Natanyahu Lowers the Boom

[Wolf DeVoon]

So Wolf...

Do you believe that you can do what's morally wrong

without getting exactly what you deserve

as the consequences of your own actions?

Greg

It's time for Hitler: If Hitler got what he deserved for what he did he got it, and is still getting it, in hell. Chewing on a rug at the end and putting a bullet into his head needs to be repeated about 100 million times, then repeat to be sure, then repeat again and again and again. Something like that, with variations.

--Brant

Life after death? Eternal punishment?

[moralist]

William,

Let me interrupt...

Wow... insight right down to the bottom of the waters. That's beautiful, man.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

So Wolf...

Do you believe that you can do what's morally wrong

without getting exactly what you deserve

as the consequences of your own actions?

Greg

It's time for Hitler: If Hitler got what he deserved for what he did he got it, and is still getting it, in hell. Chewing on a rug at the end and putting a bullet into his head needs to be repeated about 100 million times, then repeat to be sure, then repeat again and again and again. Something like that, with variations.

--Brant

Life after death? Eternal punishment?

When I lived for a while with my grandparents in Ohio as a young boy, I greatly enjoyed the Sunday comic that took up the first page of the colored comics' section showing torments in hell from a humorous angle. Unfortunately, the comics have now gone to hell too and I only read Dilbert.

--Brant

heaven and hell is all on this earth in this life--there has been no adduced evidence to the contrary

[william.scherk]

I will take another opportunity to state that my comment should not have been posted , it was wrong and I do see how a comment like would most certainly have bothered me if someone made such a blanket statement . It will not happen again .

Thank you, Marc.

[Jules Troy]

? see that's what I like about this site, people by and large do have differences but more often than not are really nice to one another.

[moralist]

heaven and hell is all on this earth in this life--

Yikes... something on which we are both in agreement.

You've been warned... don't let it happen again.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

heaven and hell is all on this earth in this life--

Yikes... something on which we are both in agreement.

You've been warned... don't let it happen again.

Greg

Actually, we've always agreed about 83% of the time. The problem is you repeat the stuff I don't agree with so many times it appears that we agree only 17%.

Oh, I deleted all my ignores as they are no longer necessary as I've calmed down enough not to keep banging my head against the wall--I'm thinking of taking up defenestration instead.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

I'm thinking of taking up defenestration

-- Bastiat's broken window fallacy?

de·fen·es·tra·tion

dēˌfenəˈstrāSHən

noun: defenestration; plural noun: defenestrations

1.

formal humorous

the action of throwing someone or something out of a window.

"death by defenestration has a venerable history"

2.

informal

the action of dismissing someone from a position of power or authority.

"that victory resulted in Churchill's own defenestration by the war-weary British electorate"

[Marc]

The real issue though is when hatred comes out in the media, or via threads like this. Hatred against the Jews for whatever reasons people have.

I have seen this numerous times on this thread ... ( 3-4 folks ) simply have a better vocabulary and are able to run ridiculous circular arguments.

Never good to make veiled accusations. Man up. Who hates the Jews?

I think that my issue is with the media and how they have covered Israel over the years . Using this cartoon as an example . I do not like 2 things . I detest when the media or anyone sarcastically writes ( not saying the author of the post , but the media ) about Islam being " the religion of peace " . Out of all the Muslims in the world , obviously it is the interpretation of the Koran that leads to peace or violence . Muslims , like Christians , Jews , , Bhuddists , etc are people who want what we all want . To live , be with family , eat , be safe , etc . Humans are all the same . When the self appointed leaders of these folks do not allow them to vote , and force them to do whatever such as throw rocks or blow themselves up , or rape young girls then sell them then murder them - well , it is the leaders and where they live . I think it is the small majority of all religions .

This cartoon though has 6 boxes , and I see the world media focused not at all on Isis and Boko Haram .

My concern is about the UN , and the media not focusing on them as much as Israel .

ISIS is systematically gang raping , selling and murdering children yet Israel is front and centre day after day .

Why ?

Honsestly , why ?

Media are controlled by left-wing scalawag liberals, here and in Europe.

--Brant

Makes sense, thanks

[Jules Troy]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/08/374533/scotlands-glasgow-flies-palestine-flag/

Europe is fucked, Scotland has no William Wallace's to fight Islam..

[Brant Gaede]

I'm thinking of taking up defenestration

-- Bastiat's broken window fallacy?

de·fen·es·tra·tion

dēˌfenəˈstrāSHən

noun: defenestration; plural noun: defenestrations

1.

formal humorous

the action of throwing someone or something out of a window.

