Re: Enuff About Jews And Jan



In article <[email protected]>,
"Rod" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Rubbish Mark,
> Anti-Semitism is a jewish excuse for not entertaining fair dinkum criticism.
> So if one criticises a Jew that is anti-Semitism but when a Jew criticises
> that is "A" OK.

Wrong. Criticizing individual Jews or groups of Jews for what they say
or do is perfectly legitimate, as long as it's based on what they say or
do and not just on the mere fact that they are Jews. Ditto criticizing
the Israeli government for its actions in the occupied territories.
Sometimes the line can get a bit fuzzy, but most of the time it is
reasonably clear.


> You hide behind the holocaust with your statements of " Never Again"

Oh, please, give me a break. He hides behind nothing.


>yet you
> do not comment on any other atrocity and the lives lost.

Commenting on the Holocaust does not automatically obligate one to
comment on every other atrocity and genocide throughout history, nor
does failure to comment on other atrocities mean that a person finds
them any less repugnant. This is particularly true when these other
atrocities are not the topic at hand.


>Why ? because those
> people were not jewish.

No, because those atrocities were not the topic at hand.


>Pol Pot's campaign nearly rivalled that of the
> Nazi's but not a word from you.

Um, actually, it didn't.

However, if you want historical examples that surpass the Nazis, the
ones that come to mind are the USSR and China. The number of people
killed under Communism in the USSR and the People's Republic of China
was much higher than killed under Naziism. The difference was that the
killing was spread out over many more years. In the 12 years of the Nazi
regime, the killing rate per year was quite high, particularly during
the last four years of the Nazi regime, when the Holocaust was in full
swing.


>Nor any word on the African massacre's. Only
> the jewish matter.

That wasn't the topic at hand. Why do you want to make it the topic? I
think I know. I highly doubt you actually care about these atrocities
yourself nearly as much as you seem to imply here. (After all, if you
care so deeply about them, then why haven't YOU railed against them
before in contexts other than attacking someone who is talking about the
Holocaust?) No, you're obviously just using them as a convenient tool to
attack Mark when he criticizes Jan for anti-Semitism. (I've seen this
technique used many times on alt.revisionism; so it no longer stymies
me.)


> When you get back to earth you may well realise that there are more people
> that wish for peace for all people not just the jewish people. Shame that
> jewish people like yourself do not express this sentiment.

Straw man. Just because Mark attacks anti-Semitism and urges remembering
the Holocaust does not mean he does not wish for peace just as much as
you or that he does not abhor other atrocities as much as you appear to.
I say "appear," because again I rather suspect that your bringing up is
merely a convenient way to attack Mark.


> Stick to being a loser Mark as it seems to suit your cause..

The only losers are the racists, bigots, and anti-Semites and those who
make excuses for them or defend them.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
>
>
> >Pol Pot's campaign nearly rivalled that of the
> > Nazi's but not a word from you.
>
> Um, actually, it didn't.
>
> However, if you want historical examples that surpass the Nazis, the
> ones that come to mind are the USSR and China. The number of people
> killed under Communism in the USSR and the People's Republic of China
> was much higher than killed under Naziism. The difference was that the
> killing was spread out over many more years. In the 12 years of the Nazi
> regime, the killing rate per year was quite high, particularly during
> the last four years of the Nazi regime, when the Holocaust was in full
> swing.
>

Another example would be the mass exploitation and slaughter of the people
of the Congo when the country was the personal property of King Leopold of
Belgium. It can never be known how many died, but historians agree that the
toll was above 15 million. But that was murder of people in a far-away
place. The Holocaust is particularly repugnant in that citizens allowed it
to happen to their neighbors and managed to look the other way when the
smoke rose above the camps.

--Rich
 
I will second everything Orac says in this post. Thank you.


