including adopting the solipcism of the present moment.
>>> There's only one known and declared solipsist here.....
>>
>> If you say so. It ain't me.
>
> I know. Do you know who this is?
Of course not. As I couldn't verify it, why would I care?
> I suggest this is another example of
> your not knowing who and what is and has been going on on rm-a. No-one
> expects you to know of course, as most of the regs have been active
> here for 10 years+. An anonymous newcomer disputing the facts of who
> knows whom etc looks naive, at best.
Again. I'm not disputing the facts, as I have no way of knowing the facts.
I'm disputing the efficacy of reciting the facts to anyone who doesn't have
the means to verify them.
>>>> I don't find
>>>> that last reasonable, but YMMV. I also don't find your unsupported
>>>> word on personal anecdotes dispositive. Entertaining, sure, but
>>>> not convincing. This isn't about your veracity. And I wouldn't
>>>> expect you to treat my anecdotes as anything more than at most
>>>> incidentally amusing. After all, even my wife is getting tired of
>>>> them.
>>> At a certain level of philosophical strictness (at say where one
>>> doubts the existence of material objects) this is so; refer
>>> Russell's 'teapot in orbit' analogy. For all practical applications,
>>> not so.
>>
>> Sorry, but this has confused me. Perhaps because Russel's teapot
>> concerns the burden of proof in an argument and is an analogy to the
>> existence of God.
>
> I know....
>
>> It has nothing to do with objectivism.
>
> Yes it does. Objective truths are discovered, and you have some
> discovering to do.
Russel's teapot analogy has nothing to do with objectivism.
As for me, I don't have any discovering to do, since the claims aren't
mine; they're yours.
>> Perhaps
>> because it's not clear to me what you refer to. Literally taken,
>> you're saying that except at an unworkable level of "philosophical
>> strictness," you can trust my anecdotes, including the one about my
>> wife's finding them tedious.
>
> No, that's not what I'm saying.
Then what are you saying? You can begin by forgetting about teapots.
Russel's analogy is inapt here.
>> Although it's not unreasonable that someone would find my anecdotes
>> tedious, you don't really know with any certainty that I'm married.
>> I can say, as you do, "it IS the case." And it may be, but my saying
>> so couldn't help you know.
>
> Of course, and that's what you're missing. If I was to meet you, would
> that be sufficient proof for me that you (and your putative and
> possibly humourless wife) exist, at least as far as I am assured your
> textual self is identical to the person who claims to be you?
Only you can answer that. Were you to meet me (and were I cooperative),
you could easily gather enough evidence to convince yourself that I am who
I say, that I posted the things under my nym, and that I'm married.
Absent that, you should remain agnostic on the matter. And that's why I
won't posit personal anecdotal evidence to bolster any claim I make.
You'll notice that nothing I claim depends on my marital state.
>>> And you don't even know whether I'm married.
>>>
>>> That's because I don't know you.
>>
>> You know me as well as I know you. Does that help the equation?
>
> A little. Many here have met face-to-face and communicated in other
> ways that adds weight to the presumption of objective reality.
So you say. Doesn't add any weight over here.
> You
> have not been afforded such experiences, thus your claims of
> unsubstantiation are personally valid.
So we're in violent agreement?
> However, demanding the burden of proof from those
The burden of proof belongs to the one who asserts.
> who DO have additional a posteriori knowledge
Correction: who DO CLAIM to have additional a posteriori knowledge.
Remember, this is a newsgroup, not a martial arts koffeeklatsch.
> is
> logically somewhat late in addition to being factually incorrect.
I don't see how demanding certain kinds of evidence and rejecting other
kinds is in itself factually incorrect. I'm not rejecting your anecdotes
as factually incorrect, just insufficient as evidence.
>>>>> I find your contributions interesting and amusing,
>>>> I live to serve.
>>> Just like your Mom.
>>
>> Not possible.
>
> Very possible.
So you've switched sides. As a factual matter (I say) it is impossible for
my mother to have any life goals. Yet you not only reject that claim, but
find the counterclaim "very possible."
>>>> just sayin'....
>>>>
>>>> Just, indeed.
>
>>> Said however with incontrovertible proof.
>
>> No, said with incontrovertible conviction.
>
> Born from proof with which you are unaquainted.
Unacquainted, anyhow. Which is why it's not much in the way of evidence.
>> The proof is missing a few steps.
>
> The proof is there,
The facts may be there; it's the proof that's missing.
> irrespective of your being unaquainted with it,
> and the burden to discover it is not upon those who have already done
> so.
If I made the claim that you were lying, then the burden would be mine to
show that. I'm not making that claim. You (and possibly others, who you
say are your buddies on rec.m-a) have claimed the veracity of your personal
experience. The burden is thus yours, and you can't meet it by claiming it
over and over or insisting that I have to find ways to enter the orbit of
your personal experience.
I post from misc.legal, where the difference between fact and proof is
taken for granted. For instance, it's often said that truth is an absolute
defense against libel (in the US). But the burden of proof falls on the
defendant, and it he can't prove what may be objectively true, then
regardless, his argument fails.
As has yours.
Bummer, eh?
> GDS
Jerry B. Altzman
>> On this forum, you freakin IDIOT.
> How can you tell whether anyone is Jewish on this forum, trav?
Present!
//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jba...@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.
Greendistantstar
> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
> news:_Iydne-FDOBirGfX...@westnet.com.au:
>
>> Deadrat wrote:
> <snip/>
>
>>>>> And the point: who can tell on a newsgroups?
>>>> You're applying the general to the specific. On THIS newsgroup it IS
>>>> the case.
>>> So you say. Not much of an argument, is it?
>> It is when it's supported by personal experience.
>
> Which, of course, is impossible for reasonable purposes on a newsgroup.
It's impossible if the newsgroup was your only means of verification.
>> Conversely, I might
>> ask you, what would provide you with sufficient proof?
>
> I've already told you. I identify you via a passport, watch you post some
> personal anecdote, and interview the people named in the story.
So let's say you do that. Then along comes Fred who says he's unconvinced by your testimony.
What might you say to him?
> Hardly feasible here.
>
> <snip/>
>
>>>>>> I'm not having a go;
>>>>> And neither am I. For all I know, you and your buddies on rec.m-a
>>>>> really do know each other personally because you get together to
>>>>> post after showing each other passports.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point is that anecdotal postings to newsgroups aren't evidence
>>>>> to those not in the present-passport-and-post group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, you can draw the line anywhere you want on evidence, up to and
>>>>> including adopting the solipcism of the present moment.
>>>> There's only one known and declared solipsist here.....
>>> If you say so. It ain't me.
>> I know. Do you know who this is?
>
> Of course not. As I couldn't verify it, why would I care?
>
>> I suggest this is another example of
>> your not knowing who and what is and has been going on on rm-a. No-one
>> expects you to know of course, as most of the regs have been active
>> here for 10 years+. An anonymous newcomer disputing the facts of who
>> knows whom etc looks naive, at best.
>
> Again. I'm not disputing the facts, as I have no way of knowing the facts.
Nonsense...you simply haven't done it.
> I'm disputing the efficacy of reciting the facts to anyone who doesn't have
> the means to verify them.
The means are within the grasp of some, and, so you say, not yours.
If you refuse for whatever reason to verify the facts, it's your issue.
You can dispute that Mark is Jewish or that Trav is a lawyer because you've only read it here, but
that's hardly due diligence, now is it? Hmm?
>>>>> I don't find
>>>>> that last reasonable, but YMMV. I also don't find your unsupported
>>>>> word on personal anecdotes dispositive. Entertaining, sure, but
>>>>> not convincing. This isn't about your veracity. And I wouldn't
>>>>> expect you to treat my anecdotes as anything more than at most
>>>>> incidentally amusing. After all, even my wife is getting tired of
>>>>> them.
>>>> At a certain level of philosophical strictness (at say where one
>>>> doubts the existence of material objects) this is so; refer
>>>> Russell's 'teapot in orbit' analogy. For all practical applications,
>>>> not so.
>>> Sorry, but this has confused me. Perhaps because Russel's teapot
>>> concerns the burden of proof in an argument and is an analogy to the
>>> existence of God.
>> I know....
>>
>>> It has nothing to do with objectivism.
>> Yes it does. Objective truths are discovered, and you have some
>> discovering to do.
>
> Russel's teapot analogy has nothing to do with objectivism.
Yes it does.
> As for me, I don't have any discovering to do, since the claims aren't
> mine; they're yours.
I understand burden of proof. It's usually me that demands it of the kooks with their crazy,
unverifiable bullshit. But doing this demands that if the proof is offered, you either take up the
challenge or shut the fuck up.
>>> Perhaps
>>> because it's not clear to me what you refer to. Literally taken,
>>> you're saying that except at an unworkable level of "philosophical
>>> strictness," you can trust my anecdotes, including the one about my
>>> wife's finding them tedious.
>> No, that's not what I'm saying.
>
> Then what are you saying? You can begin by forgetting about teapots.
> Russel's analogy is inapt here.
Not at all. Russell's teapot analogy was certainly about the existence of God, but his broader issue
was about the likelihood of unlikely phenomena and what might constitute proof of such phenomena.
You might say that, for you at least, people on a ng who actually know each other is a 'Black Swan'
event.
>>> Although it's not unreasonable that someone would find my anecdotes
>>> tedious, you don't really know with any certainty that I'm married.
>>> I can say, as you do, "it IS the case." And it may be, but my saying
>>> so couldn't help you know.
>> Of course, and that's what you're missing. If I was to meet you, would
>> that be sufficient proof for me that you (and your putative and
>> possibly humourless wife) exist, at least as far as I am assured your
>> textual self is identical to the person who claims to be you?
>
> Only you can answer that. Were you to meet me (and were I cooperative),
> you could easily gather enough evidence to convince yourself that I am who
> I say, that I posted the things under my nym, and that I'm married.
> Absent that, you should remain agnostic on the matter. And that's why I
> won't posit personal anecdotal evidence to bolster any claim I make.
Denial of my experience due to the paucity of yours seems irrational.
> You'll notice that nothing I claim depends on my marital state.
Except all the shit denied to EVERY married man, like sanity, a life....;>)
>>>> And you don't even know whether I'm married.
>>>>
>>>> That's because I don't know you.
>>> You know me as well as I know you. Does that help the equation?
>> A little. Many here have met face-to-face and communicated in other
>> ways that adds weight to the presumption of objective reality.
>
> So you say. Doesn't add any weight over here.
It's not supposed to, unless you do what others have done.
>> You
>> have not been afforded such experiences, thus your claims of
>> unsubstantiation are personally valid.
>
> So we're in violent agreement?
Perhaps. Of course, my being merely a figment of your imagination, this was bound to occur....
>> However, demanding the burden of proof from those
>
> The burden of proof belongs to the one who asserts.
That's a start, and the best one, but more follows...you can't just leave it at that!
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say someone says to you that they can knock you out without
touching you through their force of will or whatever. Let's say you call bullshit and demand proof.
You are told that you can discover this for yourself by submitting to a demonstration of said power.
