Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:43:29 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:35:07 -0500, Harry
wrote:

On 2/27/10 7:57 PM, Capt. JG wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:03:05 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. wrote in news:zP-dncsy_
reasolutions:

wrote in message
...
wrote in
news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25-
:

It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea.

Joe


Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew?


--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"

Larry

Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere.

Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it?

Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't.

If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews?
A derogatory joke about Jews is racist, a derogatory joke about
Baptists
is not racist. Pretty simple. If you were consistently derisive about
any other race, like Africans or Asians, you'd be getting the same
grief, maybe more.

Stephen

I suggest that your statement is incorrect. Do some research on the
type of jokes told in the Catskill resorts, commonly known as the
Borsch Belt. Or read up on current Israeli humor. You will find that
the jokes are far more vicious then the rather innocuous remarks made
by Larry.

And, if you think that a joke about Baptists can't be derogatory have
a look at N. Irish humor, or even British, for that matter who not
only differentiate between "church" and "chapel" but also proper
schools and "red brick universities".

And is you want to hear really vicious ethnic humor listen to the
Chinese, if you want to talk about Asians.

In fact I have never been anywhere that the "people" didn't talk about
the "other people". I don't know that condemning something that
appears to be universal is entirely logical.


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I think there's a big difference between Borsch Belt humor and the many
racist comments Larry's made over the last, say, year. Perhaps you
missed
them. I think Stephen recalls them, which was why he commented. I
certainly
do. I called Larry on them then, and I do now.


The old borscht belt humor was about Jews telling jokes about Jews to
other Jews. Larry's anti-Jewish comments and "jokes" are grounded in his
anti-Semitism.

Ah.. rather a prejudgment isn't that? Larry is anti-Semitic and thus
if he uses the word "Jew" twice in a row it is bad?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Nope... dozens of times, probably more than that. Read through some of his
previous posts where he said A.H. didn't finish the job, etc.


As I have commented, you are judging Larry based on how you perceive
him based on his activities..

Right, judging him based upon his own acts. No prejudice involved, and
it's the best way of judging someone.

of course, the Southerner who see
indolent Negro and conceives the notion that Negros are lazy, or the
Australian who sees Aborigines reeling drunk in the streets and
conceives the notion that Black-fellows are worthless, or the Thai who
observes that drunken tourists groping the prostitute and conceives
that foreigners are really pretty sleazy people are prejudicial.
Right?

Right, prejudice is judging an entire group based upon the actions of a
few in that group. It is a fallacy and a very poor, not to mention,
evil, way of judging anyone.

Stephen

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:33:05 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:53:51 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:37:49 -0500, " Gregory Hall"
wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
news:gdOdnQvhVJAU_RTWnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@posted .bayareasolutions...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:00:41 -0800, "Capt. JG"

wrote:

"Larry" wrote in message
. 131.13...
"Capt. JG" wrote in news:zP-dncsy_
reasolutions:

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Joe wrote in
news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25-
:

It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea.

Joe



Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew?


--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"

Larry



Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere.


Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it?

Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't.

If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews?


--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"

Larry



Larry, you can make jokes about anyone you want. The problem is
that
your
history of racially motivated attacks is pretty clear, so your
claim
about
making jokes about other groups is a load of crap. Do what you
want.
I'm
not
your mother, but I certainly am not going to just let it slide
without
saying anything.


And this is the News Group that has nurtured Wilbur for all these
years.


Albert


Albert, I don't think nurtured is the right word, but I see your
point.
I've spoken out about this sort of behavior previously.

And rather proves the validity of my previous statement. I don't see
Larry saying those things about the Jews.... shoot, he doesn't even
say those kind of things about Wilbur-Gregory-whatever.


Albert


I can't imagine anyone here condoning Neal's behavior, and his continued
harassment of me _is_ a prime example. It's an individual attack and has
nothing to do with the subject of racism, at least nothing I can
determine.

If you look at some of the stuff Larry's posted, you'll find he's said
some
pretty vile things about Jews. But, believe what you want. I'm not going
to
repeat them.

He popped up with his racist crap, and I called him on it. You seem to
have
a problem with the latter, so whatever floats your boat.