In article <[email protected]>, Orac says...
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Rod" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Rubbish Mark,
>> Anti-Semitism is a jewish excuse for not entertaining fair dinkum criticism.
>> So if one criticises a Jew that is anti-Semitism but when a Jew criticises
>> that is "A" OK.
>
>Wrong. Criticizing individual Jews or groups of Jews for what they say
>or do is perfectly legitimate, as long as it's based on what they say or
>do and not just on the mere fact that they are Jews. Ditto criticizing
>the Israeli government for its actions in the occupied territories.
>Sometimes the line can get a bit fuzzy, but most of the time it is
>reasonably clear.
>
>
>> You hide behind the holocaust with your statements of " Never Again"
>
>Oh, please, give me a break. He hides behind nothing.
>
>
>>yet you
>> do not comment on any other atrocity and the lives lost.
>
>Commenting on the Holocaust does not automatically obligate one to
>comment on every other atrocity and genocide throughout history, nor
>does failure to comment on other atrocities mean that a person finds
>them any less repugnant. This is particularly true when these other
>atrocities are not the topic at hand.
>
>
>>Why ? because those
>> people were not jewish.
>
>No, because those atrocities were not the topic at hand.
>
>
>>Pol Pot's campaign nearly rivalled that of the
>> Nazi's but not a word from you.
>
>Um, actually, it didn't.
>
>However, if you want historical examples that surpass the Nazis, the
>ones that come to mind are the USSR and China. The number of people
>killed under Communism in the USSR and the People's Republic of China
>was much higher than killed under Naziism. The difference was that the
>killing was spread out over many more years. In the 12 years of the Nazi
>regime, the killing rate per year was quite high, particularly during
>the last four years of the Nazi regime, when the Holocaust was in full
>swing.
>
>
>>Nor any word on the African massacre's. Only
>> the jewish matter.
>
>That wasn't the topic at hand. Why do you want to make it the topic? I
>think I know. I highly doubt you actually care about these atrocities
>yourself nearly as much as you seem to imply here. (After all, if you
>care so deeply about them, then why haven't YOU railed against them
>before in contexts other than attacking someone who is talking about the
>Holocaust?) No, you're obviously just using them as a convenient tool to
>attack Mark when he criticizes Jan for anti-Semitism. (I've seen this
>technique used many times on alt.revisionism; so it no longer stymies
>me.)
>
>
>> When you get back to earth you may well realise that there are more people
>> that wish for peace for all people not just the jewish people. Shame that
>> jewish people like yourself do not express this sentiment.
>
>Straw man. Just because Mark attacks anti-Semitism and urges remembering
>the Holocaust does not mean he does not wish for peace just as much as
>you or that he does not abhor other atrocities as much as you appear to.
>I say "appear," because again I rather suspect that your bringing up is
>merely a convenient way to attack Mark.
>
>
>> Stick to being a loser Mark as it seems to suit your cause..
>
>The only losers are the racists, bigots, and anti-Semites and those who
>make excuses for them or defend them.
>
>--
>Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> |
> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
> | inconvenience me with questions?"

Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Jan says...
>
>>From: Andrew Langer [email protected]
>>Date: 2/19/2004 7:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>It is noted, you snipped all the despicable comments of Andrew Kingoff, who you
>defend.
>

Oh, is _THAT_ what you were doing? I thought it was just nonsense, and so I
snipped it. As it is, what Andrew Kingoff said isn't really at issue here - it
is your response to him. I mean, I've already asked Rod what he thought was
defamatory towards the 10 Commandments, and I guess I'll ask you the same.

Are you referring to his "10 Commandments for MHA"? How is that "defamatory"
towards the 10 Commandments that Moses brought off of the mountain? Are you
aware that there are many, many, other versions of the 10 Commandments out
there, such as the "10 Commandments of Dating" or the "10 Commandments of
SpecWar" or the "10 Commandments of HTTP"? Are these 10 Commandments similarly
defamatory?

Why? And how did you become the arbiter of what is "defamatory" towards the 10
Commandments.

See, in my views on theology, G_d isn't particularly worried if other people
take the phrase "10 Commandments" and use it to apply to other things. G_d not
only has a sense of humor (just look at the platypus), G_d also has many more
important things on his mind.

There's something else I'd like to ask, too. You've taken me to task for being
"angry" unquote. But was it not anger which led you to call Andrew Kingoff "jew
boy" after he posted his "10 Commandments of MHA", which you found offensive?

And if not anger, then what? I'd understand an angry outburst, but I guess I'd
find a cold, calculated, offhand dropping of "jew boy" to be worse.

So which is it? Were you angry (in which case being guilty of that which you
accused me of), or not?

- Andrew Langer

Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
 
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:38:34 GMT, Andrew Langer<[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Jan says...
>>
>>>From: Andrew Langer [email protected]
>>>Date: 2/19/2004 7:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>
>>It is noted, you snipped all the despicable comments of Andrew Kingoff, who you
>>defend.
>>
>
>Oh, is _THAT_ what you were doing? I thought it was just nonsense, and so I
>snipped it. As it is, what Andrew Kingoff said isn't really at issue here - it
>is your response to him. I mean, I've already asked Rod what he thought was
>defamatory towards the 10 Commandments, and I guess I'll ask you the same.
>
>Are you referring to his "10 Commandments for MHA"? How is that "defamatory"
>towards the 10 Commandments that Moses brought off of the mountain? Are you
>aware that there are many, many, other versions of the 10 Commandments out
>there, such as the "10 Commandments of Dating" or the "10 Commandments of
>SpecWar" or the "10 Commandments of HTTP"? Are these 10 Commandments similarly
>defamatory?
>
>Why? And how did you become the arbiter of what is "defamatory" towards the 10
>Commandments.
>
>See, in my views on theology, G_d isn't particularly worried if other people
>take the phrase "10 Commandments" and use it to apply to other things. G_d not
>only has a sense of humor (just look at the platypus), G_d also has many more
>important things on his mind.
>
>There's something else I'd like to ask, too. You've taken me to task for being
>"angry" unquote. But was it not anger which led you to call Andrew Kingoff "jew
>boy" after he posted his "10 Commandments of MHA", which you found offensive?
>
>And if not anger, then what? I'd understand an angry outburst, but I guess I'd
>find a cold, calculated, offhand dropping of "jew boy" to be worse.
>
>So which is it? Were you angry (in which case being guilty of that which you
>accused me of), or not?

