"Liberal" American Jew equates civic equality with genocide

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

GeoffP's Ode To Litigation

My basic goal would be my exculpation,
But also, for myself, my adversary's subjugation.
So word would spread that nothing but complete humiliation
Awaits the fool who dares to take me on in litigation
​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

abuse? telling?

i'll say!
meet fred taub

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and watch this troll equivocate.....

There is a lesson for management here, and it does not just apply to engaging in the Arab boycott of Israel or other Jewish hatred. Management must monitor staff to ensure there are no attempts at political sabotage in a company. In the two days this story hit the blogs, damage had been done to the reputation of American Express. Kudos to Debbie Schlussel and her readers for both breaking the story and now setting the record straight. ​

http://www.boycottwatch.com/misc/amex1.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well well
so you aussies are at least good for something

/ribs

lets join hands, sister

 

All About Geoff, or, Giving Them What They Want

I'll take the obvious, for a thousand:

"What amazes - no, I take that back; what unimpresses me about the discussion is your tangiental approach to the same goddamn issues while simultaneously loadin' her up and blastin' away at any target in reach; meaning me."

(#2735670/50)​

I love that bit. "Blastin' away at any target in reach". Meaning, of course, him. And it's good of him to put that clarification in there. I might have missed his point, otherwise. I mean, it sounds so indiscriminate. "Blastin' away at any target in reach".

To run with that metaphor, though, it seems more like an ambulance-chaser argument. You know, put yourself in danger and then look for someone to complain about when something painful occurs.

"Whoa whoa: you're seriously portraying this as a branch of Americanized thought? Do you really think it's time to slap on the stretchy tights for another blind-man's grapple with the coat rack?"

(#2735343/32)​

I mean, really, what he's objecting to is, quite essentially, the proposition that Judaism is not the only element of an American Jewish identity politic.

And, really, given how worried he—among others—is about S.A.M.'s alleged anti-Semitism, it seems strange that he should object to someone making the point that an American Jew should not be identified solely and strictly according to the fact of his Judaism.

To the one, he can't possibly be arguing that a Jew is a Jew is a Jew—Das Juden. That would make no sense whatsoever.

And I will acknowledge, at least, the strange thing that happens whenever I have a perfectly comprehensible discussion of issues with S.A.M. For some reason, that outcome—that someone should have a perfectly comprehensible discussion of issues with S.A.M.—is unacceptable. I'm not sure whether that's a factor here, or what the hell Geoff's problem was at the time, but yeah, it's an obnoxiously persistent random coincidence.

Because Bork also leaps off the deep end, calling me out on some random construction he invented. Which, of course, leads me to that reckless "blastin' away at any target in reach".

And the thing that gets me is that people like Geoff apparently expect us to fall for it. Seriously, just who does Geoff really think is that stupid? S.A.M.? You? Me? The average member of this community who might wander through and witness the discussion? Who does he really think is going to buy that act?

You didn't see it before because you weren't supposed to. It's not part of Geoff's prescribed syllogistic guidelines:

• S.A.M. is evil.
• Any thread S.A.M. starts is evil.
∴ This thread is necessarily about Geoff.​

This is how it goes.

What really disgusts me about it is that this sort of thing happens over and over again. Here's a famous one: You remember that fight I had with James in December, '09? I know, unpleasant memories. But think about right before the catalyst 30-day suspension. There was an attempted 3-day suspension that got shot down. And there were all sorts of interpretive issues going on at the time—It's S.A.M., so it must be evil. But here's the thing: I was having a perfectly entertaining and enlightening discussion with S.A.M. then, too. And then someone who had a grudge with her stepped up and soiled the carpet with a belligerent challenge, and everything went to hell. This, of course, can only be S.A.M.'s fault.

And you've been in on more discussions of S.A.M.'s behavior than anyone rightly should have to endure; you pretty much know my position on the issue. I point this out right now because we have an example before us. Yes, S.A.M. treads in dangerous territory. It's controversial; her stance is unpopular. But I see this happen over and over again; all of this controversy and bad feeling comes back to her—it's her fault, you know.

Whenever we have those S.A.M.-related policy arguments, this is one of the phenomena I guard against: If controversy follows S.A.M., it must be that S.A.M. is an evil, superstitious bitch. It can't possibly have anything to do with the number of people who refuse both to have a civilized discussion with her about anything or simply ignore her.

What shall we remember of this? That S.A.M. started one of her anti-Semitic rants, and all the good, righteous people appropriately objected? Well, they certainly shouldn't notice the man behind the curtain. Or, rather, the man who should probably be behind a curtain, since he's standing there waving his dick for everyone to see, getting upset because some are laughing at it.

Seriously: Geoff objected to the proposition that the identity politic of a Jew should not be limited solely to Judaism. And S.A.M.'s the fucking bigot? And any mention of Geoff can only be indiscriminate "blastin' away at any target in reach"?

The Jew must be the Jew, must be the Jew. I can't believe that's really what Geoff meant, but he was so anxious to take his shot he didn't bother confirming his target.