"death by defenestration has a venerable history"

2.

informal

the action of dismissing someone from a position of power or authority.

"that victory resulted in Churchill's own defenestration by the war-weary British electorate"

Throwing people on OL who don't agree with me out the window.

--Brant

speaking metamorphically, of course

[Selene]

Brant:

Oh, I deleted all my ignores as they are no longer necessary as I've calmed down enough not to keep banging my head against the wall--I'm thinking of taking up defenestration instead.

--Brant

When you posted "defenestration," my immediate thought was "fenestration" from my days at the Animal Medical Center..:

fen·es·tra·tion (fen'ĕs-trā'shŭn)

1. The presence of openings or fenestrae in a part.

2. Making openings in a dressing to allow inspection of the parts.

3. dentistry A surgical perforation of the mucoperiosteum and alveolar process to expose the root tip of a tooth to permit drainage of tissue exudate.

4. surgery An opening created to gain access to the cavity within an organ or a bone.

[L. fenestra, window]

Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012

This was one of the optimal ways to restore mobility to a Dachshund from the calcified spinal disc.

Then they would be placed with their hind legs in a cupped u-shaped set of wheels and they would be zipping down the hallways in no time.

That matches Wolf's reference in terms of the Latin fenestra - "window."

So you are going to close "holes," in your perimeter?

A...

Post Script:

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Throwing people on OL who don't agree with me out the window.

--Brant

speaking metamorphically, of course

Brant,

So if people out the window don't agree with you, you throw them on OL?

I'm confused...

Michael

[Marc]

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/08/11/op-ed-want-proportionality-give-israel-22-countries/

A really great article

[anthony]

This cartoon though has 6 boxes , and I see the world media focused not at all on Isis and Boko Haram .

My concern is about the UN , and the media not focusing on them as much as Israel .

ISIS is systematically gang raping , selling and murdering children yet Israel is front and centre day after day .

Why ?

Honsestly , why ?

Marc, that's THE question. I have my suspicions, but still (after all these years) cannot rightly say. The leftist media's bias is partly responsible, but still they only are feeding an existing demand. The new Left in Europe is doing what they know best to do: secular and cynical, they have 'causes' - far less, strongly individualist convictions. The more public the display of the major side of any cause, the better. It identifies one with the morality of the group and that is of course the morality of a self-righteous collectivism. Groups do have one conviction, the sanctity of numbers. Their religion is Social Democracy. Jews will never be great in numbers, and despite always boxing above their weight, have also always endured -even tried to comprehend- anti-Judaism without resorting to returning the hatred - or revenge. By not admitting everybody into the country of Israel, they also flout 'Democracy', proclaiming their self-determination. Basically the Left then are cowards, I think, seeking easy targets. Not for them angry demonstrations or vile verbal outpourings upon militant Islamicists. Them, they appease with their eery and incomprehensible silence so far in the face of what is ISIS' most savage of all savagery. We also hate Israel, they essentially are bleating, please leave us be. You get right down to it, Israel is the individualist amongst almost entirely collectivist nations. A nagging reminder of what one can be. Who can forgive that (even partial) striving to excellence?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are a couple of gems to liven up the Islamist Fundamentalist Funhouse:

Hamas said to have executed dozens of tunnel diggers
by Marissa Newman
August 11, 2014
The Times of Israel

From the article:

Hamas executed dozens of diggers responsible for its extensive tunnel system in past weeks, fearing the workers would reveal the site locations to Israel, a report on the Mako website’s army blog said.

There was no independent confirmation of the report (link here in Hebrew).

The tunnelers, many of whom constructed the tunnels over the course of months, would dig for 8-12 hours a day, and received a monthly wage of $150-$300, according to the blog.

Sources in Gaza told the website that Hamas took a series of precautions to prevent information from reaching Israel. The terror organization would reportedly blindfold the excavators en route to the sites and back, to prevent them from recognizing the locations. The tunnels were strictly supervised by Hamas members, and civilians were kept far from the sites.

M., a former tunnel digger and Israeli collaborator, told the website that...

. . .

“Anyone they suspected might transfer information to Israel on the tunnels was killed by the military wing,” a different source said. “They were very cruel.”

In 2012, a Journal of Palestine Studies article claimed 160 Palestinian children were killed while working on Hamas’s tunnel system.