Nope, you got it wrong. I wasn't saying that Larry shouldn't be
condemned, rather that if one individual is to be condemned for
something then equally everyone should be condemned if they, in this
case, bad mouth someone then condemn them, but don't let another
individual get away with the same sort of actions.

I remember Wilbur insulting Peggy until she vanished from the scene
however I don't remember legions leaping out of the woodwork to
condemn Wilbur.

If you select one individual for using a word that you don't care for
and fail to condemn every other who does essentially the same thing,
then that rather smacks of prejudice doesn't it?


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


I don't think you can use the example of Neal being a jerk or harassing
someone as an argument against condemnation of racial prejudice. You can't
equate one-on-one harassment with condemning a whole group of people based
on the color of their skin or their ethnic heritage. At least I don't see
how they're in any way comparable. What Neal did to Peggy was
reprehensible,
and several people did come to her defense, but that's not "essentially"
the
same thing. I'm not sure of your definition of legions. It's a pretty
small
newsgroup.

In any case, I've said what I believe. If you believe something different,
fine.


Well, we agree on one thing anyway :-)

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Heh... well, that's something for sure!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:43:29 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:35:07 -0500, Harry
wrote:

On 2/27/10 7:57 PM, Capt. JG wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:03:05 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. wrote in news:zP-dncsy_
reasolutions:

wrote in message
...
wrote in
news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25-
:

It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea.

Joe


Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew?


--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"

Larry


Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere.


Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it?

Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't.

If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews?

A derogatory joke about Jews is racist, a derogatory joke about
Baptists
is not racist. Pretty simple. If you were consistently derisive
about
any other race, like Africans or Asians, you'd be getting the same
grief, maybe more.

Stephen


I suggest that your statement is incorrect. Do some research on the
type of jokes told in the Catskill resorts, commonly known as the
Borsch Belt. Or read up on current Israeli humor. You will find that
the jokes are far more vicious then the rather innocuous remarks made
by Larry.

And, if you think that a joke about Baptists can't be derogatory have
a look at N. Irish humor, or even British, for that matter who not
only differentiate between "church" and "chapel" but also proper
schools and "red brick universities".

And is you want to hear really vicious ethnic humor listen to the
Chinese, if you want to talk about Asians.

In fact I have never been anywhere that the "people" didn't talk
about
the "other people". I don't know that condemning something that
appears to be universal is entirely logical.


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


I think there's a big difference between Borsch Belt humor and the
many
racist comments Larry's made over the last, say, year. Perhaps you
missed
them. I think Stephen recalls them, which was why he commented. I
certainly
do. I called Larry on them then, and I do now.



The old borscht belt humor was about Jews telling jokes about Jews to
other Jews. Larry's anti-Jewish comments and "jokes" are grounded in his
anti-Semitism.


Ah.. rather a prejudgment isn't that? Larry is anti-Semitic and thus
if he uses the word "Jew" twice in a row it is bad?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Nope... dozens of times, probably more than that. Read through some of his
previous posts where he said A.H. didn't finish the job, etc.


As I have commented, you are judging Larry based on how you perceive
him based on his activities.. of course, the Southerner who see
indolent Negro and conceives the notion that Negros are lazy, or the
Australian who sees Aborigines reeling drunk in the streets and
conceives the notion that Black-fellows are worthless, or the Thai who
observes that drunken tourists groping the prostitute and conceives
that foreigners are really pretty sleazy people are prejudicial.
Right?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


See my other comment, but how would anyone be able to judge someone without
some factual backup? The person in question inevitably falls into his racial
diatribe, which is what he did. So, from his view a Southerner who observes
a black behaving badly who them condemns all blacks would be in my view a
racist, because you can't judge an entire people based on a few bad people.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:43:29 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:35:07 -0500, Harry
wrote:

On 2/27/10 7:57 PM, Capt. JG wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:03:05 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. wrote in news:zP-dncsy_
reasolutions:

wrote in message
...
wrote in
news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25-
:

It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea.

Joe


Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew?


--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"

Larry

Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere.

Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it?

Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't.

If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews?
A derogatory joke about Jews is racist, a derogatory joke about
Baptists
is not racist. Pretty simple. If you were consistently derisive
about
any other race, like Africans or Asians, you'd be getting the same
grief, maybe more.