And, horror of horrors, somebody noticed and didn't simply shut the fuck up.

The audacity! Anyone knows the only proper response to Geoff is, "Yes, sir. You're right. May I have another?" Anything else is a grotesque violation of his sovereignty.

 

Interesting, I had heard about "divestment watch" but not boycott watch.

Apparently Jerry Gordon is the vice President

campus watch has been quiet lately and memri seems to have gone corporate - "helping" US government doing gawd knows what shit [I notice the website doesn't tell you that Yigal Carmon's government service was in Israeli intelligence]. masada 2000 has committed suicide and the Middle East Forum is still doing its jig. Honest reporting was totally screwed after Channel 4 dissected them from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv to Britain

So that makes yet another hasbara [spelled p.a.r.a.n.o.i.a.] instrument to add to the list.

 

Tiassa, Bells: I have to admit, I only scanned your posts this time: same old same old. It does impresses me, this collective delusional paranoia. Are there any other clinical signs you've noticed personally within the last year? A sense of entitlement? Persecution?

You could carry on with the personal face-off - which you almost certainly will do - or address any of the comments I made regarding a few key required elements of the direction of the thread - which you almost certainly will not do. If you'd like to see some of them, scan back. I hope the effort will not prove too vexing.

Tiassa: you misunderstood the usual sequence of events on Sam's threads. It actually goes as follows.

1. Sam reports on a media story, then performs an enormous leap of logic to arrive at the conclusion that Jews are generally, socially, economically and/or morally evil.

2. Several members, including myself, stop by to point out the gaping holes in her logic, frequently using the OP source.

3. Tiassa arrives and waxes rhapsodical about the poor quality of Sam's critics, assigning them to a pigeon-hole he has created in his head.

4. Several of Sam's critics write back to criticize Tiassa's ignoring of said holes, Sam's general bent, and the tenuous connections created in point 3.

5. Tiassa baits Sam's critics with accusations of bigotry etc., etc.

6. Sam's critics object to the assignment in 5.

7. Bells shows up to bolster Tiassa and Sam, and demands that Sam's critics "not make it about themselves". Normally as most sensible posters have given up on Sam and Tiassa at this point, usually it's left to me. Tiassa frequently joins in Bells' new position, pretending not to have flung crap in 3. and 5.

8. Thread degenerates.

9. Bells or Tiassa slip up on a critical point (the White Passport springs to mind): Tiassa leaves the thread in embarrassment, whereas Bells sticks around as his patsy until its inevitable closure to the disgust of the moderating officials.

This is not a biased summary, or any kind of supposition, with the possibly exception of 9., which is not ubiquitous. But this is the way the threads go. There is no alternate configuration, I'm afraid.

 

Everybody take the note

Well, Geoff says so, and that settles it.

Everybody take the note. It'll be a lot easier around here once we get used to reality.

 

Oh, if only I could believe you really would.

 

Gawrsh. Tiassa must have meant some other Geoff.

I would ask you in more detail to splain to me how I'm being more anti-Semitic than the Chief Enabler, but I find I do not really care.

Did you have any comments on the non-personal fracas argument? Because I think that would stop my heart altogether in shock.

 

Leave him to it

It's a lot easier, Bells, if you just go with the flow: Geoff says so, and that settles that.

That's all any of this comes down to, anyway: Because Geoff says so.

I say leave him to it.

 

If you can't beat 'em with personal attacks...just kind of sulk off

Err...eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What's wrong with that word, now? I'm beginning to think you don't like any of my words.

Bells: "usual suspects" really translates to Bork and...Sam - of all people - after I posted on page one? "Usual suspects" in a post where he's talking directly to...Sam, herself.

Whoa. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, sister.

While this strikes me as an obfuscation as juvenile as just slamming people in the hopes you can drive them off without addressing the issues they raise, that's actually a marginally better option from my perspective...even an improvement. :scratchin:

...what the hell: seconded, Tiassa. I say go for it.

In all seriousness, however, I do like how that works for you on the one hand, when you're doing it, but not when anyone else lays it out for you and asserts anything similar. I mean, you could hardly deny the format I described. How could you? :shrug:

 

Oh, you and your tough talk and chest beating, and all that ... it's so cute

In all seriousness, Geoff, nobody else cares, and I just don't feel like wasting that much time writing a post you're not actually going to pay attention to.

For instance, take #1 on your list:

"1. Sam reports on a media story, then performs an enormous leap of logic to arrive at the conclusion that Jews are generally, socially, economically and/or morally evil."​

Now, you've had plenty of time to actually comment on what I've posted in relation to S.A.M.'s question, but that pretty much equals your disagreement—indeed, resentment—that there is more to the American Jew than the fact that he is Jewish:

"Whoa whoa: you're seriously portraying this as a branch of Americanized thought? Do you really think it's time to slap on the stretchy tights for another blind-man's grapple with the coat rack?"​

Your criticism of my posts has been entirely personal, Geoff.