So that's kinda where you're at right now. You're demanding proof and the opportunity to verify it
now rests with you. What ya gonna do? Just continue to demand proof and call bullshit, or grow a
pair and step up? Just a thought experiment, mind you...it's not like anything like this has
happened or anything.....
>> who DO have additional a posteriori knowledge
>
> Correction: who DO CLAIM to have additional a posteriori knowledge.
> Remember, this is a newsgroup, not a martial arts koffeeklatsch.
Only you can take you out of that context. If you confine yourself to it, you will never know.
>> is
>> logically somewhat late in addition to being factually incorrect.
>
> I don't see how demanding certain kinds of evidence and rejecting other
> kinds is in itself factually incorrect. I'm not rejecting your anecdotes
> as factually incorrect, just insufficient as evidence.
Insufficient to YOU. Others have already walked this path, Grasshopper!
>>>>>> I find your contributions interesting and amusing,
>>>>> I live to serve.
>>>> Just like your Mom.
>>> Not possible.
>> Very possible.
>
> So you've switched sides. As a factual matter (I say) it is impossible for
> my mother to have any life goals. Yet you not only reject that claim, but
> find the counterclaim "very possible."
I've neither accepted nor rejected that claim, which you are merely inferring.
>>>>> just sayin'....
>>>>>
>>>>> Just, indeed.
>>>> Said however with incontrovertible proof.
>>> No, said with incontrovertible conviction.
>> Born from proof with which you are unaquainted.
>
> Unacquainted, anyhow.
That 'c' has never looked to me as though it belongs there, so I delete it.
> Which is why it's not much in the way of evidence.
>
>>> The proof is missing a few steps.
>> The proof is there,
>
> The facts may be there; it's the proof that's missing.
>
>> irrespective of your being unaquainted with it,
>> and the burden to discover it is not upon those who have already done
>> so.
>
> If I made the claim that you were lying, then the burden would be mine to
> show that. I'm not making that claim. You (and possibly others, who you
> say are your buddies on rec.m-a) have claimed the veracity of your personal
> experience. The burden is thus yours, and you can't meet it by claiming it
> over and over or insisting that I have to find ways to enter the orbit of
> your personal experience.
How might we prove the veracity of our own personal experience to your satisfaction?
I'm not really interested in trying to convince you of a priori truths when you could gain your own
personal experience.
> I post from misc.legal, where the difference between fact and proof is
> taken for granted. For instance, it's often said that truth is an absolute
> defense against libel (in the US). But the burden of proof falls on the
> defendant, and it he can't prove what may be objectively true, then
> regardless, his argument fails.
Sure. But the judge isn't going to throw all the evidence out because he wasn't there when the
alleged offence occurred.
> As has yours.
>
> Bummer, eh?
Dude, you're batting about .05 at the moment, but points for gameness ;>)
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Deadrat
news:SN2dnR7Mh5DRzmfX...@westnet.com.au:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>> news:_Iydne-FDOBirGfX...@westnet.com.au:
>>
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>> <snip/>
>>
>>>>>> And the point: who can tell on a newsgroups?
>>>>> You're applying the general to the specific. On THIS newsgroup it
>>>>> IS the case.
>>>> So you say. Not much of an argument, is it?
>>> It is when it's supported by personal experience.
>>
>> Which, of course, is impossible for reasonable purposes on a
>> newsgroup.
>
> It's impossible if the newsgroup was your only means of verification.
Of course, but no other means is worthwhile for such a nugatory exercise.
And it isn't my burden to carry.
>>> Conversely, I might
>>> ask you, what would provide you with sufficient proof?
>>
>> I've already told you. I identify you via a passport, watch you post
>> some personal anecdote, and interview the people named in the story.
>
> So let's say you do that. Then along comes Fred who says he's
> unconvinced by your testimony.
Then Fred's got a problem. I can document for him what I found out, and
that either works for him or it doesn't. If I merely post what I found
out, then I wouldn't expect him to accept my statement as evidence.
>
> What might you say to him?
"Nice to meet you. I've never met a hypothetical before."
<snip/>
>>> I suggest this is another example of
>>> your not knowing who and what is and has been going on on rm-a.
>>> No-one expects you to know of course, as most of the regs have been
>>> active here for 10 years+. An anonymous newcomer disputing the facts
>>> of who knows whom etc looks naive, at best.
>>
>> Again. I'm not disputing the facts, as I have no way of knowing the
>> facts.
>
> Nonsense...you simply haven't done it.
And I have no reasonable way of doing it. I'm not traveling to whatever
dojo you gather at so I can check passports. It's not my responsibility.
>> I'm disputing the efficacy of reciting the facts to anyone who
>> doesn't have the means to verify them.
>
> The means are within the grasp of some, and, so you say, not yours.
And thus for purposes of a newsgroup, the recitation gets ignored as
evidence. As it should be.
> If you refuse for whatever reason to verify the facts, it's your
> issue.
Whatever that means. It's certainly not my burden to verify your claims.
> You can dispute that Mark is Jewish or that Trav is a lawyer because
> you've only read it here, but that's hardly due diligence, now is it?
> Hmm?
I'm not disputing it; I'm dismissing it as evidence. Most anecdotal
evidence is worth very little even if verified. Trav says he's a JD.
Maybe so; maybe not. If the former, he's certainly a very ignorant JD, and
his assertions about Unites States Attorneys are wrong no matter what
degree he holds. This may be verified without recourse to my life story.
Or yours. Or his.
>>>>>> I don't find
>>>>>> that last reasonable, but YMMV. I also don't find your
>>>>>> unsupported word on personal anecdotes dispositive.
>>>>>> Entertaining, sure, but not convincing. This isn't about your
>>>>>> veracity. And I wouldn't expect you to treat my anecdotes as
>>>>>> anything more than at most incidentally amusing. After all, even
>>>>>> my wife is getting tired of them.
>>>>> At a certain level of philosophical strictness (at say where one
>>>>> doubts the existence of material objects) this is so; refer
>>>>> Russell's 'teapot in orbit' analogy. For all practical
>>>>> applications, not so.
>>>> Sorry, but this has confused me. Perhaps because Russel's teapot
>>>> concerns the burden of proof in an argument and is an analogy to
>>>> the existence of God.
>>> I know....
>>>
>>>> It has nothing to do with objectivism.
>>> Yes it does. Objective truths are discovered, and you have some
>>> discovering to do.
>>
>> Russel's teapot analogy has nothing to do with objectivism.
>
> Yes it does.
Russell posited an undetectable teapot in orbit around the sun. The
question for him was what argument could convince someone that this was
true. His answer was that mere assertion, even repeated over the course of
centuries, wouldn't serve as convincing. The analogy here is positing the
existence of God.
Both a teapot believer and a teapot skeptic would be willing to concede
that they're talking about an actual object, independent of the existence
of the disputants.
Do you really not understand this?
>> As for me, I don't have any discovering to do, since the claims
>> aren't mine; they're yours.
>
> I understand burden of proof. It's usually me that demands it of the
> kooks with their crazy, unverifiable bullshit. But doing this demands
> that if the proof is offered, you either take up the challenge or shut
> the fuck up.
Hardly. Since you haven't offered any "proof." You've made an assertion
on a newsgroup.
>>>> Perhaps
>>>> because it's not clear to me what you refer to. Literally taken,
>>>> you're saying that except at an unworkable level of "philosophical
>>>> strictness," you can trust my anecdotes, including the one about my
>>>> wife's finding them tedious.
>>> No, that's not what I'm saying.
>>
>> Then what are you saying? You can begin by forgetting about teapots.
>> Russel's analogy is inapt here.
>
> Not at all. Russell's teapot analogy was certainly about the existence
> of God, but his broader issue was about the likelihood of unlikely
> phenomena and what might constitute proof of such phenomena. You might
> say that, for you at least, people on a ng who actually know each
> other is a 'Black Swan' event.
No, no. *You* might say that. But only because you're confused. A "Black
Swan" event challenges the reliability of inductive reasoning, and has
nothing to do with evaluating evidence toward an argument. Every verified
sighting of a white swan is perfectly good evidence of swans being white.
The question is their *collective* value in determining a universal
statement.
>>>> Although it's not unreasonable that someone would find my anecdotes
>>>> tedious, you don't really know with any certainty that I'm married.
>>>> I can say, as you do, "it IS the case." And it may be, but my
>>>> saying so couldn't help you know.
>>> Of course, and that's what you're missing. If I was to meet you,
>>> would that be sufficient proof for me that you (and your putative
>>> and possibly humourless wife) exist, at least as far as I am assured
>>> your textual self is identical to the person who claims to be you?
>>
>> Only you can answer that. Were you to meet me (and were I
>> cooperative), you could easily gather enough evidence to convince
>> yourself that I am who I say, that I posted the things under my nym,
>> and that I'm married. Absent that, you should remain agnostic on the
>> matter. And that's why I won't posit personal anecdotal evidence to
>> bolster any claim I make.
>
> Denial of my experience due to the paucity of yours seems irrational.
I'm not denying your experience. I'm denying its relevance to
argumentation on a newsgroup.
>> You'll notice that nothing I claim depends on my marital state.
>
> Except all the shit denied to EVERY married man, like sanity, a
> life....;>)
Well, sure, if I'm actually married. But I haven't made any arguments
about my sanity or my having a life. Although this thread provides some
evidence against at least the latter.
>>>>> And you don't even know whether I'm married.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's because I don't know you.
>>>> You know me as well as I know you. Does that help the equation?
>>> A little. Many here have met face-to-face and communicated in other
>>> ways that adds weight to the presumption of objective reality.
>>
>> So you say. Doesn't add any weight over here.
>
> It's not supposed to,
<shrug>
So why bother posting it.
</shrug>
So, OK. Are we done now?
> unless you do what others have done.
No, thanks. My martial arts days are over.
>>> You
>>> have not been afforded such experiences, thus your claims of
>>> unsubstantiation are personally valid.
>>
>> So we're in violent agreement?
>
> Perhaps. Of course, my being merely a figment of your imagination,
> this was bound to occur....
I'm not that extreme. I believe there's a someone posting as GDS.
>>> However, demanding the burden of proof from those
>>
>> The burden of proof belongs to the one who asserts.
>
> That's a start, and the best one, but more follows...you can't just
> leave it at that!
>
> Let's do a thought experiment.
Ooh! I love those!
> Let's say someone says to you that they
> can knock you out without touching you through their force of will or
> whatever.
Wow! You guys on rec.m-a are pretty advanced.
> Let's say you call bullshit and demand proof. You are told
> that you can discover this for yourself by submitting to a
> demonstration of said power.
OK. I'll submit. Do your willful worst. How long should I wait?
> So that's kinda where you're at right
> now. You're demanding proof and the opportunity to verify it now rests
> with you. What ya gonna do? Just continue to demand proof and call
> bullshit, or grow a pair and step up? Just a thought experiment, mind
> you...it's not like anything like this has happened or anything.....
What am I gonna do? I'm gonna say, fine, point me to an experiment
conducted by someone like Randi.
>>> who DO have additional a posteriori knowledge
>>
>> Correction: who DO CLAIM to have additional a posteriori knowledge.
