Op zondag 5 maart 2023 om 15:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> On 3/5/2023 6:22 AM, HT wrote:
> > Dear Frank,
> >
> > Typical reasoning.
> Typical of what? Me? Zionists? A poor argument, if that's what it is supposed to be.

Thanks for your post, Frank.

<g> No, it's not personally but objectively typical: it's a typical fallacy.. Just misguided reasoning.

> A person who specializes in criticizing Israeli behavior to the exclusion of that of any other country is a suspect for antisemitism. I don't even see how one could argue otherwise.

I know people who criticize only Russia, only the US, China, the Netherlands. They don't believe the world would be better off without these countries, they just want a change.
Concentrating one's criticism on one subject is quite normal behaviour. There is no reason for someone who wants the war in Ukraine to end, to first condemn Guantánamo Bay, the genocide of the Uighurs and the treatment of asylum seekers in the Netherlands. (Where to stop?) To call all critics who fail to do so anti-(fill in the name) would be misrepresenting their views. Other criteria must be met before one can say that they believe that the world would be better off without these countries.

> Of course it needs to be defended. You mean I don't need to defend it to you? That was not my intent. I never suspected or hinted that you are in any way an antisemite.

You have a point. The situation at this side of the Mediterranean and the situation in Israel aren't quite comparable - if only because Zionism still needs to be defended.

Henk

On 3/5/2023 12:01 PM, HT wrote:
> Op zondag 5 maart 2023 om 15:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
>> On 3/5/2023 6:22 AM, HT wrote:
>>> Dear Frank,
>>>
>>> Typical reasoning.
>> Typical of what? Me? Zionists? A poor argument, if that's what it is supposed to be.
>
> Thanks for your post, Frank.
>
> <g> No, it's not personally but objectively typical: it's a typical fallacy. Just misguided reasoning.

You really need to explain this kind of statement, not just say it (I'm not even sure what you are referring to) is misguided.

>
>> A person who specializes in criticizing Israeli behavior to the exclusion of that of any other country is a suspect for antisemitism. I don't even see how one could argue otherwise.
>
> I know people who criticize only Russia, only the US, China, the Netherlands. They don't believe the world would be better off without these countries, they just want a change.
> Concentrating one's criticism on one subject is quite normal behaviour. There is no reason for someone who wants the war in Ukraine to end, to first condemn Guantánamo Bay, the genocide of the Uighurs and the treatment of asylum seekers in the Netherlands. (Where to stop?) To call all critics who fail to do so anti-(fill in the name) would be misrepresenting their views.

I said "suspect." Coming to back to what I said before. Everyone knows antisemitism exists, but it seems there are no actual antisemites.

Other criteria must be met before one can say that they believe that the world would be better off without these countries.
>
>> Of course it needs to be defended. You mean I don't need to defend it to you? That was not my intent. I never suspected or hinted that you are in any way an antisemite.
>
> You have a point. The situation at this side of the Mediterranean and the situation in Israel aren't quite comparable - if only because Zionism still needs to be defended.
>
> Henk
>
>
>
>

On 3/5/2023 1:37 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 3/5/2023 12:01 PM, HT wrote:
>> Op zondag 5 maart 2023 om 15:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
>>> On 3/5/2023 6:22 AM, HT wrote:
>>>> Dear Frank,
>>>>
>>>> Typical reasoning.
>>> Typical of what? Me? Zionists? A poor argument, if that's what it is supposed to be.
>>
>> Thanks for your post, Frank.
>>
>> <g> No, it's not personally but objectively typical: it's a typical fallacy. Just misguided reasoning.
>
> You really need to explain this kind of statement,  not just say it (I'm not even sure what you are referring to) is misguided.
>
>>
>>> A person who specializes in criticizing Israeli behavior to the exclusion of that of any other country is a suspect for antisemitism. I don't even see how one could argue otherwise.
>>
>> I know people who criticize only Russia, only the US, China, the Netherlands. They don't believe the world would be better off without these countries, they just want a change.
>> Concentrating one's criticism on one subject is quite normal behaviour. There is no reason for someone who wants the war in Ukraine to end, to first condemn Guantánamo Bay, the genocide of the Uighurs and the treatment of asylum seekers in the Netherlands. (Where to stop?) To call all critics who fail to do so anti-(fill in the name) would be misrepresenting their views.
>
> I said "suspect."  Coming to back to what I said before. Everyone knows antisemitism exists, but it seems there are no actual antisemites.
>
>
>
>  Other criteria must be met before one can say that they believe that the world would be better off without these countries.
>>
>>> Of course it needs to be defended. You mean I don't need to defend it to you? That was not my intent. I never suspected or hinted that you are in any way an antisemite.
>>
>> You have a point. The situation at this side of the Mediterranean and the situation in Israel aren't quite comparable - if only because Zionism still needs to be defended.
>>
>> Henk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