That's Hamas in Gaza.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Ooops! Isis suicide bombing instructor blows up his own class by accident

(I could not get the link to work to the Belfast Telegraph, where the the original article is, because the server is melting right now from the deluge of traffic. So I chose the first curated thing that came up on a Google search. Original article here.)

From the article:

An Isis commander at a terrorist training camp north of Baghdad accidentally detonated a belt packed with explosives during a demonstration in front of a group militants on Monday, killing himself and 21 nearby trainees.

The accident was a source of dark humour for locals, with suicide attacks in public spaces having become an almost daily occurrence in Iraq.

I want to say something clever, but I'll just let these two articles speak for themselves. They are hard acts to follow...

Michael

[Marc]

This cartoon though has 6 boxes , and I see the world media focused not at all on Isis and Boko Haram .

My concern is about the UN , and the media not focusing on them as much as Israel .

ISIS is systematically gang raping , selling and murdering children yet Israel is front and centre day after day .

Why ?

Honsestly , why ?

Marc, that's THE question. I have my suspicions, but still (after all these years) cannot rightly say. The leftist media's bias is partly responsible, but still they only are feeding an existing demand. The new Left in Europe is doing what they know best to do: secular and cynical, they have 'causes' - far less, strongly individualist convictions. The more public the display of the major side of any cause, the better. It identifies one with the morality of the group and that is of course the morality of a self-righteous collectivism. Groups do have one conviction, the sanctity of numbers. Their religion is Social Democracy. Jews will never be great in numbers, and despite always boxing above their weight, have also always endured -even tried to comprehend- anti-Judaism without resorting to returning the hatred - or revenge. By not admitting everybody into the country of Israel, they also flout 'Democracy', proclaiming their self-determination. Basically the Left then are cowards, I think, seeking easy targets. Not for them angry demonstrations or vile verbal outpourings upon militant Islamicists. Them, they appease with their eery and incomprehensible silence so far in the face of what is ISIS' most savage of all savagery. We also hate Israel, they essentially are bleating, please leave us be. You get right down to it, Israel is the individualist amongst almost entirely collectivist nations. A nagging reminder of what one can be. Who can forgive that (even partial) striving to excellence?

Thanks for the input . I will add that the article I just posted touches this point really well

[william.scherk]

Michael, thank you for the effort at calming waters I have roiled and for assuring me I am a good man speaking in good faith. You took the time to develop and lay out your argument, so I feel bound to reply in detail. This post will probably exhaust my interest in all the issues raised here over the last couple of days.**

Marc has graciously noted his comment was wrong, so the rest of my angry self-righteous rant may be safely surfed on by none but extreme WSS fans.

That being said , I will take another opportunity to state that my comment should not have been posted , it was wrong and I do see how a comment like would most certainly have bothered me if someone made such a blanket statement . It will not happen again .

I know how rhetorical games are played since I run a forum. And I know how easily this "name names" turns into bullying and howls of victimization. Note, I am not saying you do this (others do it), but when passions flare, it is extremely easy to fall into the trap of the double standard without realizing it. My intent is bring this point into relief.

I do not agree that asking for "naming names" is bullying. If I pointedly assert that some folks in this thread use word games and deception to hide a throbbing Hatred for the Muslims in their hearts, then anyone is well within his rights to ask "who are you talking about, please, William?"

If I then retort that the Muslim-Hating is obvious, that you need to do your homework, it is quite fair to challenge me with smearing unnamed people. Let's say I meant that Jason, Malcolm and John were Muslim-hating ... by not naming them explicitly the charges get spread over the commentariat. Joseph, Malcolm and John are not able to defend themselves against the charge.

After reading everything Marc wrote in this thread (I presume you did), here is what you wrote. I will only quote the end even though you repeated the essence of this meaning several times in your post, as self-righteous anger is wont to lead one to do.

It maintains the existing slur of Jew Hate over everyone who contributed comments, and it shows contempt for inquiry. In other words, you insult not only your readers but also Reason.

That's a lot of insulting and contempt you are attributing to Marc. Not just everyone on this thread and the readers, but both Inquiry and Reason in their anthropomorphic states.

You are reiterating my point. I argued in one post that Marc should identify those people in this thread that he had accused of hatred of the Jews. In my opinion It was reasonable to ask him to name the miscreants.

But maybe you missed the following comment?

No, it struck me as not germane to my questions.

If my " 3 or 4 folks " comment offended anyone , or everyone , I really do apologize though .

The man apologized.

