Customer Discussions > History forum

A Place for the Pro-Israeli Propaganda

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 10:28:12 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
Now I'm curious, Jezzie. What was it you wanted to tell me?

I'll stand by for a few minutes.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 11:00:56 PM PDT
Jezzie,

Perhaps we started off on the wrong foot. Perhaps you don't believe that Lily White, Bookish, Charles Jannuzi and desertwriter aren't antisemites because of how you define antisemitism. Please tell me, what is the definition of 'antisemitism' as you understand it?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 11:39:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 28, 2012 11:53:01 PM PDT
Jezzie,

Whether you realize it or not, you've been very dishonest and deceptive. By questioning on the first page of this thread my assertion that Bookish is an antisemite, you implied that you wanted to see evidence to prove it and would readily admit Bookish was an antisemite if I provided such evidence. By questioning the evidence of Bookish's antisemitism that I provided on the first page of this thread you implied that you were willing to discuss the evidence, willing to discuss all of it, willing to discuss it until the dispute was resolved and would readily admit that Bookish is an antisemite once I had sufficiently explained all the evidence.

You've been very dishonest by refusing to do this. If someone here says that a given poster is an antisemite then you don't have to say anything about it. But if you choose to announce a challenge to that claim then you should be willing to provide facts and arguments to support your position and address the facts and arguments provided in support of the allegation of antisemitism. Otherwise, your denial of a given poster's antisemitism is meaningless and won't be taken seriously by anyone who reads it.

If you're not willing to make a serious argument in favor of your denial then the polite thing to do when you first make the denial is to inform the person making the charge that you're unwilling to discuss the matter. You should let the person making the charge know your denial is only an expression of affection for the alleged antisemite and of your mere wish for the charge to not be true, regardless of the facts. Let the person know that you have absolutely no desire to objectively determine the truth of the charge. Make sure they know you don't care at all about the truth. That way, the person making the charge of antisemitism will know it isn't worth taking the time and effort to find and explain the proof that the given poster is antisemitic and won't get upset because you, defying his expectations, ignored the evidence and refused to address it.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 1:39:05 AM PDT
Jezzie,

You know what people do when someone else has proven something and they don't want to admit it? They claim that they didn't prove it and that they're boring and tell them to get a life. There couldn't possibly be a more obvious way for you to show that you know I'm right about Lily White, Bookish, desertwriter and Charles Jannuzi being antisemites. People are going to start pointing to your denials of any given thing as indisputable evidence that what you're denying is true.

Posted on Mar 29, 2012 12:18:40 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 29, 2012 12:43:39 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 29, 2012 12:49:53 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 29, 2012 12:52:14 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 1:13:58 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
I'm curious, Lawrence A. Dickerson. Do you read any of the stuff you post?

If so, may I ask what you think it proves?

Posted on Mar 29, 2012 1:18:44 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 29, 2012 1:40:05 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 29, 2012 2:00:16 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Mar 29, 2012 2:09:32 PM PDT]

Posted on Mar 29, 2012 2:02:08 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 2:07:29 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
I've seen better Nazis than Dickerson, Yo. The real old-time, Hitler-era Nazis didn't bother to tap dance around their hatred of Jews the way Dickerson tries to do.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 2:45:48 PM PDT
This post would be a good counterpoint if some Jewish zealot were attacking the Catholic Church on the basis of pedophile priests. But, in what way can you claim that this is pro-Israeli propaganda, or anti-Israeli propaganda? The only nexus with Israel is that the pedophile fled to Israel and Israel refused to extradite him.

If you would have addressed why Israel doesn't extradite child-molesting clergy, you might have held my interest. But, C&P appears to be the extent of your talent, and identifying whether an article speaks ill of Jews the extent of your "insight." This is becoming tedious, and I usually have a fairly high threshold for tedium.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 2:47:49 PM PDT
Good for Israel!

Posted on Mar 29, 2012 3:50:24 PM PDT
John, it is likely that you are wrong if you assume that L.A.D. must be older than me. What amuses me is the way he is attacked without having done more than post an article.

I suspect that if he posted a "pro-Israeli" article, he would be attacked because you and yours don't even bother to look at them.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 4:54:33 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
Hello left coaster,

I look at the articles he posts every now and then. I suspect I read them more closely than he does.

By the way, who do you classify as "me and mine" to paraphrase your last post?

Posted on Mar 29, 2012 5:00:52 PM PDT
>>By the way, who do you classify as "me and mine" to paraphrase your last post? <<

You and the usual suspects. You know what I meant. You're still playing semantics. You expect me to say..... what? Surely you all know who you are.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 5:08:23 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
Hello left coaster,

I'm not "playing semantics" or anything else. Words mean things, or haven't you noticed that?

I know who I am. I'm the guy who's not hiding behind a fake avatar and a lot of invidious rhetoric.

Who are you?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 5:25:02 PM PDT
William B says:
Ah, John, invidious... It's a marvelous adjective, rarely used but in this case perfectly applied.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 5:25:31 PM PDT
Who are you? <<

I'm the guy who already refused to play the game.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 5:28:07 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
Thanks William B. It's a great word, one of my faves. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 5:29:11 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
Games are all you have, left coaster. Of course if you can't win, you might as well take your checkerboard and go home.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 5:38:17 PM PDT
William B says:
Better be careful, John, lefty is a graduate of the UNLOCK Your Mind and be FREE! school and is totally free from his "inner prison"! ROTFL
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  59
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Mar 24, 2012
Latest post:  Oct 24, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions