On Oct 9, 3:29 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
> On 9 Oct, 07:50, Planet Visitor II  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:44:41 -0700 (PDT), john....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >On 5 Oct, 08:25, Planet Visitor II  wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:59:22 -0700 (PDT), john....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >On 3 Oct, 08:14, Planet Visitor II  wrote:
> > >> >> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 12:51:05 -0700 (PDT), john....@gmail.com wrote> > >> >> >On 1 Oct, 17:43, David Johnston  wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 07:48:19 -0700 (PDT), john....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> >On 30 Sep, 21:51, Ariadne  wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >> The trouble is that what you call facts - aren't.
> > >> >> >> >> Likewise, plausible hypotheses. These also have
> > >> >> >> >> to be based on facts.
>
> > >> >> >> >Lets take this then, a simple question. Given that the Jews have some
> > >> >> >> >power in the world, which you must assume they do if they are able to
> > >> >> >> >to good as Jews, do you think it is  possible, that they might use
> > >> >> >> >this power to do harm? I would hope for a yes or no answer.
>
> > >> >> >> Yes.  Everyone has the power to do harm.  Why is the Jewish power to
> > >> >> >> do harm of particular concern to you?  
>
> > >> >> >I am trying to unravel a mass of dishonest argumentation that appears
> > >> >> >to surround this subject.
>
> > >> >> Actually you're trying to USE dishonest argumentation about this
> > >> >> subject.  You insist you support anti-Semitism,
>
> > >> >I do that because people here keep telling me that that Is what I have
> > >> >been doing.
>
> > >> Let me get this straight.  You use dishonest argumentation because
> > >> people tell you that is what you are doing????  My word... talk about
> > >> motivation.
>
> > >> > Therefore I have to understand the world in terms of what
> > >> >I actually do support.
>
> > >> But we've already determined that.  You have stated you support
> > >> anti-Semitism.  You can't possibly believe you can make up your own
> > >> definition of that word in violation of the English language.  So the
> > >> rest of your argument with everyone has been your effort to justify
> > >> that support for anti-Semitism through imaginary "personal
> > >> experience"(that you insist isn't "personal).
>
> > >I am told that my mild and moderate criticisms amount to antisemitism,
> > >ie 'theories directed against the Jews', as you put it.
>
> > It has been neither "mild" nor "moderate," my boy.
>
> Very reasonable, though, surely?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I don't really care what you want to call them.
>
> > Please don't belabor the obvious.  Since I really don't care just how
> > much you hate the Jews because of a "personal experience."  With your
> > admitted background I was quite aware that you don't care what anyone
> > says about your support for "theory, action, and practices against the
> > Jews."
>
> > > If that is all it takes to be an
> > >antisemite, then so be it. There is a certain looseness in
> > >interpreting certain words, as you ought ot know. It is hard to get
> > >this into your head, of course.
>
> > There is no looseness to your admission that you find nothing wrong
> > with both your support for anti-Semitism, and the definition of
> > anti-Semitism.  In both cases there is no possibility of any "gray
> > area."
>
> > 1) You admit to support for anti-Semitism,meaning you are not
> > equivocating.  It is a black and white issue, you either ARE or ARE
> > NOT in support of anti-Semitism, and 2) the definition of
> > anti-Semitism is unequivocal, and clearly expressed in the most
> > definitive dictionary of the English language available, the Oxford
> > English Dictionary.  Again, there is no gray area to claim the
> > definition is not a black and white issue.  It fits you like a glove,
> > and not the one given to OJ, but one exactly your size.
>
> Does fair and mild criticism amount to theory directed against the
> Jews? If so it is antisemitic,  if not not. It is not a question of
> gray areas, but of interpretation. If it is then antisemitism is not
> necessarily wrong.