>> Remember, this is a newsgroup, not a martial arts koffeeklatsch.
>
> Only you can take you out of that context. If you confine yourself to
> it, you will never know.
No dispute there.
>>> is
>>> logically somewhat late in addition to being factually incorrect.
>>
>> I don't see how demanding certain kinds of evidence and rejecting
>> other kinds is in itself factually incorrect. I'm not rejecting your
>> anecdotes as factually incorrect, just insufficient as evidence.
>
> Insufficient to YOU. Others have already walked this path,
> Grasshopper!
So you say, but certainly no one who doesn't actually know you and the gang
down at the mind-bending dojo.
>>>>>>> I find your contributions interesting and amusing,
>>>>>> I live to serve.
>>>>> Just like your Mom.
>>>> Not possible.
>>> Very possible.
>>
>> So you've switched sides. As a factual matter (I say) it is
>> impossible for my mother to have any life goals. Yet you not only
>> reject that claim, but find the counterclaim "very possible."
>
> I've neither accepted nor rejected that claim, which you are merely
> inferring.
I interpreted the "Very possible" as referring to your original claim.
>>>>>> just sayin'....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just, indeed.
>>>>> Said however with incontrovertible proof.
>>>> No, said with incontrovertible conviction.
>>> Born from proof with which you are unaquainted.
>>
>> Unacquainted, anyhow.
>
> That 'c' has never looked to me as though it belongs there, so I
> delete it.
And here's as good an example as any. You say that the 'c' doesn't look
right because I'm guessing you say "uh-`kwaynt." I say that the 'c' does
belong, and I say "ak-`kwaynt." Are we stuck? Of course not. I can point
to etymologies that run through Middle English, Old French, back to Latin
_accognoscere_, all of which have a 'c'; And what's more you can check this
assertion on your own, with little trouble, and with absolutely no access
to my personal history. Particularly if I tell you what sources I've
consulted.
<snip/>
> How might we prove the veracity of our own personal experience to your
> satisfaction?
I've told you. But it can't be done on a newsgroup. And it's almost never
worth the effort. Or are you claiming that because Trav has a JD, that
means that Clinton's replacement of USAs is equivalent to the WPE's?
> I'm not really interested in trying to convince you of a priori truths
> when you could gain your own personal experience.
>
>> I post from misc.legal, where the difference between fact and proof
>> is taken for granted. For instance, it's often said that truth is an
>> absolute defense against libel (in the US). But the burden of proof
>> falls on the defendant, and it he can't prove what may be objectively
>> true, then regardless, his argument fails.
>
> Sure. But the judge isn't going to throw all the evidence out because
> he wasn't there when the alleged offence occurred.
Offense. I guess that missing 'c' in "aquaint" had to land somewhere.
No, of course not. But assuming this is a bench trial, neither will he
accept the uncorroborated word of the defendant, who will thus fail to
provide the preponderance of the evidence. Because the defendant carries
the burden of proof. As do you.
>> As has yours.
>>
>> Bummer, eh?
>
> Dude, you're batting about .05 at the moment, but points for gameness
As I'm fond of saying, if you have to claim to be the victor, you probably
aren't.
Especially if you can't keep your swans and teapots straight.
> ;>)
Must be one of them emoticons the kids use on the intertubes. Sorry, max
nixt to me.
By the way, how long do I have to wait for the knockout blow from your
force of will? Or are you going to tell me that I just haven't waited long
enough yet?
> GDS
Linda
> Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote innews:86bcbc4b-9939-47dd...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 10, 7:54 am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:5d2ba779-554d-47f3-b7d7-f3730
>
> <snip/>
>
> >> >> > The International Congress of Jews declared war on Germany in
> >> >> > 1932.
>
> >> >> Cite?
>
> >> > Judea Declares War On Germany March 1933
> >> >http://www.historybuff.org/judea.jpg
>
> >> So you're quoting an unsourced newspaper article?
>
> > You asked for the cite.
>
> So it's *my* fault you couldn't actually come up with one that supports a
> declaration of war by some organization called the "International
> Congress of Jews"?
Well it's certainly not my fault you continue to deny Judea's
Declaration of War on Germany after I provided you a link to the
Newspaper article wherein Judea Declared War On Germany.
> >> And it turns out that it's a figure of speech for Jewish opposition
> >> to Hitler?
>
> > No, it wasn't.
>
> > Within a week of Judea's Declaration of War Against Germany,
>
> There is no such thing as "Judea" today, and there wasn't in 1933.
Nonsense.
The second time nomads and gypsies of Iraqi descent invaded and
occupied Canaan, their offspring unilaterally proclaimed the
Canaanite's territory as their own and renamed it "The Kingdom of
Israel".
As the "Kingdom of Isreal" Canaan was subdivided into two
territories:
1)Israel (occupied by the Iraqi/Mesopotamian nomadic tribes descended
from Abraham/Issac/Jacob/Joseph et al)
2)Juduh a/k/a Juda a/k/a Judea ( occupied by Iraqi nomadic tribes
descended from Abraham/Issac/Jacob/Judah et al)
When now-Iraq, then Assyrians, later invaded Canaan, they sent the
Iraqi nomads occupying the northern territory of Canaan back to Iraq/
Mesopotamian, whilst they held captive all the Iraqi nomads
occupying Judah in the southern part of Canaan.
The nomadic Iraqi's who had taken to calling themselves "Israelites"
whom Assyria sent back to Iraq/Mesopotamia had zero trouble re-
assimulating themselves in Iraq/Mesopotamia since that is where they
actually originated.
When the Roman Empire extended itself into Canaan, the Romans
permitted the former Iraqi nomads who were still occupying the
southern part of Caanan to practice their Judaism, after which the
region of Canaan occupied by the Iraqi nomads became known as Judea.
Being nomadic by nature, the Judahs aka Judeans, aka Jews
eventually descended like Locusts on most of the Nation states of
Europe.
Hence, the March 1933 Headline "Judea Declares War on Germany".
>
> > the rank and file members of the so-called nation of Israel
>
> The "so-called nation of Israel" didn't exist until 1948.
Rubbish.
1948 was the 4th or 5th time a large group of descendants of the
nomadic Iraqi's aka "Jews" have invaded and occupied the Canaanite's
Palestinians territory in the last 4000 years.
The temporary renaming the Canaanites/Palestinian Territory which
these Nomadic Iraqi's aka Jews are occupying, AGAIN, "Israel" harks
back to these Iraqi nomads 2nd invasion and occupation of the
Canaanite's / Palestinians territory beginning in about 1200 BC, an
occupation they immortalized by unilaterally proclaiming it the
Kingdom of Israel in @ 950 BC.
>
> > held mass meetings
> > in cities around the world to pressure Governments around the world to
> > collaborate with the socalled nation of Israel's Declaration of
> > {Unconventional} War on Germany by other financiers joining Jewish
> > financiers international boycott of German trade, finances and
> > Industry.
>
> Ah! You mean that Jews around the world exercised their rights of free
> speech and assembly to try to get governments to oppose Hitler. Not
> exactly a "declaration of war" as most people understand the term. But
> tell me, what are you agaist, Jews expressing themselves or anybody
> opposing Hitler? Or both?
Neither.
I object to your denying that Judea aka the world's Jewry declared War
on Germany on March 23/24 1933, despite the historical fact the world
jewry most definately did so, and, despite the historical fact it
was the entire world jewry who did so, as evidenced by their
Declaration of War on Germany being IMMEDIATELY followed up with mass
meetings of the World's Jewry in cities around the world to pressure
governments to collaborate with Judea's boycott and embargo German's
trade, finances and Industry to starve the German people to death
during the Great Depression.
The world's Jewry had no right to interfere in the internal politics
of the Sovereign Nation of Germany.
In so doing, the world jewry consolidated Hitler's power which
eventually resulted in Hitler becoming the one and only leader of the
Third Reich.
The world Jewry have nobody besides themselves to blame for whatever
happened to the Jews under Hitler's rule.
But, alas, the Jews never assume any personal responsibility
whatsoever for the antipathy their collective psychopathy evokes in
each and every country which they serial descend upon like a bunch of
Locusts.
>
> > For example, on March 27/28, 1933 approximately 40,000 American
> > members of the socalled Nation of Israel held 2 mass meetings in
> > Madison Square Garden in a show of support for Judea's call for the
> > Mass Murder of the German people via the certain mass starvation of
> > the German people consequent to an International Boycott of German
> > Trade, Finances and Industry during the GREAT DEPRESSION.
>
> In other words, they called for a boycott.
The remaining descendants of the psychopathic tribes of nomadic
Iraqi's who preferred to call themselves "Israelites" called for the
starvation of each man, women, and child residing in Germany if the
Citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Germany failed to elect leaders
who would collaborate with the locusts destruction of the German
people.
Given the War Crimes those Jews, German and otherwise, have been
perpetrating against the Canaanites and Palestinians ever since the
Jews reinvaded and recoccupied the Canaanite's and Palistinian's
Territory in 1948, I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to question
Hitler's solution vis a vis the Nomadic Iraqi's who prefer to call
themselves Israelites and/or Jews.
>
>
>
> > Since I am a Citizen of the United State, and, the United States of
> > America no longer makes any distinction between Conventional and
> > Unconventional Warfare since it's addition of Section M
> > "Unconventional Warfare" to the US Military Manual,
>
> You ignoramus, the US recognizes the difference.
> UW is essentially
> guerilla war.
Calling me names will not alter the historical fact that
Unconventional Warfare is the type of warfare the world's jewry
engages in against the Sovereign Nations which the world's jewry
serially descends upon ala locusts.
Nor will your calling me names alter the historical fact that the
United States of America ceased making any distinction between
conventional wars and the unconventional wars the world's jewry favors
when the United States of America amended the US Military Manual to
include Section M "Unconventional Warfare"
Au contraire
The existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons has resulted in the
United States announcing that it's highly likely that Unconventional
Wars are the only type of Wars the US will be fighting from now on.
To that end, Obama promoted Stanley McCrystal, former US Commander
of the "Darkside", to Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan.
Greendistantstar
> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
> news:SN2dnR7Mh5DRzmfX...@westnet.com.au:
>
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>>> news:_Iydne-FDOBirGfX...@westnet.com.au:
>>>
>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>>>>>> And the point: who can tell on a newsgroups?
>>>>>> You're applying the general to the specific. On THIS newsgroup it
>>>>>> IS the case.
>>>>> So you say. Not much of an argument, is it?
>>>> It is when it's supported by personal experience.
>>> Which, of course, is impossible for reasonable purposes on a
>>> newsgroup.
>> It's impossible if the newsgroup was your only means of verification.
>
> Of course, but no other means is worthwhile for such a nugatory exercise.
> And it isn't my burden to carry.
Nah.
>>>> Conversely, I might
>>>> ask you, what would provide you with sufficient proof?
>>> I've already told you. I identify you via a passport, watch you post
>>> some personal anecdote, and interview the people named in the story.
>> So let's say you do that. Then along comes Fred who says he's
>> unconvinced by your testimony.
>
> Then Fred's got a problem.
You are Fred.