I think the Left thinks antisemitsm exists only on the far right.

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 7:41:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 3/5/2023 1:37 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> > On 3/5/2023 12:01 PM, HT wrote:
> >> Op zondag 5 maart 2023 om 15:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> >>> On 3/5/2023 6:22 AM, HT wrote:
> >>>> Dear Frank,
> >>>>
> >>>> Typical reasoning.
> >>> Typical of what? Me? Zionists? A poor argument, if that's what it is supposed to be.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your post, Frank.
> >>
> >> <g> No, it's not personally but objectively typical: it's a typical fallacy. Just misguided reasoning.
> >
> > You really need to explain this kind of statement, not just say it (I'm not even sure what you are referring to) is misguided.
> >
> >>
> >>> A person who specializes in criticizing Israeli behavior to the exclusion of that of any other country is a suspect for antisemitism. I don't even see how one could argue otherwise.
> >>
> >> I know people who criticize only Russia, only the US, China, the Netherlands. They don't believe the world would be better off without these countries, they just want a change.
> >> Concentrating one's criticism on one subject is quite normal behaviour.. There is no reason for someone who wants the war in Ukraine to end, to first condemn Guantánamo Bay, the genocide of the Uighurs and the treatment of asylum seekers in the Netherlands. (Where to stop?) To call all critics who fail to do so anti-(fill in the name) would be misrepresenting their views.
> >
> > I said "suspect." Coming to back to what I said before. Everyone knows antisemitism exists, but it seems there are no actual antisemites.
> >
> >
> >
> > Other criteria must be met before one can say that they believe that the world would be better off without these countries.
> >>
> >>> Of course it needs to be defended. You mean I don't need to defend it to you? That was not my intent. I never suspected or hinted that you are in any way an antisemite.
> >>
> >> You have a point. The situation at this side of the Mediterranean and the situation in Israel aren't quite comparable - if only because Zionism still needs to be defended.
> >>
> >> Henk
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> I think the Left thinks antisemitsm exists only on the far right.

Google Corbyn and Labour

On 3/5/2023 1:46 PM, Herman wrote:
> On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 7:41:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 3/5/2023 1:37 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2023 12:01 PM, HT wrote:
>>>> Op zondag 5 maart 2023 om 15:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
>>>>> On 3/5/2023 6:22 AM, HT wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Frank,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Typical reasoning.
>>>>> Typical of what? Me? Zionists? A poor argument, if that's what it is supposed to be.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your post, Frank.
>>>>
>>>> <g> No, it's not personally but objectively typical: it's a typical fallacy. Just misguided reasoning.
>>>
>>> You really need to explain this kind of statement, not just say it (I'm not even sure what you are referring to) is misguided.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> A person who specializes in criticizing Israeli behavior to the exclusion of that of any other country is a suspect for antisemitism. I don't even see how one could argue otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> I know people who criticize only Russia, only the US, China, the Netherlands. They don't believe the world would be better off without these countries, they just want a change.
>>>> Concentrating one's criticism on one subject is quite normal behaviour. There is no reason for someone who wants the war in Ukraine to end, to first condemn Guantánamo Bay, the genocide of the Uighurs and the treatment of asylum seekers in the Netherlands. (Where to stop?) To call all critics who fail to do so anti-(fill in the name) would be misrepresenting their views.
>>>
>>> I said "suspect." Coming to back to what I said before. Everyone knows antisemitism exists, but it seems there are no actual antisemites.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Other criteria must be met before one can say that they believe that the world would be better off without these countries.
>>>>
>>>>> Of course it needs to be defended. You mean I don't need to defend it to you? That was not my intent. I never suspected or hinted that you are in any way an antisemite.
>>>>
>>>> You have a point. The situation at this side of the Mediterranean and the situation in Israel aren't quite comparable - if only because Zionism still needs to be defended.
>>>>
>>>> Henk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> I think the Left thinks antisemitsm exists only on the far right.
>
> Google Corbyn and Labour

Not necessary.