Where are your manners? Don't you accept an apology when it is proffered?

I was curious to find out who were the three or four OLers who raised Marc's ire. That apology gave no clue -- and he had not retracted his claim at my writing. To "manners," I could argue that Marc had been guilty of 'bad manners' in not naming the miscreants -- his own retraction suggests that would be right.

I certainly didn't see you mention this. All I saw was you trying to nail his ass

I can almost hear you think, gimme a break. That was not an apology to be taken seriously.

That line of apology did not retract the charge and so answer my objection. The apologies alone, moreover, told us just that he was sorry for offence taken. Preceding his apology was this repeat of the charges:

I just scanned through my posts over the 27 pages of this thread and it is very obvious where the dishonest gambits are . I am not going to start a flame war here and repost the issues that are incorrect . When I or someone else jumped in and attempted to correct said posts , these 3 or 4 posters simply never responded to the historical facts . They either moved on , or started to play word games . I respect MSK too much to go over 27 pages and start to repost stuff that is there for folks to check if anyone desires to see what points have been made . Again , I ask you to do your homework and not tell me to check the pages just to repost everything here and get certain folks upset . I stated the truth, believe it or deny it

I can pick this thing to death if need be, but those words do not change. Based on those words and the fact you ignored them in your self-righteous anger, I could start slinging accusations against you for cherry-picking passages, claiming this represents all kinds of evil intents on your part, dishonesty, yada yada yada, but I don't like that kind of thing. (To me, this gotcha form of attributing motives to people that they don't actually believe is nothing more than discursive masturbation in public. It's not even good propaganda. All that crap does is bore readers and discredit the authors, that is after the charm of the food-fight wears off.)

I spent the time reviewing the thread, since Marc had not at time of writing either retracted or named the Jew Haters. I now believe that Marc meant a number of these people: George H Smith, Brant Gaede, Stephen Boydstun, Krell , Samson Corwell ... Marc singled out only George and Brant for 'word games' so I can't guess who is the third and fourth Jew Hater.

So, as to "attributing motives to people that they don't actually believe" -- I say Marc did this, assigned Jew Hatred as motivation to those named above. So, is attributing Jew Hatred to people who don't actually hate the Jews ... er, "nothing more than discursive masturbation in public"?

Or what?

I am having a hard time feeling this "self-righteous anger" you attribute to me, Michael. Let's say I did feel anger at what I thought was an unjustified smear. Let's say that anger was evident in the two posts I made challenging Marc to name the names of the guilty. What makes it an evidently self-righteous anger?

Self-righteous strongly implies a false superiority, a falsely-grounded holier-than-thou attitude and a type of moral hypocrisy -- that the self-righteous person when condemning or criticizing another person or his acts behaves in violation of the very righteous conduct he claims to uphold.

So, this would mean (If I understand your repeated use correctly) that my presumed anger is more than misplaced, it is unjustified and deceptive.

To return to the point: naming names. I submit there is nothing intrinsically self-righteous in asking, even demanding, that we do the reasoned and reasonable thing -- attach charges to actual persons.

Now, let's turn to someone--among those who still remain unnamed--who makes a slur (implied or otherwise) against Jews, then backs off. Then does it again, then backs off. And so on. Which words are the true ones, the slurs or the backing off? We ALL know which ones will be quoted by the person if he or she is called out.

Well, this is no good. "Those who still remain unnamed" are most probably as I cited above, George, Stephen, Krell, Brant, moi.

Your paragraph is useful for again illustrating my point: Who makes a slur against certain posters/Jews ... . Who? Who then 'backs off' from the slur? Who? Which words are we talking about in the here and now?

So it's a game. Kind of like verbal hide and seek with poison in the middle.

Because Marc told me to do my homework -- that the poison (of Jew Hate) was obvious to any eye that looks, that anyone could find instances of what he charged, I did a review.

To make a proper case to expose this is a humongous pain-in-the ass, both research-wise by sifting through all this stuff, and in writing it in a persuasive form so it doesn't sound like pettiness and nitpicking. (You've read me for a few years, so you know I've actually done this several times on different topics.)

I think I did make a proper case for 'naming names' of those whose arguments are poisoned by Jew Hate. I believe that after you give my arguments a second thought, you will agree with that.

But here's the rub. Nobody's mind will change. People's behavior will stay the same. This only leads to bickering and more bickering. Snark. The kind of bickering this entails is simply not worth the discussion. (One again, I speak from several years of experience.)