> I can document for him what I found out, and
> that either works for him or it doesn't. If I merely post what I found
> out, then I wouldn't expect him to accept my statement as evidence.
>> What might you say to him?
>
> "Nice to meet you. I've never met a hypothetical before."
>
> <snip/>
>
>>>> I suggest this is another example of
>>>> your not knowing who and what is and has been going on on rm-a.
>>>> No-one expects you to know of course, as most of the regs have been
>>>> active here for 10 years+. An anonymous newcomer disputing the facts
>>>> of who knows whom etc looks naive, at best.
>>> Again. I'm not disputing the facts, as I have no way of knowing the
>>> facts.
>> Nonsense...you simply haven't done it.
>
> And I have no reasonable way of doing it. I'm not traveling to whatever
> dojo you gather at so I can check passports. It's not my responsibility.
It is if the evidence is available.
>>> I'm disputing the efficacy of reciting the facts to anyone who
>>> doesn't have the means to verify them.
>> The means are within the grasp of some, and, so you say, not yours.
>
> And thus for purposes of a newsgroup, the recitation gets ignored as
> evidence. As it should be.
>
>> If you refuse for whatever reason to verify the facts, it's your
>> issue.
>
> Whatever that means. It's certainly not my burden to verify your claims.
>
>> You can dispute that Mark is Jewish or that Trav is a lawyer because
>> you've only read it here, but that's hardly due diligence, now is it?
>> Hmm?
>
> I'm not disputing it; I'm dismissing it as evidence. Most anecdotal
> evidence is worth very little even if verified. Trav says he's a JD.
> Maybe so; maybe not. If the former, he's certainly a very ignorant JD, and
> his assertions about Unites States Attorneys are wrong no matter what
> degree he holds. This may be verified without recourse to my life story.
> Or yours. Or his.
You've switched subjects. You were disputing that *others* could accept as true, not what YOU could
accept. You could choose to accept nothing as proof.
I understand it very, very well....
>>> As for me, I don't have any discovering to do, since the claims
>>> aren't mine; they're yours.
>> I understand burden of proof. It's usually me that demands it of the
>> kooks with their crazy, unverifiable bullshit. But doing this demands
>> that if the proof is offered, you either take up the challenge or shut
>> the fuck up.
>
> Hardly. Since you haven't offered any "proof." You've made an assertion
> on a newsgroup.
But you don't want the proof, and you've said as much.
>>>>> Perhaps
>>>>> because it's not clear to me what you refer to. Literally taken,
>>>>> you're saying that except at an unworkable level of "philosophical
>>>>> strictness," you can trust my anecdotes, including the one about my
>>>>> wife's finding them tedious.
>>>> No, that's not what I'm saying.
>>> Then what are you saying? You can begin by forgetting about teapots.
>>> Russel's analogy is inapt here.
>> Not at all. Russell's teapot analogy was certainly about the existence
>> of God, but his broader issue was about the likelihood of unlikely
>> phenomena and what might constitute proof of such phenomena. You might
>> say that, for you at least, people on a ng who actually know each
>> other is a 'Black Swan' event.
>
> No, no. *You* might say that. But only because you're confused.
LOL!! Dude, it's not my job to give you Philosophy 101.
> A "Black
> Swan" event challenges the reliability of inductive reasoning, and has
> nothing to do with evaluating evidence toward an argument. Every verified
> sighting of a white swan is perfectly good evidence of swans being white.
> The question is their *collective* value in determining a universal
> statement.
Quite. Now when you get the parity, let me know, m'kay?
>>>>> Although it's not unreasonable that someone would find my anecdotes
>>>>> tedious, you don't really know with any certainty that I'm married.
>>>>> I can say, as you do, "it IS the case." And it may be, but my
>>>>> saying so couldn't help you know.
>>>> Of course, and that's what you're missing. If I was to meet you,
>>>> would that be sufficient proof for me that you (and your putative
>>>> and possibly humourless wife) exist, at least as far as I am assured
>>>> your textual self is identical to the person who claims to be you?
>>> Only you can answer that. Were you to meet me (and were I
>>> cooperative), you could easily gather enough evidence to convince
>>> yourself that I am who I say, that I posted the things under my nym,
>>> and that I'm married. Absent that, you should remain agnostic on the
>>> matter. And that's why I won't posit personal anecdotal evidence to
>>> bolster any claim I make.
>> Denial of my experience due to the paucity of yours seems irrational.
>
> I'm not denying your experience. I'm denying its relevance to
> argumentation on a newsgroup.
Experience inter alia....
>>> You'll notice that nothing I claim depends on my marital state.
>> Except all the shit denied to EVERY married man, like sanity, a
>> life....;>)
>
> Well, sure, if I'm actually married. But I haven't made any arguments
> about my sanity or my having a life. Although this thread provides some
> evidence against at least the latter.
>
>>>>>> And you don't even know whether I'm married.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's because I don't know you.
>>>>> You know me as well as I know you. Does that help the equation?
>>>> A little. Many here have met face-to-face and communicated in other
>>>> ways that adds weight to the presumption of objective reality.
>>> So you say. Doesn't add any weight over here.
>> It's not supposed to,
>
> <shrug>
> So why bother posting it.
> </shrug>
>
> So, OK. Are we done now?
Oh no, the fun is just beginning, trust me...
>> unless you do what others have done.
>
> No, thanks. My martial arts days are over.
Never mind. Don't tell me....TKD?
>>>> You
>>>> have not been afforded such experiences, thus your claims of
>>>> unsubstantiation are personally valid.
>>> So we're in violent agreement?
>> Perhaps. Of course, my being merely a figment of your imagination,
>> this was bound to occur....
>
> I'm not that extreme. I believe there's a someone posting as GDS.
I believe you're correct!
>>>> However, demanding the burden of proof from those
>>> The burden of proof belongs to the one who asserts.
>> That's a start, and the best one, but more follows...you can't just
>> leave it at that!
>>
>> Let's do a thought experiment.
>
> Ooh! I love those!
Oh really?
>> Let's say someone says to you that they
>> can knock you out without touching you through their force of will or
>> whatever.
>
> Wow! You guys on rec.m-a are pretty advanced.
I DID NOT SAY THIS SOMEONE WAS ONE OF US!!!
Dude, you jump to conclusions, which carries the possibility of you being rather well pwned...
>> Let's say you call bullshit and demand proof. You are told
>> that you can discover this for yourself by submitting to a
>> demonstration of said power.
>
> OK. I'll submit. Do your willful worst. How long should I wait?
Please read above....sheesh....
>> So that's kinda where you're at right
>> now. You're demanding proof and the opportunity to verify it now rests
>> with you. What ya gonna do? Just continue to demand proof and call
>> bullshit, or grow a pair and step up? Just a thought experiment, mind
>> you...it's not like anything like this has happened or anything.....
>
> What am I gonna do? I'm gonna say, fine, point me to an experiment
> conducted by someone like Randi.
Or someone sanctioned by Randi, perhaps? Yeah, I think I get your point...<snicker>
>>>> who DO have additional a posteriori knowledge
>>> Correction: who DO CLAIM to have additional a posteriori knowledge.
>>> Remember, this is a newsgroup, not a martial arts koffeeklatsch.
>> Only you can take you out of that context. If you confine yourself to
>> it, you will never know.
>
> No dispute there.
More violent agreement!
>>>> is
>>>> logically somewhat late in addition to being factually incorrect.
>>> I don't see how demanding certain kinds of evidence and rejecting
>>> other kinds is in itself factually incorrect. I'm not rejecting your
>>> anecdotes as factually incorrect, just insufficient as evidence.
>> Insufficient to YOU. Others have already walked this path,
>> Grasshopper!
>
> So you say, but certainly no one who doesn't actually know you and the gang
> down at the mind-bending dojo.
Dayum....
>>>>>>>> I find your contributions interesting and amusing,
>>>>>>> I live to serve.
>>>>>> Just like your Mom.
>>>>> Not possible.
>>>> Very possible.
>>> So you've switched sides. As a factual matter (I say) it is
>>> impossible for my mother to have any life goals. Yet you not only
>>> reject that claim, but find the counterclaim "very possible."
>> I've neither accepted nor rejected that claim, which you are merely
>> inferring.
>
> I interpreted the "Very possible" as referring to your original claim.
Nah, it was an in-joke you didn't get....
>>>>>>> just sayin'....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just, indeed.
>>>>>> Said however with incontrovertible proof.
>>>>> No, said with incontrovertible conviction.
>>>> Born from proof with which you are unaquainted.
>>> Unacquainted, anyhow.
>> That 'c' has never looked to me as though it belongs there, so I
>> delete it.
>
> And here's as good an example as any. You say that the 'c' doesn't look
> right because I'm guessing you say "uh-`kwaynt." I say that the 'c' does
> belong, and I say "ak-`kwaynt." Are we stuck? Of course not. I can point
> to etymologies that run through Middle English, Old French, back to Latin
> _accognoscere_, all of which have a 'c'; And what's more you can check this
> assertion on your own, with little trouble, and with absolutely no access
> to my personal history. Particularly if I tell you what sources I've
> consulted.
Gee thanks, but I know Fowlers and the OED disagree with me.
> <snip/>
>
>> How might we prove the veracity of our own personal experience to your
>> satisfaction?
>
> I've told you. But it can't be done on a newsgroup. And it's almost never
> worth the effort. Or are you claiming that because Trav has a JD, that
> means that Clinton's replacement of USAs is equivalent to the WPE's?
>
>> I'm not really interested in trying to convince you of a priori truths
>> when you could gain your own personal experience.
>>
>>> I post from misc.legal, where the difference between fact and proof
>>> is taken for granted. For instance, it's often said that truth is an
>>> absolute defense against libel (in the US). But the burden of proof
>>> falls on the defendant, and it he can't prove what may be objectively
>>> true, then regardless, his argument fails.
>> Sure. But the judge isn't going to throw all the evidence out because
>> he wasn't there when the alleged offence occurred.
>
> Offense. I guess that missing 'c' in "aquaint" had to land somewhere.
It departed Australia some time ago....
> No, of course not. But assuming this is a bench trial, neither will he
> accept the uncorroborated word of the defendant, who will thus fail to
> provide the preponderance of the evidence. Because the defendant carries
> the burden of proof. As do you.
>
>>> As has yours.
>>>
>>> Bummer, eh?
>> Dude, you're batting about .05 at the moment, but points for gameness
>
> As I'm fond of saying, if you have to claim to be the victor, you probably
> aren't.
I'm not claiming victory, just assaying your performance to date...;>
> Especially if you can't keep your swans and teapots straight.
>
>> ;>)
>
> Must be one of them emoticons the kids use on the intertubes. Sorry, max
> nixt to me.
Must be....
> By the way, how long do I have to wait for the knockout blow from your
> force of will?
<irony meter explodes violently>
> Or are you going to tell me that I just haven't waited long
> enough yet?
I think I might let you dangle on the line a bit longer, until someone spills the beans.
lol.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
djinn
> djinn <dje...@gmail.com> wrote in news:af0015c1-7539-45c0-bca3-
>
> > On Nov 11, 12:44 am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> >> And you don't even know whether I'm married.