Op zondag 5 maart 2023 om 19:38:09 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:

> You really need to explain this kind of statement, not just say it (I'm not even sure what you are referring to) is misguided.

Misguided is the belief that my violation of human rights may only be condemned if the violations of human rights perpetrated by others are condemned. It is called "whataboutism".

> I said "suspect." Coming to back to what I said before. Everyone knows antisemitism exists, but it seems there are no actual antisemites.

This is another example of misguided reasoning. Everyone knows that there are elephants but when I walk along the canal in my neighborhood I don't see any. I may accept that or stretch my definition of elephants to such lengths that I do meet a few.
Perhaps the rabbi in New York saw it right. I paraphrase: "Much has changed. Non-Jews now suddenly want to be Jews. Who could have imagined that in the last 2000 years?"

Henk

Op zondag 5 maart 2023 om 19:41:53 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:

> I think the Left thinks antisemitism exists only on the far right.

I don't think so. Nor do I think that antisemitism exists only on the left. There are different forms of antisemitism. It has different backgrounds. What all forms have in common is that they are based on the belief that in general the world would be better off without ...

The same goes for racism, homophobia, etc. If a Church (whatever its denomination) believes that the world would be better off without homosexuals it is homophobic, even if it decides to treat homosexuals kindly.

Henk

On 3/5/2023 3:33 PM, HT wrote:
> Op zondag 5 maart 2023 om 19:38:09 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
>
>> You really need to explain this kind of statement, not just say it (I'm not even sure what you are referring to) is misguided.
>
> Misguided is the belief that my violation of human rights may only be condemned if the violations of human rights perpetrated by others are condemned. It is called "whataboutism".
>
>> I said "suspect." Coming to back to what I said before. Everyone knows antisemitism exists, but it seems there are no actual antisemites.
>
> This is another example of misguided reasoning. Everyone knows that there are elephants but when I walk along the canal in my neighborhood I don't see any. I may accept that or stretch my definition of elephants to such lengths that I do meet a few.
> Perhaps the rabbi in New York saw it right. I paraphrase: "Much has changed. Non-Jews now suddenly want to be Jews. Who could have imagined that in the last 2000 years?"
>

OK, I guess in trying to identify antisemitsm, we have wait for actual crimes to occur. Tell that to the security people. There was an incident Madison, Wisconsin (my wife's home town) a few years ago, where swastiskas were painted on Jewish homes. The police spokesperson said it was too soon tell if it was hate crime. Again, antisemitism but no antisemites.

> Henk
>
>
>
>

Google "Jews" or "Israel." You won't find a lot of gentiles clamoring to be Jews. There have always been (when legal) conversions into and out of Judaism. I don't know the rabbi you refer to or if his comment holds water. I do see the world's relation to Jews (and Israel) becoming sort of more bipolar. Sure you have conservative Christians supporting Israel (but mainly because of some theology that doesn't include Jews remaining Jews). You have secular Jews hating rather than tolerating religious Jews. You have a country like Hungary, whose government is one of the most supportive of Israel, but where there is rampant antisemitism among the people. You have Jews abandoning religion in droves at the same time as a resurgence in orthodoxy.