I am not sure if your questions are rhetorical or not. If you have
been reading Jan Drew's posts for a while I think it clear that she is
totally in denial of her anger and uses projection as a defense
mechanism to avoid dealing with her own murderous rage toward various
cultures, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientation, etc.

Jan believes that it is the other people who are angry, not her. But
then she acts in a way to get the other person angry. Then when that
person expresses anger, Jan interprets that as meaning that she was
correct in thinking that it is the others who are angry and not her.

It is an absolutely fascinating dynamic that plays out here in mha on
a daily basis with Jan. She frustrates people endlessly and then when
they lose it she says "temper, temper".

Cue Jan to start a new thread attacking me because she is too cowardly
to directly address my comments.

Like most bigots, Jan is a true coward with no integrity. She hides
behind her "Christianity" in an attempt to stay on high moral ground.
She uses the Bible to advance her own anger and frustration at others.
Sad that.

Aloha,

Rich

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]ojunk (DEBBEE1023) wrote:
>

Snip of some of Orac's well reasoned dialogue...


> >Quit crying wolf....you and *your kind of people* haven't had all
> > of
> > the problems of the world.
>
> No, but they have had some of the worst. Or do you know of another
> religion/race that was targeted for extermination solely because of
> their religion/race, resulting in around six million of them killed?

Extermination was only the latest...

See http://www.aztlan.net/jewexpulsions.htm

> Or do you still "wonder," as you did about a year ago, whether a
> "certain European leader was right a long time long ago" about Jews? I
> reminded you once before what that "certain European leader" who,
> according to you, may have been right about Jews, actually thought and
> said about Jews. I could easily remind you again if you've forgotten.

trust me...Debbee has forgotten....

> >Stop playing *victim*, Probert....it is an
> > becoming
> > color on you....(yellow).
>
> He's not playing the victim. He's calling you on your anti-Semitism. And
> you clearly don't like it.

I have been told, by Debbee and others, that my actions toward her, Jan, and
Rod are offensive. Can one be an offensive victim?

> > If *my* people, had won, you wouldn't be living here, they were
slaughtered,
> > and *their* land taken from them....but as with most people who have had
> > similar heritage, we've gotten over it....look at the recent efforts by
the
> > Hatfields and McCoys.....they got over it, and maybe you, and *your
people*
> > should do the same...
>
> There's a big difference between "getting over it" and forgetting. The
> former does not require the latter, as you seem to be implying. Nor does
> "getting over it" mean that one should remain silent.

Or not watch out for the regrowth of the cancer.
 
"Rod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks Mark,
>
> You have proved my point about Jewish "Brands". Of course there are many
> such "Brands"
> Strange that I received correspondence from "Jewish people for Jesus" and
> yet you condemn them so.

I do not "condemn" them. I point out that they use cult like tactics to
recruit new members, and that it is inherently illogical to call oneself a
Jew once you have accepted Jesus. As I said, it is akin to being a
Vegetarian for McDonald's.

What they told me was interesting and I thought was
> a reasonable view.
> Should I go back to them and tell them that I think they may be wrong
> because you have said so.

No. I would prefer to do it myself. I have the training and expertise to
point out their fallacies. You do not.

Perhaps they are being Anti-Semitic or could they
> be a Nazi group ?

Do you always eat red herring?

> So much intrigue with Judaism. What are the basic precepts Mark ?

Do your own research.
 
"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: Enuff About Jews And Jan
> >From: "Rod" [email protected]
> >Date: 2/18/2004 6:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >Ahh Mark,
> >
> >Not a nice word to say about your own religion !
> >Now which "Brand" should one choose?
> >
> >Cheers, Rod.
> >
> >"Mark Probert-February 18, 2004" <Mark [email protected]>
> >wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Rod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > And that certainly is the case. They do a wonderful job of bringing
> >faiths
> >> > together and the Jews for Jesus Cult as you refer to them, are some
of
> >the
> >> > nicest people one could wish to meet. I like that type of "Brand"
don't
> >> you
> >> > ?
> >>
> >> So, you are in favor of brainwashing and soul stealing? That is what
the
> >> J4J's do.
>
> Of course, this is a sick opinion. What they are doing is saving their
souls
> and trying to help others do the same.

Again, Jan reiterates the disgusting concept that only those who accept
Jesus are worth saving.

They are a mind stealing, brainwashing cult. Period.
 