>
> > I don't even know if you exist. Only have your internet postings to go
> > by.....
>
> True. I could be a computer program.
>
> Tell me more about these internet postings.
>
> (Just a little Eliza in-joke.)
Dude, you remember Eliza? Hell, did you know Fabius too?
trav...@aol.com
> Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au> wrote innews:_Iydne-FDOBirGfX...@westnet.com.au:
You can't prove that you exist
So shut the fuck up.
Trav
Deadrat
news:U_GdnaoZ18Li7mfX...@westnet.com.au:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>> news:SN2dnR7Mh5DRzmfX...@westnet.com.au:
<snip/>
>>>> Again. I'm not disputing the facts, as I have no way of knowing
>>>> the facts.
>>> Nonsense...you simply haven't done it.
>>
>> And I have no reasonable way of doing it. I'm not traveling to
>> whatever dojo you gather at so I can check passports. It's not my
>> responsibility.
>
> It is if the evidence is available.
That's the point. It's not. Not here.
<snip/>
>> I'm not disputing it; I'm dismissing it as evidence. Most anecdotal
>> evidence is worth very little even if verified. Trav says he's a JD.
>> Maybe so; maybe not. If the former, he's certainly a very ignorant
>> JD, and his assertions about Unites States Attorneys are wrong no
>> matter what degree he holds. This may be verified without recourse
>> to my life story. Or yours. Or his.
>
> You've switched subjects. You were disputing that *others* could
> accept as true, not what YOU could accept. You could choose to accept
> nothing as proof.
I'm sorry, but I've switched nothing. My point has always been that the
burden belongs to the claimant and that unsourced assertions that I can't
check on a newsgroup don't meet that burden. I don't accept nothing as
proof; I just don't accept your personal anecdotes based on your personal
word. Even if they're true.
<snip/>
>>>> As for me, I don't have any discovering to do, since the claims
>>>> aren't mine; they're yours.
>>> I understand burden of proof. It's usually me that demands it of the
>>> kooks with their crazy, unverifiable bullshit. But doing this
>>> demands that if the proof is offered, you either take up the
>>> challenge or shut the fuck up.
>>
>> Hardly. Since you haven't offered any "proof." You've made an
>> assertion on a newsgroup.
>
> But you don't want the proof, and you've said as much.
What I want is beside the point. I have no reasonable way to check.
>>>>>> Perhaps
>>>>>> because it's not clear to me what you refer to. Literally taken,
>>>>>> you're saying that except at an unworkable level of
>>>>>> "philosophical strictness," you can trust my anecdotes, including
>>>>>> the one about my wife's finding them tedious.
>>>>> No, that's not what I'm saying.
>>>> Then what are you saying? You can begin by forgetting about
>>>> teapots.
>>>> Russel's analogy is inapt here.
>>> Not at all. Russell's teapot analogy was certainly about the
>>> existence of God, but his broader issue was about the likelihood of
>>> unlikely phenomena and what might constitute proof of such
>>> phenomena. You might say that, for you at least, people on a ng who
>>> actually know each other is a 'Black Swan' event.
>>
>> No, no. *You* might say that. But only because you're confused.
>
> LOL!! Dude, it's not my job to give you Philosophy 101.
And good thing. Since you obviously don't understand the terms you bandy
about.
>> A "Black
>> Swan" event challenges the reliability of inductive reasoning, and
>> has nothing to do with evaluating evidence toward an argument. Every
>> verified sighting of a white swan is perfectly good evidence of swans
>> being white. The question is their *collective* value in determining
>> a universal statement.
>
> Quite. Now when you get the parity, let me know, m'kay?
Parity? Do you mean applicability? There is none. I don't have a
series of confirming instances of something from which I've drawn a
general conclusion. I have statements that don't support an argument one
way or another, so I dismiss them. Unfairly, you claim, but the next
anecdote won't be an evidentiary surprise. It will be another
meaningless (to me) anecdote.
<snip/>
>> I'm not denying your experience. I'm denying its relevance to
>> argumentation on a newsgroup.
>
> Experience inter alia....
And general unsourced ranting.
<snip/>
>>>>>>> And you don't even know whether I'm married.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's because I don't know you.
>>>>>> You know me as well as I know you. Does that help the equation?
>>>>> A little. Many here have met face-to-face and communicated in
>>>>> other ways that adds weight to the presumption of objective
>>>>> reality.
>>>> So you say. Doesn't add any weight over here.
>>> It's not supposed to,
>>
>> <shrug>
>> So why bother posting it.
>> </shrug>
>>
>> So, OK. Are we done now?
>
> Oh no, the fun is just beginning, trust me...
You've admitted that the anecdotes aren't supposed to carry any weight in
an argument. What more did you have in mind? I'm hoping for one of
those fun gedankenexperiments.
>>> unless you do what others have done.
>>
>> No, thanks. My martial arts days are over.
>
> Never mind. Don't tell me....TKD?
No.
<snip/>
>>>>> However, demanding the burden of proof from those
>>>> The burden of proof belongs to the one who asserts.
>>> That's a start, and the best one, but more follows...you can't just
>>> leave it at that!
>>>
>>> Let's do a thought experiment.
>>
>> Ooh! I love those!
>
> Oh really?
>
>>> Let's say someone says to you that they
>>> can knock you out without touching you through their force of will
>>> or whatever.
>>
>> Wow! You guys on rec.m-a are pretty advanced.
>
> I DID NOT SAY THIS SOMEONE WAS ONE OF US!!!
Damn! I was *so* hoping ....
>
> Dude, you jump to conclusions, which carries the possibility of you
> being rather well pwned...
I see you're hopeful too.
>>> Let's say you call bullshit and demand proof. You are told
>>> that you can discover this for yourself by submitting to a
>>> demonstration of said power.
>>
>> OK. I'll submit. Do your willful worst. How long should I wait?
>
> Please read above....sheesh....
I see that I'm at a disadvantage in not using those emoticons the kids
are so fond of.
>>> So that's kinda where you're at right
>>> now. You're demanding proof and the opportunity to verify it now
>>> rests with you. What ya gonna do? Just continue to demand proof and
>>> call bullshit, or grow a pair and step up? Just a thought
>>> experiment, mind you...it's not like anything like this has happened
>>> or anything.....
>>
>> What am I gonna do? I'm gonna say, fine, point me to an experiment
>> conducted by someone like Randi.
>
> Or someone sanctioned by Randi, perhaps? Yeah, I think I get your
> point...<snicker>
I'm doubtful, but why the snickering? You don't think Randi conducts
well-documented experiments of the kind you're proposing? His subjects
agree to the conditions as well as the results.
<snip/>
>>>>>>>> just sayin'....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just, indeed.
>>>>>>> Said however with incontrovertible proof.
>>>>>> No, said with incontrovertible conviction.
>>>>> Born from proof with which you are unaquainted.
>>>> Unacquainted, anyhow.
>>> That 'c' has never looked to me as though it belongs there, so I
>>> delete it.
>>
>> And here's as good an example as any. You say that the 'c' doesn't
>> look right because I'm guessing you say "uh-`kwaynt." I say that the
>> 'c' does belong, and I say "ak-`kwaynt." Are we stuck? Of course
>> not. I can point to etymologies that run through Middle English, Old
>> French, back to Latin _accognoscere_, all of which have a 'c'; And
>> what's more you can check this assertion on your own, with little
>> trouble, and with absolutely no access to my personal history.
>> Particularly if I tell you what sources I've consulted.
>
> Gee thanks, but I know Fowlers and the OED disagree with me.
Another hypothetical shot to hell by literal mindedness.
<snip/>
>> No, of course not. But assuming this is a bench trial, neither will
>> he accept the uncorroborated word of the defendant, who will thus
>> fail to provide the preponderance of the evidence. Because the
>> defendant carries the burden of proof. As do you.
>>
>>>> As has yours.
>>>>
>>>> Bummer, eh?
>>> Dude, you're batting about .05 at the moment, but points for
>>> gameness
>>
>> As I'm fond of saying, if you have to claim to be the victor, you
>> probably aren't.
>
> I'm not claiming victory, just assaying your performance to date...;>
Ah, you're not saying you're the winner here, just that I'm the loser.
Well, that's different.
<snip/>
> GDS
Deadrat
news:31694f1f-a6b2-41d8...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 10, 3:57�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:86bcbc4b-9939-47dd-9e85-820c9
> 2d7...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Nov 10, 7:54�am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> >> Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote
>> >> innews:5d2ba779-554d-47f3-b7d7-f3730
>> > 12f6...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> >> >> > The International Congress of Jews declared war on Germany in
>> >> >> > 1932.
>>
>> >> >> Cite? �
>>
>> >> > Judea Declares War On Germany March 1933
>> >> >http://www.historybuff.org/judea.jpg
>>
>> >> So you're quoting an unsourced newspaper article?
>>
>> > You asked for the cite.
>>
>> So it's *my* fault you couldn't actually come up with one that
>> supports a declaration of war by some organization called the
>> "International Congress of Jews"?
>
> Well it's certainly not my fault you continue to deny Judea's
> Declaration of War on Germany after I provided you a link to the
> Newspaper article wherein Judea Declared War On Germany.
No, it's your fault for being an ignoramus. A declaration of war is a
term of art in international law and diplomacy. You've found a headline
in a newspaper. The story makes clear this is a metaphorical use. Or
did you think the War on Poverty was an actual war?
>
>
>> >>�And it turns out that �it's a figure of speech for Jewish oppositi
> on
>> >> to Hitler? �
>>
>> > No, �it wasn't.
>>
>> > Within a week of Judea's Declaration of War Against Germany,
>>
>> There is no such thing as "Judea" today, and there wasn't in 1933.
>
> Nonsense.
... she explained.
>
> The second time nomads and gypsies of Iraqi descent invaded and
> occupied Canaan, their offspring unilaterally proclaimed the
> Canaanite's territory as their own and renamed it "The Kingdom of
> Israel".
Which the Romans pretty much put an end to a while ago. Which wansn't
reversed until 1848. Hold onto your hat; there used to be a Holy Roman
Empire, too.
<snipped: irrelevancies/>
> Hence, the March 1933 Headline "Judea Declares War on Germany".
It just means Jews. But you knew that.
<snipped: irrelevancies/>
>> > held mass meetings
>> > in cities around the world to pressure Governments around the world
>> > to collaborate with the socalled nation of Israel's Declaration of
>> > {Unconventional} War on Germany by other financiers joining Jewish
>> > financiers international boycott of German trade, �finances and
>> > Industry.
>>
>> Ah! �You mean that Jews around the world exercised their rights of
>> free speech and assembly to try to get governments to oppose Hitler.
>> �Not exactly a "declaration of war" as most people understand the
>> term. �But tell me, what are you agaist, Jews expressing themselves
>> or anybody opposing Hitler? �Or both?
>
> Neither.
>
> I object to your denying that Judea aka the world's Jewry declared War
> on Germany on March 23/24 1933, despite the historical fact the world
> jewry most definately did so, and, despite the historical fact it
> was the entire world jewry who did so, as evidenced by their
> Declaration of War on Germany being IMMEDIATELY followed up with mass
> meetings of the World's Jewry in cities around the world to pressure
> governments to collaborate with Judea's boycott and embargo German's
> trade, finances and Industry to starve the German people to death
> during the Great Depression.