On 3/5/2023 3:51 PM, HT wrote:
> Op zondag 5 maart 2023 om 19:41:53 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
>
>> I think the Left thinks antisemitism exists only on the far right.
>
> I don't think so. Nor do I think that antisemitism exists only on the left. There are different forms of antisemitism. It has different backgrounds. What all forms have in common is that they are based on the belief that in general the world would be better off without ...
>
> The same goes for racism, homophobia, etc. If a Church (whatever its denomination) believes that the world would be better off without homosexuals it is homophobic, even if it decides to treat homosexuals kindly.
>
I think this a tautology, or close. Suppose a baker doesn't care if there are homosexuals, or at least doesn't hate them, but doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. He wishes them no harm, but doesn't want to be seen as supporting gay marriage. Is he homophobic? Does it matter if a person's or group's "bias" doesn't include hate? Should the baker be forced to bake the cake?

> Henk
>

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 1:33:02 PM UTC-8, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> Suppose a baker doesn't care if there are homosexuals, or at least
> doesn't hate them, but doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a
> gay couple. He wishes them no harm, but doesn't want to be seen
> as supporting gay marriage. Is he homophobic? Does it matter if a
> person's or group's "bias" doesn't include hate? Should the baker be
> forced to bake the cake?

IMHO any business that provides a paid service to the public should
abide by all the laws in the jurisdiction where the service is provided,
including anti-discrimination laws. Otherwise anti-discrimination law
becomes impotent in a largely privately owned economy.

No loopholes should be tolerated that would allow this to happen.
That case is no different than denying service to people of color,
or to disabled persons, or to 3 year olds.

dk

> OK, I guess in trying to identify antisemitsm, we have wait for actual crimes to occur. Tell that to the security people. There was an incident Madison, Wisconsin (my wife's home town) a few years ago, where swastiskas were painted on Jewish homes. The police spokesperson said it was too soon tell if it was hate crime. Again, antisemitism but no antisemites.

Didn't the police catch the guys who did it?

> Google "Jews" or "Israel." You won't find a lot of gentiles clamoring to be Jews. There have always been (when legal) conversions into and out of Judaism. I don't know the rabbi you refer to or if his comment holds water. I do see the world's relation to Jews (and Israel) becoming sort of more bipolar. Sure you have conservative Christians supporting Israel (but mainly because of some theology that doesn't include Jews remaining Jews). You have secular Jews hating rather than tolerating religious Jews. You have a country like Hungary, whose government is one of the most supportive of Israel, but where there is rampant antisemitism among the people. You have Jews abandoning religion in droves at the same time as a resurgence in orthodoxy.

It is complex. That implies that there must also a bright side - somewhere, somehow ... I wouldn't dismiss the rabbi from New York too quickly.

Henk

Op zondag 5 maart 2023 om 22:33:02 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:

> I think this a tautology, or close. Suppose a baker doesn't care if there are homosexuals, or at least doesn't hate them, but doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. He wishes them no harm, but doesn't want to be seen as supporting gay marriage. Is he homophobic? Does it matter if a person's or group's "bias" doesn't include hate? Should the baker be forced to bake the cake?

You have to treat all equally, even if you believe that the world would be better off without some. That's a ground rule. There may be exceptions, but that's for governments to decide, not bakers.

Henk

On 3/5/2023 5:18 PM, HT wrote:
> Op zondag 5 maart 2023 om 22:33:02 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
>
>> I think this a tautology, or close. Suppose a baker doesn't care if there are homosexuals, or at least doesn't hate them, but doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. He wishes them no harm, but doesn't want to be seen as supporting gay marriage. Is he homophobic? Does it matter if a person's or group's "bias" doesn't include hate? Should the baker be forced to bake the cake?
>
> You have to treat all equally, even if you believe that the world would be better off without some. That's a ground rule. There may be exceptions, but that's for governments to decide, not bakers.
>
> Henk

Suppose a skinhead wearing a t-shirt that says "Jews are Vermin" walks into a bakery and wants a cake. Is the baker obligated to serve them? The answer is no, as I understand it, because right wing extremists are not a protected class in civil rights legislation. Sans legislation, people would be able to refuse service to anyone they choose not to serve. This may make them assholes or bigots or whatever, but it would be legal. Civil rights legislation came along in the 60s and specified groups against whom you couldn't discriminate (for anything? Or some things? Not sure, actually). If the people, via their legislators choose to designate LGBTQIA+ as protected, then that is the will of the people and the law should be enforced. Not otherwise. So the degree of abhorrence of a particular group by the electorate will vary from person to person won't it? You won't see child molesters included in such legislation, ever. Well, I suppose the government could pass a broad law at some point saying retailers, landlords, etc, can not discriminate at all, on any basis. Applications could be made only electronically so people couldn't discriminate on the basis of the normal things that are protected and also smell, size, intelligence. Maybe a landlord shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of the rental applicant's ability to pay. Some for mortgages. Just give one to anyone. Wait, we tried that already.