"DEBBEE1023" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <<
> So, you are in favor of brainwashing and soul stealing? That is what the
> J4J's do. >>
>
> Wow, and this tells us *what* about those that oppose traditional
medicine?

Nothing, since you are employing the fallacy of non sequitur.

> Brainwashing....something you all love so much!! LOL....Probert, this is
> hysterical!!!

Debbee, if you like alt med so much, can you admit that you are
braincleansed?
 
"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: Enuff About Jews And Jan
> >From: "Rod" [email protected]
> >Date: 2/18/2004 4:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >And that certainly is the case. They do a wonderful job of bringing
faiths
> >together and the Jews for Jesus Cult as you refer to them, are some of
the
> >nicest people one could wish to meet. I like that type of "Brand" don't
you
> >?
> >
> >Cheers, Rod.
> >
> >"Nana Weedkiller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> Oh, yeah, she wants everyone to stop pickin' on poor lil' ol' Jan.
>
> I think there has been enuff.
>
> > But when she sees the Jews for Jesus Cult in the mall she tells
> >> them what a wonderful job they're doing.
>
> The Jews for Jesus are not a cult, far from it. Yes, I did indeed tell
them
> they were doing a wonderful job.

Disgusting. When I see someone from Christians Agaigst Jesus should I tell
them that they are doing a wonderful job?

> They have accepted Jesus Christ as the son of God. That's wonderful.

If so, then they should call themselves Chrsitians. What is so wrong with
that?

Let's put it this way....

Suppose I awaken tomorrow morning and have undergone a Kafkaesque
transformation and now embrace 100% of AltMed, and reject Barrett
100%...would I still be correct in calling myself a debunker?

Or, if you awakened tomorrow morning and embraced 100% of RealMedicine, and
150% opf everything Barrett says, would you call yourself a proponent of
AltMed?



> Jan
 
>Subject: Re: Enuff About Jews And Jan
>From: "Mark Probert-February 18, 2004" [email protected]
>Date: 2/19/2004 2:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>
>"Rod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Thanks Mark,
>>
>> You have proved my point about Jewish "Brands". Of course there are many
>> such "Brands"
>> Strange that I received correspondence from "Jewish people for Jesus" and
>> yet you condemn them so.
>
>I do not "condemn" them. I point out that they use cult like tactics to
>recruit new members

That is absolutely NOT the truth. The group I saw in the mall were NOT a cult,
they were people who had accepted Jesus Christ as God's son, and they were
sharing, and not pushy.

>and that it is inherently illogical to call oneself a Jew once you have
accepted Jesus

Strictly YOUR opinion. Jews for Jesus is EXACTLY what they named themselves,
because it is the truth. What an unusual concept.


> As I said, it is akin to being a
>Vegetarian for McDonald's.

As you see it is because you have denied Jesus. True knowledge comes from him.
Those who deny him is the work of Satan.

>What they told me was interesting and I thought was
>> a reasonable view.
>> Should I go back to them and tell them that I think they may be wrong
>> because you have said so.

>No. I would prefer to do it myself. I have the training and expertise to
>point out their fallacies. You do not.

That's sounds a great deal like what Satan told Eve.

>Perhaps they are being Anti-Semitic or could they
>> be a Nazi group ?
>
>Do you always eat red herring?

You always say this when you have no answer.

> So much intrigue with Judaism. What are the basic precepts Mark ?
>
>Do your own research.

OH, WOW!!!!! Strange that Mark doesn't what to share all this expertise he
spoke of above.

At any rate:

God's words:


John 3 :36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that
believeth
not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the
world through him might be saved.


18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth
not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only
begotten Son of God.

This is my beloved son in whom I am well
pleased.

Jan
 
>Subject: Re: Enuff About Jews And Jan
>From: Andrew Langer [email protected]
>Date: 2/19/2004 12:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>In article <[email protected]>, Jan says...
>>
>>>From: Andrew Langer [email protected]
>>>Date: 2/19/2004 7:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>
>>It is noted, you snipped all the despicable comments of Andrew Kingoff, who
>you
>>defend.
>>
>
>Oh, is _THAT_ what you were doing?

No, it is what YOU_DID_

>I thought it was just nonsense,

I see.

it appears that recent attack on the >nativity scene has left you with anasty
spirochete infection that is >attacking what is left of your sanity.


> >Merry Christmas, Sodomus Maximus.
>
>People who violate nativity scenes shouldn't do anything but rot in jail.
>I hope it wasn't abused the way JBain abuses nativity scenes....
>>JBain????? I'd be surprised, but I wouldn't put it past him considering
> his actions vis-a-vis nativity scenes.....
>
> >I wonder if he has substantial evidence that he didn't father a lamb in a
> >nativity scene last year....

That is nonsense, not abusive and shows love.

