Bob, I haven't much time this morning either. School to catch up to, guests in town this weekend, and yes, more football tomorrow/Monday, if I'm lucky - so I'm going to try to dispose of this as quickly as possible:
On RJ Clawson's Non-Jumping-Ugly on Stephen Foot:
My actual post says:
You guys jumped ugly on...
My post says this several paragraphs after the point where I mentioned you, Kevin, myself, and Lo specifically, in regards to the entirely different subject of pending discussions.
Where I learned to speak and write English, beginning a new thought or case is a function of paragraph breaks.
To clarify, since we did not all learn the same rule:
You guys means anybody who personally went after Foot. "by extention
we guys" means that I personally did not do so, but included myself because I know I've been seen as uncivil, which, if true, lowered the level of debate. I stipulate to this being true, so we can all become more civil and move on. This is, in fact, just what it purports to be -- a general urging not to attack Foot on sight, and a plea for general civility,
not a personal slight against R.J. Clawson.
Any who are able to read the post urging civility, as a personal urging to RJ Clawson in particular, are way, way off the mark in that reading.
As regards my "chasing off" of Gail White:
Contrary to the notion I "chased off" this individual, in the sole post I recall directing toward Gail White, I told her that she had good points; she had in fact made half of
my point for me, to wit, her point that Israel should be judged by the standard of other nations.
I then went on to make points regarding "detractors" [of Israel,] again, doing this in a separate paragraph, and not identifying Gail as a detractor of Israel either implicitly or explicitly.
As regards my personal use of "Nazi"
I really have to look back for longer than I have right now, to see if I ever claimed knowledge that you or others here are members of Nazi parties.
I did, however, make the charge of anti-Semitism against those who insist Jews be evaluated differently from non-Jews, or that a Jewish state should not use Jewish symbols, while Christian and Muslim states should, use Christian and Muslim symbols, etc. This was, of course, in reply to people who made anti-Semitic cases. You,
Bob Clawson, decided to identify
yourself as an anti-Semite, and apparently you see nothing wrong with that. To wit:
Quote:
I've decided that I'm antisemitic. I think the Jews and Arabs are acting like lunatics.
A few days back, on NPR, I heard an Israeli say that his country's response was not over the top. He felt that Israel had to show its enemies that it wouldn't be perceived as weak and vulnerable, that its reaction to any incursion would be robust retaliation.
Could anyone in the Middle East not have already known this? Isreal has launched enough robust retaliations in the past half century to make its point. Do the Arabs not get it?
Given that history, must the point be made again? Where's it getting them? The Arabs prick the Jews. The Jews hammer them. So, the Arabs lie low for a while, build force and nerve, then prick the Jews. The Jews hammer them.
It's a Punch and Judy show. Dumb Semites.
|
From the looks of things, I believe you think that including
both Arabs and Jews among the targets of your anti-Semitism somehow lessens the import of making such a statement.
I remind you of this proclamation to help you sort out why people call you anti-Semitic. As to your membership in any Nazi party, you will need to clarify that for us; all I can clarify is that I have no knowledge of your membership in such a party, only that I know you to agree with many of the founding principals of the original Nazi party, and several subsequently formed neo-Nazi groups. Although all Nazis are anti-Semites, however, all anti-Semites are not Nazis, and if I have actually specified your membership in one or another such party erroneously based on your anti-Semitism, I deeply regret the overgeneralization.
Thanks,
Dan