Nothing else will come of it. Nothing ever does. Nothing.

I've seen it too often to believe otherwise.

Do I sound redundant?

It doesn't sound redundant to me ... it sounds a bit misplaced, and a bit unmoored from particulars. In this case, of course, Marc says it won't happen again. I am gratified that my effort had an effect. That's not nothing.

And in your self-righteous anger, is it your position that these last get a pass on acting that way, but Marc must not? That he must be exposed and subjected to God knows what punishments you have in mind? Why is your anger only at him and not at the others when they do this against Jews?

Michael, using terms like "these last" is beggaring the question -- and tending to prove my contention -- as you do not establish the real people and arguments "these last" apply to. This compounds the problem as I saw it: using unmoored charges against 'certain people' to support Marc's argument of "said posters" ...

I will reiterate -- accusing of obvious JewHate while refusing to identify 'said folks' was wrong, specious. You do not address this point. You have dressed me in the habit of self-righteous anger but I think avoided my objection.

Now ... do I want Marc to be 'exposed'? No, that does not make sense. Do I want Marc to be 'punished'? No ... how can anyone on an online forum be punished by more than verbal spanking? It's all words and emotion, from which any of us can take a step back at any time.

As for anger -- I suggest this is your mislabeling, not what I feel. But let's use your term, and apply it to the context:

Have I demanded (righteously) that people attach names to their arguments in other contexts (eg, in cases where the slurs are advanced against Jews and the Joo and the Joo lobby)? Have I used my so-called self-righteous anger against the anti-Joo bullshit I have read at OL?

Yes, I have. Yes indeed. Whether harrying ARI-Mark for his specious arguments against the Joo, or taking Wolf DeVoon to the proverbial woodshed for the same thing ... or slapping around Serapis Bey on the same grounds, yes.

To be clear and put words to the concept, I am talking about using euphemistic rhetorical devices that embed CYA, but still promote an agenda.

I can't parse this. "Using euphemistic rhetorical devices that embed (Cover Your Ass), but still promote an agenda" -- I have not found that in reviewing this thread, or rather, I am not sure I can find an instance of this in the thread: it could mean almost anything.

That is what you think of Marc's apology, is it not? If that is what you think, then why the double standard by ignoring others when they do similar? Maybe they don't apologize, but back off instead. It's still the same concept.

I don't ignore others when they do the same thing: make a charge against "some people" without indicating who is signified. I have criticized you for the same thing, from time to time. If I remember correctly, my strong challenges to Wolf's "National Joo Free Day" or whatever it was caused him to back off OL for a good long time.

You see how easy it is to miss this when you get angry? (For a further comment on experience, I speak from lots of experience committing this error--and I try to fix it in myself when I detect it.)

I was missing who Marc was accusing, until I did a thorough review of this thread.

So why don't I step in every time I see these rhetorical games? Well... ham-handed moderation is not my thing. So long as offensive posts are few, I believe flexibility is a lot more healthy than going all school-marm on folks. Regarding the young lady I banned, it ate a ton-load of crap from her before it got to that point.

Again this just pushes cogent objections into the shadows.

But I just don't see a hostile hypocritical accusation coming from Marc like you do in your self-righteous anger.

I see that. It looks like you agree with Marc's initial slinging of the accusations, and consider them correct even if retracted. I see that, but I don't understand that. In any case, I have not and do not accuse Marc of hypocrisy. I argued that he made poorly-warranted accusations ...

I merely see him saying, "I see you" to those who resort to rhetorical games to express and anti-Jew agenda. He's had a lifetime of looking at this crap.

Well, by the loose criteria Marc had given us, miscreants still stand exposed as at least anti-Jew (in hiding). Now that you and Marc have identified the errors (resorting to rhetorical games to express anti-Jew agenda), and we have the names of the likely suspects, we can put the charges to the test, no? George, Stephen, me, Brant, Krell, Samson, we can all either accept the charges of being anti-Jewish, or put up a defence.

-- this paragraph is moot. It seems clear of course that nobody is any longer being accused of anti-Jewish motives!

Also, I happen to believe his apology is sincere because I know him. But I can see how others would not. And I also admit that the unnamed people could be sincere when backing off, although in my experience, this is usually not the case when the pattern keeps repeating.

I don't get this. Who are you talking about? You don't support the gambit of accusing "unnamed people"?

You can ask me to name names if you like, but I won't right now.

Save yourself the trouble and just click the links I selected above: Krell, Stephen, George, Samson, Brant, perhaps me.