>As it is, what Andrew Kingoff said isn't really at issue here -

Oh, I beg your pardon, what he has said and the lies he has told has everything
to do wiith what I said to him.

>is your response to him.

Right.

He can say despicable things and blasphemy the 10 commandments and all that is
A OK.

Well, I am sorry, but we live in two different worlds.

> I mean, I've already asked Rod what he thought was
>defamatory towards the 10 Commandments, and I guess I'll ask you the same.

Look it up.

We are never going to agree, you have shown me your purpose here.

Have a nice life, I'll be praying you wake up before it is too late.

Jan
 
>Subject: Re: Enuff About Jews And Jan
>From: "Mark Probert-February 18, 2004" [email protected]
>Date: 2/19/2004 2:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>
>"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >Subject: Re: Enuff About Jews And Jan
>> >From: "Rod" [email protected]
>> >Date: 2/18/2004 6:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>> >
>> >Ahh Mark,
>> >
>> >Not a nice word to say about your own religion !
>> >Now which "Brand" should one choose?
>> >
>> >Cheers, Rod.
>> >
>> >"Mark Probert-February 18, 2004" <Mark [email protected]>
>> >wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> "Rod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> > And that certainly is the case. They do a wonderful job of bringing
>> >faiths
>> >> > together and the Jews for Jesus Cult as you refer to them, are some
>of
>> >the
>> >> > nicest people one could wish to meet. I like that type of "Brand"
>don't
>> >> you
>> >> > ?
>> >>
>> >> So, you are in favor of brainwashing and soul stealing? That is what
>the
>> >> J4J's do.
>>
>> Of course, this is a sick opinion. What they are doing is saving their
>souls
>> and trying to help others do the same.
>
>Again, Jan reiterates the disgusting concept that only those who accept
>Jesus are worth saving.

Once again Mark Probert lies, If I want to discuss a concept, I will post it
from my keyboard. Not one word was said about who is worth saving.

>They are a mind stealing, brainwashing cult. Period.

Another lie.

The work of Satan.

Jan
 
"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: Enuff About Jews And Jan
> >From: "Mark Probert-February 18, 2004"
[email protected]
> >Date: 2/19/2004 2:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> >"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >Subject: Re: Enuff About Jews And Jan
> >> >From: "Rod" [email protected]
> >> >Date: 2/18/2004 6:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >> >
> >> >Ahh Mark,
> >> >
> >> >Not a nice word to say about your own religion !
> >> >Now which "Brand" should one choose?
> >> >
> >> >Cheers, Rod.
> >> >
> >> >"Mark Probert-February 18, 2004" <Mark
[email protected]>
> >> >wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Rod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> > And that certainly is the case. They do a wonderful job of
bringing
> >> >faiths
> >> >> > together and the Jews for Jesus Cult as you refer to them, are
some
> >of
> >> >the
> >> >> > nicest people one could wish to meet. I like that type of "Brand"
> >don't
> >> >> you
> >> >> > ?
> >> >>
> >> >> So, you are in favor of brainwashing and soul stealing? That is what
> >the
> >> >> J4J's do.
> >>
> >> Of course, this is a sick opinion. What they are doing is saving their
> >souls
> >> and trying to help others do the same.
> >
> >Again, Jan reiterates the disgusting concept that only those who accept
> >Jesus are worth saving.
>
> Once again Mark Probert lies, If I want to discuss a concept, I will post
it
> from my keyboard. Not one word was said about who is worth saving.
>
> >They are a mind stealing, brainwashing cult. Period.
>
> Another lie.
>
> The work of Satan.

Yes, the J4J's do Satan's work.
 
"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: Enuff About Jews And Jan
> >From: "Mark Probert-February 18, 2004"
[email protected]
> >Date: 2/19/2004 2:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> >"Rod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Thanks Mark,
> >>
> >> You have proved my point about Jewish "Brands". Of course there are
many
> >> such "Brands"
> >> Strange that I received correspondence from "Jewish people for Jesus"
and
> >> yet you condemn them so.
> >
> >I do not "condemn" them. I point out that they use cult like tactics to
> >recruit new members
>
> That is absolutely NOT the truth. The group I saw in the mall were NOT a
cult,
> they were people who had accepted Jesus Christ as God's son, and they were
> sharing, and not pushy.

What does a cult look like? Do they wear old sheets? Wamsutta? Do they have
horns? Are they unbathed? Do they smile all the time? IOW, Jan, you have no
way of knowing whether a group is a cult from looking at them.

The fact that they did not appear to be pushy to you is attributable to two
points.

1) You are a Christian, thus not subject to recruitment. However, they will
accept your money.

2) The brainwashing process of cults is not pushy by its very nature. They
are subtle, they slither in through the mental backdoor.

Obviously, you have not studied them in the slightest.

> >and that it is inherently illogical to call oneself a Jew once you have
> accepted Jesus
>
> Strictly YOUR opinion. Jews for Jesus is EXACTLY what they named
themselves,
> because it is the truth. What an unusual concept.