For instance, I outlined my view of the topic post in a discussion with Quadraphonics. Compared to that, your summary is simply definitive. You didn't bother to address any of the assertions on record. You simply gave your summary, and screw what anyone else has said. *They're wrong. There is no alternate configuration, and thus you don't have to actually address any issues that you're simply sweeping away.

That's just one. And since you couldn't be bothered to attend any of the details of what you purport to refute, I don't see the purpose of going through it all again, in an even longer form than what you won't bother to read or consider.

Your point #1 is true only because you say so. Sure, it conflicts with a much more detailed consideration, but you have no need to address that conflict. Because there is no alternate configuration. Those other details are impossible, and thus can be dismissed, simply because you say so.

Geoff says so, and that settles it.

In all seriousness, Geoff. You've made that perfectly clear.

So, yeah, what do you want, Don Quixote? You've made it clear that you have no intention of discussing anything other than the windmills in your head.

 

Stop crying, seriously

Well, you drove me here.

I'm sorry, but that makes not the slightest bit of sense.

Congratulations. You have taken your first step on the road to differentiating a personal tack - something with which you have little compunction - with outright libel - something else which, unfortunately, you also have little compunction. We must deviate, eh? We have to? Fine.

Sure: the coat rack comment was mean. It differs, though, in being a simple jibe rather than an absolutism damnation of your character. I'm sure you feel well-justified, which is a very stupid feeling on your part. Here's the thing: keep it off the forums if you don't like the fallout. Simple stuff. I'm honest about my views, which are pretty tame compared to some of the criticisms on here. If you push too far, back you go. And in case I have to remind your for the nth time: while you might have said something equally glib, we need to pause for a moment here and reflect on who dismissed whom first. OK? You fired first. It was personal. It has to be a schoolyard game: not because it matters, but because given the structure of the intertubes and the format of discussion, it has to be. That's the way it is. And you wanted to make it a personal dismissal: or should I really, really think I wasn't included in your list of "suspects"? Oh, Tiassa: give it a shake, ok? Really. It's not even that no one is buying that schtick - and when I say 'no one' is, I mean Bells - but that it is utterly absurd for you to start spouting crocodile tears 'cause mean ol' Geoffy got pursonal! Boo hoo hoo. Don't want no shit, don't start no shit, Captain Entitlement. Substitute "you started it" if that's preferable.

:yawn: Not really required to. I was addressing your specific post. And I might add that until your last post you mentioned not one of my objections whatsoever. Not. One. Are you starting to see a pattern? Everything you say pretty much spills from that same water - Pigeonholing Gone Wild - and since you didn't bother to discuss the initial points I made at any point...well. Nice work, Johnie-come-almost-not-at-all.

Hell, now we're really making progress. Assertion sucks, doesn't it? And it's not even vile personal crap. It's just a simple assertion of how your posting repertoire works. Now, I appreciate your bringing a gripe about assertion to the table: it's annoying, yes. But don't pretend you're not standing on a soap-box as you gripe about it. And, in any event: my summary was correct, as we've just seen. Want to deviate? Go for it, if you can stay civil.

Not my fault. I was radicalized.

Excepting of course that the comment of "no alternate configuration" deals with the way in which you run threads into the ground, and not my initial comments.

What's it like to live in a morass of cognitive dissonance so profound it interferes with the very comprehension of timing, sequence and connection? I can scarcely imagine. Another example?

****************************************************************************************

Small reminder for yas:

Well, shit. That sounded serious. God, if it's the event I'm thinking of, who was it that got that 3-day revoked? Again: I think it's the right one, and if it's the one I'm thinking of - hell, there have been a few, haven't there? - it sounds as though it got revoked on some action of yours, or on the merits of the case itself. I don't keep perfect records, of course; and this is SF, so who cares? It's just that - if it's the case I'm thinking of, there was a member who asked the admins not to give Sam a 3-day ban. Shit: who was that guy? I remember that you sent a gushing PM about how special that guy was and how it would mark a turning point for the forums. I remember even Sam PMed that guy: again, assuming this is the specific near-banning I remember. Ah well. Maybe his name will be lost to history: of course, it did happen.

You were partially right, though: it sure was a turning point for the forums. Instead of disagreeing, we have some mods handing out assertions of neo-Nazism (backed, in a strange distrait of the discussion above, by the sheer force of their own will) while running interference for elementally and pointlessly biased anti-Semitism: I'd have held back on that characterization, but, ah - well, you know. Welcome to the new generation. C'est bon?

I'd ask you to go off playbook, but you've already admitted it's just a personal deal, so meh.

 

Here, look: I'll do you a solid. 'Splain where you're going with this civilly and we can talk. I've had a taste, and it isn't where you think it is, but fire away.

 

Whatever you say, Geoff

Yep. I mean, hell, your link doesn't support your argument, but that doesn't matter, does it? After all, Geoff says so, and that settles that.

Glad we could clear that up.