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 3:20:15 PM UTC-8, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> Suppose a skinhead wearing a t-shirt that says "Jews are Vermin"
> walks into a bakery and wants a cake. Is the baker obligated to
> serve them? The answer is no, as I understand it, because right
> wing extremists are not a protected class in civil rights legislation.
>
> Sans legislation, people would be able to refuse service to anyone
> they choose not to serve. This may make them assholes or bigots
> or whatever, but it would be legal. Civil rights legislation came along
> in the 60s and specified groups against whom you couldn't discriminate
> (for anything? Or some things? Not sure, actually). If the people, via their
> legislators choose to designate LGBTQIA+ as protected, then that is the
> will of the people and the law should be enforced. Not otherwise. So the
> degree of abhorrence of a particular group by the electorate will vary from
> person to person won't it? You won't see child molesters included in such
> legislation, ever. Well, I suppose the government could pass a broad law at
> some point saying retailers, landlords, etc, can not discriminate at all, on
> any basis. Applications could be made only electronically so people couldn't
> discriminate on the basis of the normal things that are protected and also
> smell, size, intelligence. Maybe a landlord shouldn't be able to discriminate
> on the basis of the rental applicant's ability to pay. Some for mortgages..
> Just give one to anyone. Wait, we tried that already.

Your argument is disingenous and profoundly dishonest. It focuses on
minutiae and tries to obscur the fundamental issue. Discrimination for
a number of reasons -- e.g. ethnic and religious preferences, gender,
age and sexual preferences -- is outlawed at the federal level. No
explicit, narrowing distinctions should be needed for "LGBTQIA+"
or for any other subcategories.

This is so fundamental that "the people" shoud not be allowed
to approve, disprove, challenge or revoke any part of it. What if
"the people" (whomever they are, wherever they are) decided
Jews (or green colored people, or long haired cats) do not
have the same rights as everyone else? If one follows your
argument to its logical conclusion, that would be OK. Did
you forget that some years ago "the people" had laws that
limited the rights of people of color? The fundamental flaw
in your argument is that "the people" have the right to deny
rights to other people, rather than just recognize everyone's
rights.

Please see your rabbi immediately and ask him to slap you
in your face.

dk

On 3/5/2023 6:46 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 3:20:15 PM UTC-8, Frank Berger wrote:
>>
>> Suppose a skinhead wearing a t-shirt that says "Jews are Vermin"
>> walks into a bakery and wants a cake. Is the baker obligated to
>> serve them? The answer is no, as I understand it, because right
>> wing extremists are not a protected class in civil rights legislation.
>>
>> Sans legislation, people would be able to refuse service to anyone
>> they choose not to serve. This may make them assholes or bigots
>> or whatever, but it would be legal. Civil rights legislation came along
>> in the 60s and specified groups against whom you couldn't discriminate
>> (for anything? Or some things? Not sure, actually). If the people, via their
>> legislators choose to designate LGBTQIA+ as protected, then that is the
>> will of the people and the law should be enforced. Not otherwise. So the
>> degree of abhorrence of a particular group by the electorate will vary from
>> person to person won't it? You won't see child molesters included in such
>> legislation, ever. Well, I suppose the government could pass a broad law at
>> some point saying retailers, landlords, etc, can not discriminate at all, on
>> any basis. Applications could be made only electronically so people couldn't
>> discriminate on the basis of the normal things that are protected and also
>> smell, size, intelligence. Maybe a landlord shouldn't be able to discriminate
>> on the basis of the rental applicant's ability to pay. Some for mortgages.
>> Just give one to anyone. Wait, we tried that already.
>
> Your argument is disingenous and profoundly dishonest. It focuses on
> minutiae and tries to obscur the fundamental issue. Discrimination for
> a number of reasons -- e.g. ethnic and religious preferences, gender,
> age and sexual preferences -- is outlawed at the federal level. No
> explicit, narrowing distinctions should be needed for "LGBTQIA+"
> or for any other subcategories.
>

Apparently the legal apparatus had to work that out as it was not decided until SCOTUS so decided in 2020. I can discriminate against ugly people because they are not protected in the legislation. Pior to this decision it was legal in about half the states to fire someone, for example, simply for being gay or transgender.