Since one of the basic tenets of Judiasm is that there has ben no Messiah,
the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah violates a basic tenet. Imagine a
person who calls themselves a Christian who rejects Jesus as the Messiah.
Are they rightfully called Christian?


> > As I said, it is akin to being a
> >Vegetarian for McDonald's.
>
> As you see it is because you have denied Jesus. True knowledge comes from
him.
> Those who deny him is the work of Satan.

Thus, Judaism is the work of Satan.

That is the only logical sequitur from your statement..

> >What they told me was interesting and I thought was
> >> a reasonable view.
> >> Should I go back to them and tell them that I think they may be wrong
> >> because you have said so.
>
> >No. I would prefer to do it myself. I have the training and expertise to
> >point out their fallacies. You do not.
>
> That's sounds a great deal like what Satan told Eve.

No, it is a simple truth. I do it all the time. I explain to them how they
are no longer jewish in the religious sense.

> >Perhaps they are being Anti-Semitic or could they
> >> be a Nazi group ?
> >
> >Do you always eat red herring?
>
> You always say this when you have no answer.

No, I say it when the question is as stupid at the one Rod asked. I never
claimed that the J4J's are either. He raised it for no logical reason.

> > So much intrigue with Judaism. What are the basic precepts Mark ?
> >
> >Do your own research.
>
> OH, WOW!!!!! Strange that Mark doesn't what to share all this expertise he
> spoke of above.

I have found that ignorant people need tolearn on their own. I am a poor
teacher of the ignorant.

> At any rate:

Snip
 
"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: Enuff About Jews And Jan
> >From: "Mark Probert-February 18, 2004"
[email protected]
> >Date: 2/19/2004 2:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> >"Rod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Thanks Mark,
> >>
> >> You have proved my point about Jewish "Brands". Of course there are
many
> >> such "Brands"
> >> Strange that I received correspondence from "Jewish people for Jesus"
and
> >> yet you condemn them so.
> >
> >I do not "condemn" them. I point out that they use cult like tactics to
> >recruit new members
>
> That is absolutely NOT the truth. The group I saw in the mall were NOT a
cult,
> they were people who had accepted Jesus Christ as God's son, and they were
> sharing, and not pushy.

What does a cult look like? Do they wear old sheets? Wamsutta? Do they have
horns? Are they unbathed? Do they smile all the time? IOW, Jan, you have no
way of knowing whether a group is a cult from looking at them.

The fact that they did not appear to be pushy to you is attributable to two
points.

1) You are a Christian, thus not subject to recruitment. However, they will
accept your money.

2) The brainwashing process of cults is not pushy by its very nature. They
are subtle, they slither in through the mental backdoor.

Obviously, you have not studied them in the slightest.

> >and that it is inherently illogical to call oneself a Jew once you have
> accepted Jesus
>
> Strictly YOUR opinion. Jews for Jesus is EXACTLY what they named
themselves,
> because it is the truth. What an unusual concept.

Since one of the basic tenets of Judiasm is that there has ben no Messiah,
the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah violates a basic tenet. Imagine a
person who calls themselves a Christian who rejects Jesus as the Messiah.
Are they rightfully called Christian?


> > As I said, it is akin to being a
> >Vegetarian for McDonald's.
>
> As you see it is because you have denied Jesus. True knowledge comes from
him.
> Those who deny him is the work of Satan.

Thus, Judaism is the work of Satan.

That is the only logical sequitur from your statement..

> >What they told me was interesting and I thought was
> >> a reasonable view.
> >> Should I go back to them and tell them that I think they may be wrong
> >> because you have said so.
>
> >No. I would prefer to do it myself. I have the training and expertise to
> >point out their fallacies. You do not.
>
> That's sounds a great deal like what Satan told Eve.

No, it is a simple truth. I do it all the time. I explain to them how they
are no longer jewish in the religious sense.

> >Perhaps they are being Anti-Semitic or could they
> >> be a Nazi group ?
> >
> >Do you always eat red herring?
>
> You always say this when you have no answer.

No, I say it when the question is as stupid at the one Rod asked. I never
claimed that the J4J's are either. He raised it for no logical reason.

> > So much intrigue with Judaism. What are the basic precepts Mark ?
> >
> >Do your own research.
>
> OH, WOW!!!!! Strange that Mark doesn't what to share all this expertise he
> spoke of above.

I have found that ignorant people need tolearn on their own. I am a poor
teacher of the ignorant.

> At any rate:

Snip
 
<<
Odd you should say that, given that you (and others) have in the past
painted yourself and other "alties" as the victims of a vast conspiracy
to suppress alternative medicine. You and Jan, among others, are quite
adept at playing the victim card.
>>
How does it feel to be inept? You wear your inept card so nicely...with the
rest of your friends here.....You claim we play victim, yet you, and your
buddies are the true ones that are playing victim here. There are enough chips
on your shoulders to open a new casino.