Again, there was no country called Judea in 1933. Jews, the entirety of
them or part of them, were incapable of declaring war on anybody in 1933.
The German people didn't starve to death during the Great Depression.
Get help. Jew Fever will consume your life. It's already corroded your
intellect.
>
> The world's Jewry had no right to interfere in the internal politics
> of the Sovereign Nation of Germany.
They didn't. And your little newspaper article doesn't say they did.
Read beyond the headline.
Too bad somebody didn't interfere in the internal politics of the
"Sovereign Nation of Germany," eh?
>
> In so doing, the world jewry consolidated Hitler's power which
> eventually resulted in Hitler becoming the one and only leader of the
> Third Reich.
Right. The Nazis had nothing to do with it.
>
> The world Jewry have nobody besides themselves to blame for whatever
> happened to the Jews under Hitler's rule.
Get help.
> But, alas, the Jews never assume any personal responsibility
> whatsoever for the antipathy their collective psychopathy evokes in
> each and every country which they serial descend upon like a bunch of
> Locusts.
The psychopathy is yours. It's called Jew Fever. Get help.
>> > For example, �on March 27/28, 1933 approximately 40,000 American
>> > members of the socalled Nation of Israel held 2 mass meetings in
>> > Madison Square Garden in a show of support for Judea's call for the
>> > Mass Murder of the German people via the certain mass starvation of
>> > the German people consequent to an International Boycott of German
>> > Trade, �Finances and Industry during the GREAT DEPRESSION.
>>
>> In other words, they called for a boycott. �
>
> The remaining descendants of the psychopathic tribes of nomadic
> Iraqi's who preferred to call themselves "Israelites" called for the
> starvation of each man, women, and child residing in Germany if the
> Citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Germany failed to elect leaders
> who would collaborate with the locusts destruction of the German
> people.
Well, they starved anyway. And were bombed by the Brits and the
Americans and raped by the Russians. Perhaps they should have listened
to "Judea" in 1933. Woulda saved them a whole lot of trouble.
>
<snip/>
>> > Since I am a Citizen of the United State, �and, �the United States
> of
>> > America no longer makes any distinction between Conventional and
>> > Unconventional Warfare since it's addition of Section M
>> > "Unconventional Warfare" to the US Military Manual,
>>
>> You ignoramus, the US recognizes the difference.
>> �UW is essentially
>> guerilla war.
>
> Calling me names
I'm not calling you names. I'm describing your mental state: you're
ignorant.
<snip/>
Really. Get help. Obsessions are not healthy.
Deadrat
@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
Of course.
Hell, did you know Fabius too?
Tell me more about your family.
Deadrat
news:9fd64104-57ed-4f19...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 10, 11:41�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au> wrote
>> innews:_Iydne-FDOB
> irGfXnZ2dn...@westnet.com.au:
>>
>> > Deadrat wrote:
<snip/>
>
> You can't prove that you exist
>
> So shut the fuck up.
So, Trav, I see you're down to your best argument.
>
> Trav
>
Greendistantstar
<appropriate clipping>
> Ah, you're not saying you're the winner here, just that I'm the loser.
> Well, that's different.
No, you're just out of your depth here.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Deadrat
news:CsednZzUzuNZ92bX...@westnet.com.au:
Yeah, I'm dealing with someone who claims to have a JD but doesn't have the
vaguest notion of how the US Attorneys Office works, and who thinks that
when Jews get together, they act in concert in some "emergent" fashion like
a school of fish. I've got someone else who thinks Russell's Celestial
Teapot example has something to with objectivism, that the Black Swan
argument is relevant to things other than inductive reasoning, and that if
he says that some unsupported claim of his is really, *really* true, then
the burden of proof shifts to the skeptical listener.
Hope you've got a micrometer to measure the depth over there.
> GDS
Greendistantstar
Dude, go back to the OP and see how, even at micrometer level, you are still in over your head.
YOU disputed what OTHERS here know about each other, THAT was the issue, not what YOU know.
There's no point in any recitation of my quals in this area as you've no way to prove it, right?
Go and read Russell's 'Problems of Philosophy' (a great little book for undergrads) and tell me you
understand it. I'd mention Wittgenstein's exhortation regarding knowing the unknowable, but you're a
long way from grasping that.
TTFN
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Deadrat
news:rrudnQBp05H56mbX...@westnet.com.au:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>> news:CsednZzUzuNZ92bX...@westnet.com.au:
>>
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>
>>> <appropriate clipping>
>>>
>>>> Ah, you're not saying you're the winner here, just that I'm the
>>>> loser. Well, that's different.
>>> No, you're just out of your depth here.
>>
>> Yeah, I'm dealing with someone who claims to have a JD but doesn't
>> have the vaguest notion of how the US Attorneys Office works, and who
>> thinks that when Jews get together, they act in concert in some
>> "emergent" fashion like a school of fish. I've got someone else who
>> thinks Russell's Celestial Teapot example has something to with
>> objectivism, that the Black Swan argument is relevant to things other
>> than inductive reasoning, and that if he says that some unsupported
>> claim of his is really, *really* true, then the burden of proof
>> shifts to the skeptical listener.
>>
>> Hope you've got a micrometer to measure the depth over there.
>>
>>> GDS
>
> Dude, go back to the OP and see how, even at micrometer level,
Well, now that we've agreed on the intellecutal depths over there ...
> you are still in over your head.
... it's time for the warning (again) about declaring yourself the
victor.
> YOU disputed what OTHERS here know about each other, THAT was the
> issue, not what YOU know.
Well, here's something that's easily checked.
The original post in this thread was from Herbert Cannon 11/06 about Ft.
Hood. Sportfighter responded to bemoan the fact that Muslims are allowed
to serve in the military, and then Mark claims that everybody involved
was too politically correct to spot a jihadist.
At this point, Trav enters, having what I assume is one of his many bad
days, and wonders why Jews like Mark goad the SPLC to rain terror on
white people. Mark defends himself by disclaiming any affiliation with
the SPLC and by calling Trav a deranged narcissist and antisemite. This
sets Trav off and he responds that he's got no problem with Jews except
when he does and also with Jewish money and Jewish public relations,
which denigrate white people. Sam the Bam then stirs the pot by asking
Trav if he thinks this Jew thing is a conspiracy.
Trav weighs in with the emergent theory of Jewish behavior (like fish
schooling, dontchaknow) and his charming anecdote of some black girl who
told him that Jews hit on her so much that Jewish stereotypes must be
true.
Here I step in to deliver my "Fish gotta school. Jews got a Yeshiva."
post. Pretty clever, no? Fish, school, Yeshiva. (Never mind. It's not
as much fun if I have to explain it.) I bait Trav, telling him that the
black girl is a figment of his imagination who is having figments of her
own imaginary imagination about (necessarily) imaginary Jews hitting on
her.
Four days later, I'm still making fun of Trav, and I needle him about
assuming that people who post under Jewish-sounding names are really
Jewish. Here's where you make your entrance, to tell me about the
newsgroup rec.micrometer.arts, and we eventually have this exchange:
YOU: There's plenty of newsgroups where people know each other. As Kirk
and several others have already told you, this is the case with rm-a.
ME: This may be true. Who knows? And the point: who can tell on a
newsgroup?
Long way to go, but I hope the trip down recent memory cyber-lane was
amusing. In any case, there it is: I don't dispute what others (sorry,
OTHERS) know about each other. In fact, I explicitly say that what you
know may be true. It's just not verifiable via a newsgroup.
And here's the ironic part: you may go back and check my recapitulation
for yourself. And with knowing practically nothing about me. Imagine
that!
> There's no point in any recitation of my quals in this area as you've
> no way to prove it, right?
I'm gonna assume that "this area" refers to philosophy. And, yes,
there's no point, but if the recitation makes you feel better, be my
guest. Not only do I have no reasonable way of verifying your
credentials, they have no bearing on your assertions. The Celestial
Teapot is about the argument from authority in the absence of independent
verification (ironic, no?) and not about objectivism. The Black Swan is
about the pitfalls of inductive reasoning, a subject not relevant to this
thread. Even if you had a PhD in philosophy, this wouldn't change.
> Go and read Russell's 'Problems of Philosophy' (a great little book
> for undergrads) and tell me you understand it.
And you'd believe me, because?
> I'd mention
> Wittgenstein's exhortation regarding knowing the unknowable, but
> you're a long way from grasping that.
I'll guess that it's ""Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man
schweigen." If so, another swing-and-a-miss.
When will you get to telling me about Godel?
> TTFN
>
> GDS
Greendistantstar
<all clipped>
> When will you get to telling me about Godel?
If you were to get to Ph 101, understand Russell's undergrad works, and discern the difference
between epistemology and ontology, *then* I *might* discuss Godel with you, but I think Popper is
about your limit.
We've reached a dead-end, so thanks for playing, better luck next time.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Deadrat
news:_8-dnRH6IfhsOGbX...@westnet.com.au:
> Deadrat wrote:
> <all clipped>
Aw, no comments on the points of discussion?
Noted.
>> When will you get to telling me about Godel?
>
> If you were to get to Ph 101, understand Russell's undergrad works,
> and discern the difference between epistemology and ontology, *then* I
> *might* discuss Godel with you, but I think Popper is about your
> limit.
Uh, huh.
> We've reached a dead-end, so thanks for playing, better luck next
> time.
Run away, Brave Sir Robin, run away. As always, it's up to you.
Give my best to the rest of rec.m-a.
>
> GDS
>
> "Let's roll!"
on outahere!
Greendistantstar
> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
> news:_8-dnRH6IfhsOGbX...@westnet.com.au:
>
>> Deadrat wrote:
>> <all clipped>
> Aw, no comments on the points of discussion?
None that would progress the discussion. These things usually devolve into flame wars
and I'm not inclined to do that with you.
>>> When will you get to telling me about Godel?
>> If you were to get to Ph 101, understand Russell's undergrad works,
>> and discern the difference between epistemology and ontology, *then* I
>> *might* discuss Godel with you, but I think Popper is about your
>> limit.
>
> Uh, huh.
Yup.
>> We've reached a dead-end, so thanks for playing, better luck next
>> time.
>
> Run away, Brave Sir Robin, run away. As always, it's up to you.
I like to walk away. I walk away from fights most of the time. Sometimes of course there's a point
to made or a line that gets crossed, but mostly, who gives a fuck? Really.
> Give my best to the rest of rec.m-a.
This is cross-posted so your mission is accomplished.
But before you leave rm-a, if you want to hook up with someone who claims to be able to KO you
without touching you, y'all come back now, ya hear?
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Deadrat
news:CN6dnWtil6-_NmbX...@westnet.com.au:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> Greendistantstar <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
>> news:_8-dnRH6IfhsOGbX...@westnet.com.au:
>>
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> <all clipped>
>> Aw, no comments on the points of discussion?
>
> None that would progress the discussion.
Noted.
> These things usually devolve
> into flame wars and I'm not inclined to do that with you.