You know if things get bad enough, I will. Also, when I get to the point of writing long posts full of quotes pointing this crap out (like I did with the young lady and a couple others in the not too distant past, including that crazy lady), I am near restricting the person. I can justify to myself putting in that amount of effort as a warning. I just don't see any value in doing it to prompt bickering that goes nowhere.

I think you bow back as far and as long as you can. Compared to the regimes at OO.org, RoR and the death-rattle SOLO, you have the lightest touch of all by far. By far. You rarely threaten the red button -- and that is what makes OL the better of all the others combined. It is the best of O onine, open and free with clearly designated exceptions for the Brandens and bigotry.

I humbly suggest if you want to get people to go along with your impassioned crusade to expose hypocrisy, your standard and passion should be equal for instances on both sides, not just one. Otherwise, it doesn't come off to the reader as passion against hypocrisy per se.

Could you have misunderstood my objection in the first place, maybe? If I tell you that I objected to unspecified charges, and you say I objected to hypocrisy, who is correct? Just you?

I submit that I do not think Marc is a hypocrite, far from it. He is forthright. He doesn't say one thing and do another. He is cute around the net at times, but that is to be celebrated. When he finds hypocritical nonsense embedded in actual anti-Israel cant, or when he finds hypocritical nonsense coming from champions of Hamas, I think it is great. I'm in favour of Marc exposing instances of hidden motives and throbbing hatred -- that they can be ruthlessly critiqued.

Anyway, I had little more to say until I read this corrective from you. Forgive me for the boring line by line, but I always find it important to explain my reasoning as fully as I can, even at the risk of going on at far too lengthy length.

I speak as one who has stood against both antisemitism and anti-Islamic bigotry--right here on OL. And I speak to you as a kindred spirit in this regard. I believe you post in good faith. You're a good man, William.

I stand with you strongly in speaking out against bigotry. I stand by my own multiple comments on Joo-baiting and blaming over my OL years. I wish no ill to Marc. I made my point, and I think it stuck.

______________________________

** It is freaking hot here on Vancouver's border with the USA. Our lawns are yellow, our discomfort starting to be apparent, our pets listless, our ice cream sales peaking, the smell of burnt meat awaft in the land. Though I do not have a hammock, and our beach is a mile away from our garden, this is me for the rest of the day.

Edited August 12, 2014 by william.scherk

[anthony]

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/08/11/op-ed-want-proportionality-give-israel-22-countries/

A really great article

Hey, very good! "...you have no moral authority over Israel or even within your own borders. You gave all that up from 1492 to 1942 and beyond". I like that he also sees The Cause substituting morality.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

I'm confused...

Didn't want to say anything . . .

--Brant

[moralist]

It's time for Hitler.

...and not just any time... Springtime.

[Selene]

It's time for Hitler.

...and not just any time... Springtime.

In my top 200 movies babes!

One of my friends who taught with me at CUNY directed the fountain scene will Zero and Gene.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I read through it and, frankly, you proved my point about how interesting nitpicking is.

I disagree with a lot of what you said (and really disagree with some of it), while I agree with several things, too, but I don't think many people will be interested in the particulars at that level of minutia. And I'm tempted to complain about where you dismissed several of the ideas that did not fit your predispositions rather than consider them, but whatever. It's not important.

In essence, you wanted names.

I said calling specific people out when they use back-and-forth rhetorical CYA leads to endless bickering and nitpicking (think James Valliant-like discussions). Then posturing with denials and victimization. I even believe that is the point of such rhetoric. It turns intelligent discussion into a sterile pointless game. Since this flare-up stopped with an honorable gesture, to me, it's not worth pursuing.

I think extending our own differences here would only lead each of us to repeat these essences over and over in different words. What's worse, you would not get your names and I would not get the long-ass nitpicking (and probably bickering) to stop. And, yes, I would be party to it, not just you. So I appreciate you putting the thing in spoiler tags.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Shit.

No body gets a way with any thing a round here.

--Brant

ex cept me

[moralist]

This cartoon though has 6 boxes , and I see the world media focused not at all on Isis and Boko Haram .

My concern is about the UN , and the media not focusing on them as much as Israel .

ISIS is systematically gang raping , selling and murdering children yet Israel is front and centre day after day .

Why ?

Honsestly , why ?

Because Isis and Boko Harem prey on Christians. That makes them sacrosanct in the eyes of the leftist media. It's hands off.

Greg