Stephen

I suggest that your statement is incorrect. Do some research on the
type of jokes told in the Catskill resorts, commonly known as the
Borsch Belt. Or read up on current Israeli humor. You will find that
the jokes are far more vicious then the rather innocuous remarks
made
by Larry.

And, if you think that a joke about Baptists can't be derogatory
have
a look at N. Irish humor, or even British, for that matter who not
only differentiate between "church" and "chapel" but also proper
schools and "red brick universities".

And is you want to hear really vicious ethnic humor listen to the
Chinese, if you want to talk about Asians.

In fact I have never been anywhere that the "people" didn't talk
about
the "other people". I don't know that condemning something that
appears to be universal is entirely logical.


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I think there's a big difference between Borsch Belt humor and the
many
racist comments Larry's made over the last, say, year. Perhaps you
missed
them. I think Stephen recalls them, which was why he commented. I
certainly
do. I called Larry on them then, and I do now.


The old borscht belt humor was about Jews telling jokes about Jews to
other Jews. Larry's anti-Jewish comments and "jokes" are grounded in
his
anti-Semitism.

Ah.. rather a prejudgment isn't that? Larry is anti-Semitic and thus
if he uses the word "Jew" twice in a row it is bad?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Nope... dozens of times, probably more than that. Read through some of
his previous posts where he said A.H. didn't finish the job, etc.


As I have commented, you are judging Larry based on how you perceive
him based on his activities..

Right, judging him based upon his own acts. No prejudice involved, and
it's the best way of judging someone.

of course, the Southerner who see
indolent Negro and conceives the notion that Negros are lazy, or the
Australian who sees Aborigines reeling drunk in the streets and
conceives the notion that Black-fellows are worthless, or the Thai who
observes that drunken tourists groping the prostitute and conceives
that foreigners are really pretty sleazy people are prejudicial.
Right?

Right, prejudice is judging an entire group based upon the actions of a
few in that group. It is a fallacy and a very poor, not to mention, evil,
way of judging anyone.

Stephen


Correct. I'm not judging all people who's first name is Larry based on
Larry's behavior. Yet Larry is basing his view of Jews on the actions of a
very few. In fact, he goes well beyond just judging them. He makes vast
leaps in logic to support his notion of them being evil.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.


Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.
Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the
planet.
Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

No. The so-called CSA were a coalition of reb redneck advocates of
White Supremacy, moonshiners, and inbred Scots-Irish ridge-runners.
Those with "education" were distinguishable from the rest mostly in that
they coulld read the bible, so gleaned from it's pages the means to stay
sober long enough to accumulate more money to purchase better uniforms,
horses and sabers for glorious slaughter.
The CSA was never a country, just as pirates are not a country, though
they can readily stitch together a flag.
And with women vote less and Jim Crow controlling polls even after
Abolition, the Union wasn't a democracy either.
Even now with a 2-party political system, each party selling their
legislative votes to the highest bidder, you can't call the U.S. a
democracy.
It is more accurately called an "Auction Form of Government."
The Union side preserved that.
And Larry is an anti-Semite in his speech, otherwise he would wouldn't
say Jew this and Jew that.
Anti-Israel speech can be political, but anti-Jew speech is anti-Semitic.
Larry likes to spout off and use his right of free speech to generate
controversy, mostly tin-hat powered, but booze amps it up.
I don't see him as evil-hearted to where he would drop the cyanide pills
in a gas chamber.
But much like the members of the aforementioned CSA, he's a redneck
souse at heart, so without reins on him, no telling what he'd do.
One thing for sure. Since alcohol is known to kill brains cells, he was
surely once a genius.
Again proving that a lick of common sense is not a requirement for
"genius."

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 3/1/10 1:47 PM, Capt. JG wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.



The confederacy was an abomination, not a country.

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.


The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it
wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not
campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed
slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation
only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the
Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by
January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves
were not freed in states not in rebellion.



Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:13:37 -0500, Harry
wrote:

On 3/1/10 1:47 PM, Capt. JG wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.



The confederacy was an abomination, not a country.

Certainly the CSA was a legitimate in 1861 as the Continental Congress
was in 1775.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)