I hope it's nothing I've said.
<snip/>
>> Run away, Brave Sir Robin, run away. As always, it's up to you.
>
> I like to walk away. I walk away from fights most of the time.
> Sometimes of course there's a point to made or a line that gets
> crossed, but mostly, who gives a fuck? Really.
You really *are* quite the philosopher.
>> Give my best to the rest of rec.m-a.
>
> This is cross-posted so your mission is accomplished.
I meant in person, of course. You never whom you're talking to when
you're posting.
> But before you leave rm-a, if you want to hook up with someone who
> claims to be able to KO you without touching you,
And can call spirits from the vasty deep, too, I'll bet.
> y'all come back now, ya hear?
Why, thank you. That's mighty white of ya.
It's been fun.
>
> GDS
trav...@aol.com
> days, and wonders why Jews like Mark goad the SPLC to rain terror on
> white people. Mark defends himself by disclaiming any affiliation with
> the SPLC and by calling Trav a deranged narcissist and antisemite. This
> sets Trav off and he responds that he's got no problem with Jews except
> when he does and also with Jewish money and Jewish public relations,
> which denigrate white people. Sam the Bam then stirs the pot by asking
> Trav if he thinks this Jew thing is a conspiracy.
>
> Trav weighs in with the emergent theory of Jewish behavior (like fish
> schooling, dontchaknow) and his charming anecdote of some black girl who
This just isn't at all what I said. I provided fish schooling as an
example of an emergent phenomenon where concert of action exists
without conspiracy. Small town gas stations appear to be in
conspiracy wrt pricing, even though they are not. There are a
multitude of examples of this.
Trav
Deadrat
7645-4193-858...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>> At this point, Trav enters, having what I assume is one of his many
bad
>> days, and wonders why Jews like Mark goad the SPLC to rain terror on
>> white people. �Mark defends himself by disclaiming any affiliation
with
>> the SPLC and by calling Trav a deranged narcissist and antisemite.
�Thi
> s
>> sets Trav off and he responds that he's got no problem with Jews
except
>> when he does and also with Jewish money and Jewish public relations,
>> which denigrate white people. �Sam the Bam then stirs the pot by
asking
>> Trav if he thinks this Jew thing is a conspiracy.
>>
>> Trav weighs in with the emergent theory of Jewish behavior (like fish
>> schooling, dontchaknow) and his charming anecdote of some black girl
who
>
> This just isn't at all what I said. I provided fish schooling as an
> example of an emergent phenomenon where concert of action exists
> without conspiracy.
This is *exactly* what you said, and I can quote you:
Sam the Bam asks:
<quote>
There's something I'm unclear about in your theory, Trav... is this
Joooish media conspiracy a deliberate plot,....
</quote>
And you explain in your inimitable way:
<quote>
There is NONE. No plot, no premeditation, no conspiracy. It's merely
an emergent phenomenon, *like how fish school*.
</quote>
Emphasis added.
I note the following symptoms of Jew Fever:
1. No rigorous evidence is necessary. Do Jews actually act in concert?
Do they act differently when they act individually and then change their
behavior when they get together? How would one even document such a
thing? Fortunately, no evidence need be presented.
2. Any "evidence" that is presented is personal and anecdotal, a FOAF
(Friend of a Friend) in the coinage of Harold Brunvand, author,
folklorist, and tracker of urban legends. The anecdotes become the basis
for general conclusions. Thus we have your story of a black girl who
claims that Jews hit on her all the time. From this you conclude that
the stereotypes must be true. And don't try to deny that either. I've
got that quote, too.
3. When Jews do something ordinary, it's extraordinary (and, of course,
sinister). When gentiles do the same thing, it's of no note.
Evangelicals vote for "family values" candidates. This is no surprise,
evangelicals tend to make religion and morality important in their lives.
Black voters tend to vote Democratic. No surprise, the competing party
is home to former Dixiecrats and given to praising people like Strom
Thurmond. Jews tend to support Israel. Oh, no! Warning! Emergent
behavior! Also note that in your story about the hit-upon black girl,
she's good looking. Is it worth commenting when a good-looking girl
attracts the attention of men? It's worth it for you when the alleged
attactees are Jews.
4. Animal comparisons creep into the ranting. For you, it's fish. For
Linda, of the screed about evil Judea declaring war on poor, innocent
Germany, it's locusts. In _Der Ewige Jude, it was rats.
Look, Trav, you think about Jews more than Jews think about Jews.
Get help.
> Trav
Sam the Bam
> But before you leave rm-a, if you want to hook up with
> someone who claims to be able to KO you without touching
> you, y'all come back now, ya hear?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpTB9duiqro&feature=related
QED
Sam
Wes Groleau
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiZKhIT33i0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdrzBL2dHMI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsSzSflkns8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I
--
Wes Groleau
Nutrition for Blokes: Re-engineering your diet for life
http://www.phlaunt.com/quentin
Linda
> Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote innews:31694f1f-a6b2-41d8...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 3:57 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:86bcbc4b-9939-47dd-9e85-820c9
>
> >> > On Nov 10, 7:54 am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> >> Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> >> innews:5d2ba779-554d-47f3-b7d7-f3730
> >> > 12f6...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> <snip/>
>
> >> >> >> > The International Congress of Jews declared war on Germany in
> >> >> >> > 1932.
>
> >> >> >> Cite?
>
> >> >> > Judea Declares War On Germany March 1933
> >> >> >http://www.historybuff.org/judea.jpg
>
> >> >> So you're quoting an unsourced newspaper article?
>
> >> > You asked for the cite.
>
> >> So it's *my* fault you couldn't actually come up with one that
> >> supports a declaration of war by some organization called the
> >> "International Congress of Jews"?
>
> > Well it's certainly not my fault you continue to deny Judea's
> > Declaration of War on Germany after I provided you a link to the
> > Newspaper article wherein Judea Declared War On Germany.
>
> No, it's your fault for being an ignoramus.
Your denial of historical fact doesn't make me an ignoramus.
A declaration of war is a
> term of art in international law and diplomacy. You've found a headline
> in a newspaper. The story makes clear this is a metaphorical use.
There is not now, nor has there ever been anything metaphorical about
the obscene War which the psychopathic tribe of Iraqi/Mesopotamian
nomads/gypsies/tramps/thieves and their psychopathic descendants have
been waging against the rest of humanity since they fled their place
of origin in Northern Mesopotamia/Iraq 4000 years ago, more than
likely, as Fugitives of Justice.
>
>
>
> >> >> And it turns out that it's a figure of speech for Jewish oppositi
> > on
> >> >> to Hitler?
>
> >> > No, it wasn't.
>
> >> > Within a week of Judea's Declaration of War Against Germany,
>
> >> There is no such thing as "Judea" today, and there wasn't in 1933.
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> ... she explained.
>
>
>
> > The second time nomads and gypsies of Iraqi descent invaded and
> > occupied Canaan, their offspring unilaterally proclaimed the
> > Canaanite's territory as their own and renamed it "The Kingdom of
> > Israel".
>
> Which the Romans pretty much put an end to a while ago.
False.
Perhaps, because the Assyrians were/are the only people who possess
factual knowledge wrt why the psychopathic tribe of nomadic
Mesopotamians/Iraqi's fled northern Mesopotamia/Iraq in the first
place, the Assyrian Empire is the only Ancient Empire which ever
sought to take the appropriate action regarding the psychopathic tribe
of nomadic northern Mesopotamians/Iraqi's who have incessantly invaded
and occupied the Canaanite's and Palestinian's territory these last
4000 years.
If not for the Assyrians sending 10 of the 12 psychopathic tribes of
Mesopotamian/Iraqi nomads who had invaded and occupied the
Canaanite's and Palestinian's Territory intermittantly between 2000 -
722 BC back to Mesopotamia/Iraq where they belong, the rest of
humanity would have had the descendants of 12 psychopathic tribes of
Mesopotamian/Iraqi nomads waging non-stop war upon the rest of
humanity these last 2000 plus years, rather then just the descendants
of 2 of the psychopathic tribes of Mesopotomian/Iraqi nomads.
The Persians, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, British, and American
Empires have all coveted the tremendous natural resources the
Assyrians/Mesopotamians/Iraqi's were/are endowed with; therefore,
have all found it politically expedient to indulge and cultivate the
natural psychopathy of the tribes of nomadic Mesopotomians/Iraqi's who
fled Iraq, most likely as fugitives of justice, then, repetitiously
invaded and occupied the Canaanite's and Palestinian's territory these
past 4000 years.
As to the Romans, their indulging and cultivating the psychopathy of
the Mesopotamian/Iraqi tribes of nomads who repeatedly invaded and
occupied the Canaanite's and Palestinian's territory these last 4000
years occaisioned the most infamous False Flag/Black Op in the history
of mankind: the torture and crucifixion of the "King of the Jews"
Nothing but nothing created more favorable conditions for the
psychopathic tribe of Mesopotamian/Iraqi nomads to thrive at the
expense of the rest of humanity, then, the Romans collaborating with
the Jews false flag/black operation wrt torture and crucifixion of the
"King of the Jews."
Make the "King of the Jews" spouting "turn the other cheek" vis a vis
his rabid kin a martyr, and, the psychopathic tribe of Mesopotamian/
Iraqi nomads get to subsist at the expense of the rest of humanity for
another 2000 years and counting.
Nevermind, if the crappola the "King of the Jews" spouted oppose the
laws of nature; therefore, guarantee the extinction of all
caucasoids, if not the human species, because, in nature, the
entire subspecies, if not the entire species, is doomed to become
extinct anytime healthy members permit parasitic members to suck off
the healthy members.
> Which wansn't
> reversed until 1848.
Not a damn thing was reversed in 1948 when the British and American
Empire made the Canaanite's and Palestinian's territory a British and
American protectorate wherein the psychopathic descendants of the
Mesopotamian/Iraqi nomads were permitted to emigrate and displace yet
more Canaanites and Palestinians from their land.
4000 years after a psychopathic tribe of Mesopotamian/Iraqi nomads
fled Mesopotamia/Iraq, most probably as Fugitives from Justice,
initially invaded and occupied the Canaanite's and Palestinian's
lands, the psychopathic tribe of Mesopotamian/Iraqi nomads are still
squatting on the Canaanite's and Palestinian's territory.
Nothing will ever change until ALL the descendant's of the
psychopathic tribe of Mesopotamian/Iraqi nomads are rendered to the
Iraqi city of their origin, and, held accountable for any and all
atrocities they avoided being prosecuted for by fleaing Mesopotamia/
Iraq 4000 years ago, as well as, all the crimes this psychopathic
tribe of Mesopotamian/Iraqi nomads have perpetrated against all the
indigenous people of the numerous countries they been descending upon
ala locusts these past 4,000 years.
> Hold onto your hat; there used to be a Holy Roman
> Empire, too.
When all is said and done, all a human being ever really owns is his
or her story.
Because no one's story begins with his or her self, but,
encompasses the complete and unabridged story of their ancestors, as
well, 'The past is never ever dead, it isn't even past' to
paraphrase William Faulkner.