<< Perhaps if you feel that playing the victim card is so offensive, then
the next time an altie rails about how "conventional medicine" or the
"pharmaceutical companies" are supposedly conspiring to "suppress"
alternative medicine, you should remember just how reprehensible you
find such proclamations of victimhood and tell them to shut up. >>

Perhaps if you had an open mind, you wouldn't be posting this. I can only
imagine how boring your life must be.

<< Really? All of them? I didn't know that white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants
ever had much a problem with bigotry in this country. (Remember, you
said every "culture, race, and ethnicity.") >>

Every group has had problems....women, blacks, asians, hispanics, native
americans, indians, etc., etc., etc. Even protestants have been harassed
also....isn't this what goes on in this newsgroup on a regular basis?


<< No, but they have had some of the worst. Or do you know of another
religion/race that was targeted for extermination solely because of
their religion/race, resulting in around six million of them killed? >>

This did not happen to you personally, did it? It happened to people of your
faith. To continue to harbor ill will and hatred to those that inflicted your
relatives or friends keeps the chip on your shoulders.
How did this event (for which I am assuming you were not present for), harm
you? I'm not saying, it wasn't right, or wasn't wrong, but in order for world
peace (and that's what we should be aiming towards) to happen, everyone has got
to stop blaming other people for their actions for which they were not
personally responsible for and take responsibility for the actions that they
have made for which they should be accountable for.


<<
He's not playing the victim. He's calling you on your anti-Semitism. And
you clearly don't like it. >>

I dislike Probert for the person that he is. Just because he decided to put it
out there and discuss his religion, is his fault. I would have disliked
Probert regardless of what religion he is. He is claiming anti-Semitism
because he is playing victim. He is looking for sympathy, and nothing more.

<< There's a big difference between "getting over it" and forgetting. The
former does not require the latter, as you seem to be implying. Nor does
"getting over it" mean that one should remain silent. >>
Getting over it, comes when you start forgiving. Forgetting is harder, but
when you forgive, you start healing your life.






"If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester).
 
"DEBBEE1023" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <<
> Odd you should say that, given that you (and others) have in the past
> painted yourself and other "alties" as the victims of a vast conspiracy
> to suppress alternative medicine. You and Jan, among others, are quite
> adept at playing the victim card.
> >>
> How does it feel to be inept?

Ask yourself.....

You wear your inept card so nicely...with the
> rest of your friends here.....You claim we play victim, yet you, and your
> buddies are the true ones that are playing victim here. There are enough
chips
> on your shoulders to open a new casino.

And your chips are behind you....

> << Perhaps if you feel that playing the victim card is so offensive, then
> the next time an altie rails about how "conventional medicine" or the
> "pharmaceutical companies" are supposedly conspiring to "suppress"
> alternative medicine, you should remember just how reprehensible you
> find such proclamations of victimhood and tell them to shut up. >>
>
> Perhaps if you had an open mind, you wouldn't be posting this. I can only
> imagine how boring your life must be.

Debbee, is your mind so open that your brain fell out? (Rhetorical question)

> << Really? All of them? I didn't know that white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants
> ever had much a problem with bigotry in this country. (Remember, you
> said every "culture, race, and ethnicity.") >>
>
> Every group has had problems....women, blacks, asians, hispanics, native
> americans, indians, etc., etc., etc. Even protestants have been harassed
> also....isn't this what goes on in this newsgroup on a regular basis?

Protestants have not had 2 millenia of harassment and murder inflicted on
them. Protestants in this group have not had their religion raised as a
means of calling them evil etc. In fact, their religion has not been raised
by anyone of ther them them. Them being Jan and you.

> << No, but they have had some of the worst. Or do you know of another
> religion/race that was targeted for extermination solely because of
> their religion/race, resulting in around six million of them killed? >>
>
> This did not happen to you personally, did it?

So what? That is utterly irrelevant.

It happened to my people. It happened to my family. It happened to Andy
Langer's family. It has been happening for 2 millenia and, after all that,
resuled in a near extermination of my people. Had your hero, Adolf, not been
stopped, it would have happened worldwide.

Sho wme one other cohesive group that has been cosnsitently targeted over
the past 2 millenia. Just one. Take a look at this and give me a comparable
gorup:

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/expulsions.html

It happened to people of your
> faith. To continue to harbor ill will and hatred to those that inflicted
your
> relatives or friends keeps the chip on your shoulders.

I see, so why do you not forgive those who are trying to hack your computer?
You continually whine about them, so, why not forgive them?

> How did this event (for which I am assuming you were not present for),
harm
> you?

Personal harm is not the issue. The issue is whether the evil that brought
is about can return. With posts like yours and Jan, movies like The Passion,
hatemongers like Hutton Gibosn (Mel's daddy), The Zundel Project, etc. etc.
etc. it sure seems possible.

