XPost: alt.revisionism, alt.conspiracy, alt.law-enforcement   
   From: roger@   
      
   In one age, called the Second Age by some,   
      (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)   
         someone claiming to be Seneca wrote   
            in message   
   :   
      
   >"Roger"  wrote in message   
   >news:702b450af6f3b343350614a9b7289fbc@news.teranews.com...   
      
     [ . . . ]   
      
   >> >> >>      
      
   >> >> >> Or would you like to try to make the case that any of those links   
   >> >> >> which do not simply quote the term are *not* of an anti-semitic   
   >> >> >> nature?  Any of them at all?   
      
   >> >> >There are 50,700 of 'em, Roger. Go ahead and check 'em all yourself   
   >> >> >and tell me what you think.   
      
   >> >> Find *one* that uses it, not as a quote, which is *not* demonstrably   
   >> >> anti-semetic.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Just *one*.   
      
   >> >How about some Jewish sites?   
      
   >> How about what I asked:  Find *one* of these 50K sites that uses the   
   >> term "Kosher tax (not as a quote) which is *not* demonstrably   
   >> anti-semetic.   
   >>   
   >> Just *one*.   
      
   >How about some Jewish sites? Yes or no?   
      
   If you can't find one of those sites that is not anti-semitic, it's   
   okay to admit it.   
      
   Of course, then you'd also have to admit your having brought that   
   Google search up to begin with was a rather lame attempt to excuse   
   your use of the term as less than anti-semetic, but you're the only   
   one labouring under the impression that you have fooled anyone into   
   thinking you're not.   
      
   >> >> >One thing is certain: the term is commonly used and those who use it   
   >> >> >(or, like yourself, read it) understand perfectly well what it means.   
      
   >> >> Yes, it means anti-semites will use any smear against those they hate,   
   >> >> regardless of any notion of the truth, and by and large are fairly   
   >> >> unimaginative, preferring instead to parrot what others have said as   
   >> >> long as it justifies their hatred.   
      
   >> >So where's the "hate" part?   
      
   >> The attempted use of distorted term in order to imply coercion in a   
   >> simple business transaction the likes of which take place hundreds of   
   >> times in a given product cycle -- but only when da Jooos are involved.   
      
   >Only da Jooos do this. The kosher tax has no real analogue with anything   
   >done by any other religion or ethnic group, as far as I know.   
      
   Proven wrong by the halal folks, and irrelevant to the fact that it is   
   a business service, the same as offered by a multitude of other   
   organizations, who don't happen to be specifically Jooish and   
   therefore of major concern to "mark."   
      
   >> It is this singling out of a specific group (most of which don't even   
   >> have anything to do with the service offered and paid for to begin   
   >> with) that exposes a pre-occupation with the group so isolated.   
   >>   
   >> Further examination of other statements made by (or rather, lies and   
   >> distortions parroted by for the most part) such people indicates that   
   >> such preoccupation is do to an irrational hatred of that target group.   
      
   >Which "irrational hatred" you cannot seem to bring yourself to produce   
   >useful examples of, despite my repeated requests that you do so. The fact   
   >that you see cogent observations as "irrational hatred" has to do with your   
   >prejudices and paranoia, and nothing to do with me.   
      
   WHy should I duplicate the fine job done by Gord?   
      
   >> >> >> >All the "irrational hatred" seems to be coming from your side of   
   >> >> >> >the debate.   
   >> >> >> >Anyone who disputes or even questions something presented as   
   >> >> >> >historical   
   >> >> >> >fact, but for which there is no physical evidence and no logical   
   >> >> >> >reason, you call an "anti-Semite."   
      
   >> >> >> Lie, given the mountains of evidence for the historical fact of the   
   >> >> >> Holocaust.   
      
   >> >> >What has that to do with me?   
      
   >> >> "Anyone who disputes or even questions something presented as   
   >> >> historical fact, but for which there is no physical evidence and no   
   >> >> logical reason, you call an 'anti-Semite.'"   
   >> >>   
   >> >> To what historical fact do you refer as having no evidence or reason,   
   >> >> if not the Holocaust?   
      
   >> >Are you claiming I don't believe in the so-called Holocaust?   
      
   >> Answer my question:  To what historical fact do you refer as having no   
   >> evidence or reason, if not the Holocaust?   
      
   >The alleged "murder of six million Jews," supposedly by gas chamber for the   
   >most part. It's nonsensical.   
      
   No, it is neither non-sensical, nor unsupported by physical evidence.   
      
   You know this and you lie about it anyway, which is what makes you a   
   denier, and serves as a good example of you expressing your   
   anti-semitism.   
      
   >> >> >>>> And why must you lie to justify your hatred?   
      
   >> >> >Why must you always characterize any viewpoint that differs from your   
   >> >> >own as "hatred"?   
      
   >> >> I demonstrably don't.   
      
   >> >You do, over and over. You seem to believe that calling an accurate   
   >> >observation "hatred" will in some magical way nullify it. It doesn't.   
      
   >> And yet you cannot document a *single* such "accurate statement"   
   >> which I have characterized as hatred.   
      
   Nor does "mark" even try.   
      
   >> >> >I don't hate anyone connected with this issue, individually or   
   >> >> >collectively.   
      
   >> >> Demonstrably false.   
      
   >> >Point out the "hate" part, then. Any "hate" part at all.   
      
   >> Gord has already done so.   
      
   >McFeeble has produced a long list of comments taken out of context, which   
   >for the most part I enjoyed reading again.   
      
   And yet you do not supply any context which makes them any less   
   hateful.   
      
   >What he has *not* done is shown   
   >any "hate" in any of them, and if you think you can I invite you to do so.   
      
   The hate is obvious to anyone not delusional enough to think that   
   "Nickel Nose" is a term of endearment and realize the hatefulness of   
   the stereotypes of Jews as big-nosed and greedy.   
      
   >Why is this so difficult for you? Simply choose what you think is the VERY   
   >WORST of my comments, and explain to me why any part of it contains any   
   >"hate."   
      
   That you deny the murders of millions of people in the gas chambers,   
   in the face of a mountain of evidence supporting that historical fact,   
   solely because the victims involved were, by and large, Jews.   
      
   >> >> >I merely comment on, and criticize where necessary, those   
   >> >> >things that require commentary or criticism.   
      
   >> >> "... with no concern as to whether my commentary or criticism is based   
   >> >> on anything but my hatred, as my continual referral to a normal   
   >> >> business transaction involving a service contracted for by the buyer   
   >> >> and offered by the seller as a "tax," and attempts to differentiate it   
   >> >> from other such services on the sole criteria that Jooos are involved   
   >> >> amply demonstrates."   
      
   >> >What's that supposed to be a quote from?   
      
   >> That is the part of your statement that you have left unsaid, as   
   >> demonstrated by your own posts.  The most recent example being   
   >> enumerated above.   
      
   >Ah. So what you've foisted off as a quotation is really no quote at all, but   
   >yet another fiction of your own invention. This is pretty much par for the   
   >course for you, isn't it?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)