You don't seem to understand that groups are protected at the federal level only if they are identified in the legislation (SCOTUS decided that gays, etc. were covered under the protection against sex discrimination, meant initially to protect females. As you are wont do to, you may think I am against protection of the LGB.... people. I am not. Neither was the conservative court that so ruled (2 dissentions).

You frequently conflate what you think is right with what is.

> This is so fundamental that "the people" shoud not be allowed
> to approve, disprove, challenge or revoke any part of it. What if
> "the people" (whomever they are, wherever they are) decided
> Jews (or green colored people, or long haired cats) do not
> have the same rights as everyone else? If one follows your
> argument to its logical conclusion, that would be OK. Did
> you forget that some years ago "the people" had laws that
> limited the rights of people of color? The fundamental flaw
> in your argument is that "the people" have the right to deny
> rights to other people, rather than just recognize everyone's
> rights.
>

Repeating that only groups explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the legislation are protected, I may agree I should not discriminate against ugly people or cat owners as matter of ethics, but that is not necessarily the law.

> Please see your rabbi immediately and ask him to slap you
> in your face.
>
> dk

Just as a general reminder:

Henk, Andy and Herman are antisemites - Take some of their comments about Israel to the IHRA and the IHRA will tell you that these comments are indeed antisemitic.

It does not matter what I think, it does not matter what 82 year old Frank thinks, or what Henk, Andy and Herman think. What matters is what people think who are involved in this topic. It's just that not one person here wants to be sincere or learn more (Henk, Herman, Andy and also Frank to a degree) about this - Henk seems to believe he is "up to date" (hahaha); instead people here make jokes about discussing antisemitism seriously, which only shows how ignorant they are about themselves and this matter.

Where is Richard Schultz? Where is Willem Orange? ...

It also doesn't matter if Henk, Andy and Herman don't mean bad, since they are unwilling to reflect on their mistakes and understand what is antisemitic about their statements - if you say somthing antisemitic => you are an antisemite; very simple. Frank is also an absolute idiot here (from what I read); be like Frank and antisemitism will only foster.

Dan Koren schrieb am Montag, 6. März 2023 um 00:46:43 UTC+1:
> Please see your rabbi immediately and ask him to slap you
> in your face.

I think you should join the Goyim Defense League - they also have zero respect for Rabbis.

Just recently they harrassed a Chabad community in South Orlando, Los Angeles:

"Leave our country"
"Heil Hitler"
"Jews were expelled from 1000 countries, there is a reason to this"

And the police car which was around the corner did not do anything against these antisemites...

https://forward.com/fast-forward/537336/orlando-chabad-harassed-by-antisemitic-hate-group/

https://twitter.com/BaruchSandhaus/status/1628429760622743553?s=20

>
> dk

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 9:29:12 PM UTC-8, Marc S wrote:
> Dan Koren schrieb am Montag, 6. März 2023 um 00:46:43 UTC+1:
>
> > Please see your rabbi immediately and ask him to slap
> > you in your face.
>
> I think you should join the Goyim Defense League - they
> also have zero respect for Rabbis.

I have zero respect for clergy -- regardless of religion. Had I
replied to someone other than Frank I would have inserted
the appropriate denomination.

dk

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 9:20:18 PM UTC-8, Marc S wrote:
> Just as a general reminder:
>
> Henk, Andy and Herman are antisemites -

You left me out of this august liszt? What
did I do? Or not do?!? I ask the question....

> Take some of their comments about Israel
> to the IHRA and the IHRA will tell you that
> these comments are indeed antisemitic.

One does not need validation by 3rd parties.