> I'm not saying, it wasn't right, or wasn't wrong,

Nice fence sitting. Either it was right or wrong. Choose.

but in order for world
> peace (and that's what we should be aiming towards) to happen, everyone
has got
> to stop blaming other people for their actions for which they were not
> personally responsible for and take responsibility for the actions that
they
> have made for which they should be accountable for.

Tell Mel & Hutton Gibson that.

> He's not playing the victim. He's calling you on your anti-Semitism. And
> you clearly don't like it. >>
>
> I dislike Probert for the person that he is.

That is the nicest thing you have ever said about me. Thank you.

> Just because he decided to put it
> out there and discuss his religion, is his fault.

Are you utterly stupid or what? YOU and Jan raised the subject of my
religion wrt to this group.

I would have disliked
> Probert regardless of what religion he is. He is claiming anti-Semitism
> because he is playing victim. He is looking for sympathy, and nothing
more.

I need no sympathy. However, you do, and you are not getting mine.

> << There's a big difference between "getting over it" and forgetting. The
> former does not require the latter, as you seem to be implying. Nor does
> "getting over it" mean that one should remain silent. >>
> Getting over it, comes when you start forgiving. Forgetting is harder,
but
> when you forgive, you start healing your life.

So, forgive me...set the example....
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]ojunk (DEBBEE1023) wrote:

> <<
> Odd you should say that, given that you (and others) have in the past
> painted yourself and other "alties" as the victims of a vast conspiracy
> to suppress alternative medicine. You and Jan, among others, are quite
> adept at playing the victim card.
> >>
> How does it feel to be inept? You wear your inept card so nicely...with the
> rest of your friends here.....You claim we play victim,

Because you do, every time you imply there is a vast conspiracy out
there to "suppress" alt-med.


>yet you, and your
> buddies are the true ones that are playing victim here.

Nope. Please produce one example where I've "played the victim."


>There are enough
> chips
> on your shoulders to open a new casino.

Not nearly as many as there are on your shoulder.


> << Perhaps if you feel that playing the victim card is so offensive, then
> the next time an altie rails about how "conventional medicine" or the
> "pharmaceutical companies" are supposedly conspiring to "suppress"
> alternative medicine, you should remember just how reprehensible you
> find such proclamations of victimhood and tell them to shut up. >>
>
> Perhaps if you had an open mind, you wouldn't be posting this. I can only
> imagine how boring your life must be.

My life is quite interesting at the moment.


> << Really? All of them? I didn't know that white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants
> ever had much a problem with bigotry in this country. (Remember, you
> said every "culture, race, and ethnicity.") >>
>
> Every group has had problems....women, blacks, asians, hispanics, native
> americans, indians, etc., etc., etc. Even protestants have been harassed
> also....isn't this what goes on in this newsgroup on a regular basis?

Really? Give us an example of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants being
subject to serious discrimination in this country.


> << No, but they have had some of the worst. Or do you know of another
> religion/race that was targeted for extermination solely because of
> their religion/race, resulting in around six million of them killed? >>
>
> This did not happen to you personally, did it? It happened to people of your
> faith.

You assume too much. I'm not Jewish. Although Catholics in Nazi occupied
countries did suffer under ******, with large numbers of them being
killed or imprisoned, they were not primarily targeted for
extermination, as Jews were. Jews were the target of


>To continue to harbor ill will and hatred to those that inflicted
> your relatives or friends keeps the chip on your shoulders. How did
> this event (for which I am assuming you were not present for), harm
> you? I'm not saying, it wasn't right, or wasn't wrong, but in order
> for world peace (and that's what we should be aiming towards) to
> happen, everyone has got to stop blaming other people for their
> actions for which they were not personally responsible for and take
> responsibility for the actions that they have made for which they
> should be accountable for.

Very nice. May I then assume that you will now take responsibility for
your anti-Semitic comments, something you most certainly are personally
responsible for?


> <<
> He's not playing the victim. He's calling you on your anti-Semitism. And
> you clearly don't like it. >>
>
> I dislike Probert for the person that he is. Just because he decided
> to put it out there and discuss his religion, is his fault. I would
> have disliked Probert regardless of what religion he is. He is
> claiming anti-Semitism because he is playing victim. He is looking
> for sympathy, and nothing more.

Nope. He simply abhors bigots, as do I.


>
> << There's a big difference between "getting over it" and forgetting.
> The former does not require the latter, as you seem to be implying.
> Nor does "getting over it" mean that one should remain silent. >>
>
> Getting over it, comes when you start forgiving.

Forgiveness requires that the offending party repent.


>Forgetting is
> harder, but when you forgive, you start healing your life.

Forgetting past atrocities is not a good idea; those who forget the past
are condemned to repeat it.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back