> <snipped: irrelevancies/>
>
> > Hence, the March 1933 Headline "Judea Declares War on Germany".
>
> It just means Jews. But you knew that.
So did you, but, that didn't stop you from feigning ignorance of
that fact---necessitating my explaining how the psychopathic tribe of
nomads who fled Mesopotanian/Iraqi 4000 years ago, came to be known
as Judah, Judeans and Jews.
> >> > held mass meetings
> >> > in cities around the world to pressure Governments around the world
> >> > to collaborate with the socalled nation of Israel's Declaration of
> >> > {Unconventional} War on Germany by other financiers joining Jewish
> >> > financiers international boycott of German trade, finances and
> >> > Industry.
>
> >> Ah! You mean that Jews around the world exercised their rights of
> >> free speech and assembly to try to get governments to oppose Hitler.
> >> Not exactly a "declaration of war" as most people understand the
> >> term. But tell me, what are you agaist, Jews expressing themselves
> >> or anybody opposing Hitler? Or both?
>
> > Neither.
>
> > I object to your denying that Judea aka the world's Jewry declared War
> > on Germany on March 23/24 1933, despite the historical fact the world
> > jewry most definately did so, and, despite the historical fact it
> > was the entire world jewry who did so, as evidenced by their
> > Declaration of War on Germany being IMMEDIATELY followed up with mass
> > meetings of the World's Jewry in cities around the world to pressure
> > governments to collaborate with Judea's boycott and embargo German's
> > trade, finances and Industry to starve the German people to death
> > during the Great Depression.
>
> Again, there was no country called Judea in 1933.
So?
Descendants of the psychopathic tribe of Mesopotamian/Iraqi nomads
who had repeatedly invaded and occupied the southern Canaanite
territory known as Judah aka Judea, continued to occupy Judah aka
Judea in 1933, and they declared War on Germany in 1933 in exchange
for the British Empires making the Canaanite's and Palestinian's
territory a British Protectorate wherein the Canaanite's and
Palestinian's would be displaced from their territory so the
descendants of the psychopathic tribe of Mesopotamian/Iraqi nomads who
first invaded Canaan 4000 years ago could re-emigrate to the
Canaanite's and Palestinian's territory 4000 years later.
> Jews, the entirety of
> them or part of them, were incapable of declaring war on anybody in 1933.
Nonetheless, Judea did Declare War on Germany in 1933, in exchange
for the British Empire making the Canaanite's and Palestinian's
territory a British Protectorate wherein the Canaanite's and
Palestinian's would be displaced from their own territory so the
descendants of the psychopathic tribe of Mesopotamian/Iraqi nomads who
invaded Canaan and Palestine 4000 years ago could re-emigrate to the
Canaanite's and Palestinian's territory forever how long the
Canaanite's and Palestinian's territory remains a British
Protectorate.
> The German people didn't starve to death during the Great Depression.
The MASS STARVATION of the German people was particularly acute
throughout the embargo on Germany in 1918-1919 when 800,000 Germans
died in the street, 1919-1929 when massive numbers of Germans starved
to their death as a result of Germany being burdened with unfair war
reparations from WWI, 1929-1932, when massive numbers of Germans
starved in the streets on account of Wall Street's psychopathic Jewish
financiers calling in $2.9 billion dollars in short term loans to
Germany at a time when German Jews also owned 50% of all German
banks, and, then again in 1945-1950 when an estimated 5 million
Germans perished in the streets from starvation.
Deadrat
news:909aa9fa-d975-4792...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 11, 8:35�am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:31694f1f-a6b2-41d8-b96c-d7e97
> 99c...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
<snip/>
>>
>> No, it's your fault for being an ignoramus.
>
> Your denial of historical fact doesn't make me an ignoramus.
What generally makes someone an ignoramus is his or her ignorance. In
your case, it's Jew Fever.
Tribes aren't psychopathic, individuals are. And your psychopathy is
full blown.
Get help.
<snip/>
> Nothing will ever change until ALL the descendant's of the
> psychopathic tribe of Mesopotamian/Iraqi nomads are rendered to the
> Iraqi city of their origin, and, held accountable for any and all
> atrocities they avoided being prosecuted for by fleaing Mesopotamia/
> Iraq 4000 years ago, <snip/>
I've snipped most of your fact-free raving, but left this one for its
hysterical tone (and hysterically funny "fleaing") as well as the
illustration of another symptom of Jew Fever -- the belief that every Jew
is responsible for every other Jew. If you actually believe that any Jew
today is responsible for the supposed actions of *anybody* 4000 years
ago, then you need help.
>> �Hold onto your hat; there used to be a Holy Roman
>> Empire, too.
>
> When all is said and done, all a human being ever really owns is his
> or her story.
And you've got quite a story. Be careful it doesn't consume your life.
> Because no one's story begins with his or her self, but,
> encompasses the complete and unabridged story of their ancestors, as
> well, 'The past is never ever dead, it isn't even past' to
> paraphrase William Faulkner.
Why not quote him correctly? ""The past is never dead. It's not even
past." (from _Requiem for a Nun_.)
And apparently the meaning escapes you. For those who hold their traumas
dearer than anything, the past lives on to control them. Ironic, no?
How many Jews do you know from 4000 years ago? And yet they run your
life. Whatever trauma has caused this illness, get help.
<snip/>
Linda
> Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote innews:909aa9fa-d975-4792...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 11, 8:35 am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:31694f1f-a6b2-41d8-b96c-d7e97
>
> <snip/>
>
>
>
> >> No, it's your fault for being an ignoramus.
>
> > Your denial of historical fact doesn't make me an ignoramus.
>
> What generally makes someone an ignoramus is his or her ignorance.
That's rich coming from someone who was either ignorant or feigned
ignorance of the historical fact that "Judea Declared War on Germany"
on March 23/24, 1933.
> Tribes aren't psychopathic, individuals are.
Says you.
> I've snipped
....the factual history of the psychopathic tribe of Mesopotamian/
Iraqi nomads who been waging war against the rest of humanity for
4,000 years, again.
> >> Hold onto your hat; there used to be a Holy Roman
> >> Empire, too.
>
> > When all is said and done, all a human being ever really owns is his
> > or her story.
>
> And you've got quite a story. Be careful it doesn't consume your life.
Illogical/fallacy.
> > Because no one's story begins with his or her self, but,
> > encompasses the complete and unabridged story of their ancestors, as
> > well, 'The past is never ever dead, it isn't even past' to
> > paraphrase William Faulkner.
>
> Why not quote him correctly? ""The past is never dead. It's not even
> past." (from _Requiem for a Nun_.)
Because, unlike you, I'm honest; therefore, I inform readers when
I paraphrase the words of another.
> And apparently the meaning escapes you. For those who hold their traumas
> dearer than anything, the past lives on to control them.
lol!
If the Canaanites and Palestinians had held onto their traumas dearer
than anything, than, we, the inhabitants of planet earth would have
a zillion copies of the Canaanite's and Palestinian's traumatic
history consequent to the psychopathic tribe of Mesopotamian/Iraqi
nomads repetitious invasion and occupation of the Canaanite's and
Palestinian's territory these last 4,000 years.
But, we don't.
What, we, the inhabitants of planet earth, do have, is a zillion
copies of the transgressors history of their repeated invasion and
occupation of the Canaanite's and Palestinian's territory, and
elsewhere, these last 4,000 years.
This is so because the crimes/sins of one's father and forefathers
have a deleterious impact upon all their descendants, while the
transgressors traumatization of one's forefathers and father does not.
> How many Jews do you know from 4000 years ago?
Baiting me to elicit personal information bout my age and associates,
eh?
:-)
And yet they run your
> life.
Not unless you're privy to information about the actual identities of
"certain parties" which I'm not.
Deadrat
news:884143a5-203b-4cc9...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 15, 11:00�am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:909aa9fa-d975-4792-bc24-a6305
> 072...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Nov 11, 8:35�am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> >> Linda <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote
>> >> innews:31694f1f-a6b2-41d8-b96c-d7e97
>> > 99c3...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> No, it's your fault for being an ignoramus.
>>
>> > Your denial of historical fact doesn't make me an ignoramus.
>>
>> What generally makes someone an ignoramus is his or her ignorance.
>
> That's rich coming from someone who was either ignorant or feigned
> ignorance of the historical fact that "Judea Declared War on Germany"
> on March 23/24, 1933.
This "historical fact" that didn't take place? Point me to a declaration
of war, not a newspaper headline.
>> Tribes aren't psychopathic, individuals are.
> Says you.
Yep. And most sane, ethical people.
>> I've snipped
>
> ....the factual history of the psychopathic tribe of Mesopotamian/
> Iraqi nomads who been waging war against the rest of humanity for
> 4,000 years, again.
What kind of "factual history" do you have from 4000 years ago?
>> >> �Hold onto your hat; there used to be a Holy Roman
>> >> Empire, too.
>>
>> > When all is said and done, �all a human being ever really owns is
>> > his or her story.
>>
>> And you've got quite a story. �Be careful it doesn't consume your
>> life.
>
> Illogical/fallacy.
It hasn't consumed your life?
>> > Because no one's story begins with his or her self, � but,
>> > encompasses the complete and unabridged story of �their ancestors,
> �as
>> > well, � 'The past is never ever dead, �it isn't even past' to
>> > paraphrase William Faulkner.
>>
>> Why not quote him correctly? �""The past is never dead. It's not even
>> past." (from _Requiem for a Nun_.)
>
> Because, unlike you, I'm honest;
Honestly insane, maybe.
> therefore, I inform readers when I paraphrase the words of another.
And apparently too lazy to get the quote right. But then you don't get
much right, do you?
>> And apparently the meaning escapes you. �For those who hold their
>> traumas dearer than anything, the past lives on to control them.
>
> lol!
>
> If the Canaanites and Palestinians had held onto their traumas dearer
> than anything, than, we, the inhabitants of planet earth would have
> a zillion copies of the Canaanite's and Palestinian's traumatic
> history consequent to the psychopathic tribe of Mesopotamian/Iraqi
> nomads repetitious invasion and occupation of the Canaanite's and
> Palestinian's territory these last 4,000 years.
>
> But, we don't.
What dressing would you like with your word salad?
> What, we, the inhabitants of planet earth, do have, is a zillion
> copies of the transgressors history of their repeated invasion and
> occupation of the Canaanite's and Palestinian's territory, and
> elsewhere, these last 4,000 years.
A whole *zillion*? Over 4000 years? Why, that almost six gadzillion per
month!
> This is so because the crimes/sins of one's father and forefathers
> have a deleterious impact upon all their descendants, while the
> transgressors traumatization of one's forefathers and father does not.
Says you.
Guilt by association and taint of blood. Nice goin', nutjob.
>> How many Jews do you know from 4000 years ago?
>
> Baiting me to elicit personal information bout my age and associates,
> eh?
>
>:-)
Ah, an emoticon! They apparently have them on your planet. Interesting.
>>�And yet they run your life. �
>
> Not unless you're privy to information about the actual identities of
> "certain parties" which I'm not.
And yet, here you are, obsessing about Caananites from 4000 years ago.
Admit it, it *is* your life.
Get help.