> It does not matter what I think, it does not
> matter what 82 year old Frank thinks, or what
> Henk, Andy and Herman think.

You left me out of the liszt again? What does
it mean? Are you implying my opinion matters?
Or at least at does not dis-matter? That would
be very high praise indeed for a physicist! ;-)

dk

On 3/6/2023 8:25 AM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 9:20:18 PM UTC-8, Marc S wrote:
>> Just as a general reminder:
>>
>> Henk, Andy and Herman are antisemites -
>
> You left me out of this august liszt? What
> did I do? Or not do?!? I ask the question....
>
>> Take some of their comments about Israel
>> to the IHRA and the IHRA will tell you that
>> these comments are indeed antisemitic.
>
> One does not need validation by 3rd parties.
>
>> It does not matter what I think, it does not
>> matter what 82 year old

not close

Frank thinks, or what
>> Henk, Andy and Herman think.
>
> You left me out of the liszt again? What does
> it mean? Are you implying my opinion matters?
> Or at least at does not dis-matter? That would
> be very high praise indeed for a physicist! ;-)
>
> dk

BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING,

We've had months and months of these stupid and endless "antisemite" posts. They're slanderous, libellous, and basically just plain wrong. Please put an end to it. All this is

BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING,

On 3/6/2023 9:25 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING,
>
> We've had months and months of these stupid and endless "antisemite" posts. They're slanderous, libellous, and basically just plain wrong. Please put an end to it. All this is
>
> BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING,

Get a grip.

On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 14:27:40 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:

> Get a grip.

You, Marc S and Dan Koren can individually and collectively fuck off. I've had months and months of insults and I'm done with all three of you.

I was never an antisemite but I can assure you that your collective aggressive name calling makes me sorely tempted. I have to keep reminding myself that there are people outside this forum who have nothing to do with the bullying and garbage that goes on here, and will keep on going on here because none of you are going to learn, open your eyes or change.

Dan Koren schrieb am Montag, 6. März 2023 um 13:40:51 UTC+1:
> On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 9:29:12 PM UTC-8, Marc S wrote:
> > Dan Koren schrieb am Montag, 6. März 2023 um 00:46:43 UTC+1:
> >
> > > Please see your rabbi immediately and ask him to slap
> > > you in your face.
> >
> > I think you should join the Goyim Defense League - they
> > also have zero respect for Rabbis.
> I have zero respect for clergy -- regardless of religion. Had I
> replied to someone other than Frank I would have inserted
> the appropriate denomination.
>
> dk

You have zero respect, or rather a disregard for what is human. The need for belief is human. I believe most of the Chabad Rabbis to be more cultured and civilised than you are.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You should be defending your people, instead of adding further fuel to fire.. These people are no ignorants; during the shoah they risked their lifes to save Jews, they kept their history alive over thousands of years, they don't force anyone to be like them, and they have a sharp eye for reality. In the Torah and in the writings of the Rabbis there is a lot of wisdom to be found; one does not need to believe in it in order to see this.

There is also a difference between clergy as religious ideologies are different from each other and therefore affect humans differently.

The Chabad Rabbis are mostly very well informed about politics, antisemitism etc. Dalai Lama is not, the Pope is not - they are ignorants; similar to you.

Frank Berger schrieb am Montag, 6. März 2023 um 14:43:10 UTC+1:
> On 3/6/2023 8:25 AM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 9:20:18 PM UTC-8, Marc S wrote:
> >> Just as a general reminder:
> >>
> >> Henk, Andy and Herman are antisemites -
> >
> > You left me out of this august liszt? What
> > did I do? Or not do?!? I ask the question....
> >
> >> Take some of their comments about Israel
> >> to the IHRA and the IHRA will tell you that
> >> these comments are indeed antisemitic.
> >
> > One does not need validation by 3rd parties.
> >
> >> It does not matter what I think, it does not
> >> matter what 82 year old
> not close
> Frank thinks, or what
> >> Henk, Andy and Herman think.
> >
> > You left me out of the liszt again? What does
> > it mean? Are you implying my opinion matters?
> > Or at least at does not dis-matter? That would
> > be very high praise indeed for a physicist! ;-)
> >
> > dk

*context