foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Is that what they call lazy racism?
Ms Rowling and her Harry Potter books: antisemitic?
- Thread starter parmalee
- Start date
Question: Why is it that, when doing the it's-so-outrageous-so-ok-then response, the setup almost always skips over important elements?
I'm sorry, but long-nosed, avaricious, banking monsters akin to the Protocols, and you need to strike elements from the stereotype along the way to suggesting you don't see it?
Okay, then, except, well, never mind; the coincidence of omission and understatement really is familiar. Just another whoopsie, I guess.
Okay, so, not really so long ago↗, about three months:
In recent years, some have described "Hanlon's Razor", a variation on a common theme variously attributed in literature and history. More formally, Hanlon's Razor purports to parse what in rhetoric and discourse is described as the Principle of Charity.
Generally speaking, malice is considered worse than error, so the principle suggests receiving dubious statements as charitably as possible.
Comparatively, the danger of Hanlon's Razor is in its populist appeal; if we ought not attribute to malice what is reasonably explained by incompetence, there remains a question of how malicious we are if the incompetence or error, as such, is our own.
However, the hazard of the Principle of Charity is found at its outer boundary, when error is so prominent as to exceed the opprobrious threshold of malice.
At some point, one must be a fool in order to keep pretending that manner of charity.
Generally speaking, malice is considered worse than error, so the principle suggests receiving dubious statements as charitably as possible.
Comparatively, the danger of Hanlon's Razor is in its populist appeal; if we ought not attribute to malice what is reasonably explained by incompetence, there remains a question of how malicious we are if the incompetence or error, as such, is our own.
However, the hazard of the Principle of Charity is found at its outer boundary, when error is so prominent as to exceed the opprobrious threshold of malice.
At some point, one must be a fool in order to keep pretending that manner of charity.
And, then, more recently↑:
Because of the way literary tropes and even archetypes emerge, there is frequently a risk of infamy in caricature and grotesque. This is a perpetual hazard of storytelling.
What we do with these narrative elements is entirely up to us, but the thing is, nobody bats a thousand. And as I've been reminding of late, "If I call a casual drinker an alcoholic they don't go binging just to 'show me.'"
With Rowling, it was, of course, more than just goblins and Jews, but even still, the question of how significant we find the (ahem!) accident of these tropes in creative process can be informed by subsequent events. That is to say, maybe-maybe, once upon a time, but now that we've seen her perform the stations of supremacism, questions we might have passed over in realtime take on a greater significance in their context.
What we do with these narrative elements is entirely up to us, but the thing is, nobody bats a thousand. And as I've been reminding of late, "If I call a casual drinker an alcoholic they don't go binging just to 'show me.'"
With Rowling, it was, of course, more than just goblins and Jews, but even still, the question of how significant we find the (ahem!) accident of these tropes in creative process can be informed by subsequent events. That is to say, maybe-maybe, once upon a time, but now that we've seen her perform the stations of supremacism, questions we might have passed over in realtime take on a greater significance in their context.
If the difference between murder and manslaughter is whoopsie, how many bodies do you need before you're willing to accept it's not a whoopsie?
So, years ago, sure, there was a whoopsie, and it totally wasn't supremacism, right. Except, these years later, we have now the additional data of Rowling's supremacist behavior, including generalization in her characterizations.
In its way, sure, it can seem like an accident, but that doesn't mean racism was absent. Chauvinism and a certain degree of insensitivity, sure. But it didn't help when a 2023 video game, Hogwarts Legacy, sharpened the stereotypes. What stands out most about Celia Edell's↱ commentary is her patience in working to be as inoffensive as possible to people who just don't see the problem, or whatever. "The antisemitic tropes present in Hogwarts Legacy" the postdoc epistemologist explains, "have such deep roots in our shared cultural repertoire that they remain invisible to us, or we remain indifferent to them":
Given that goblins as mythical creatures originate in 14th century European folklore, it is worthwhile to consider how the antisemitic myths of the time may have influenced their construction.
In the 14th century, European life was structured around Christianity, not only as a common religion but as the foundation for social and cultural organization.
In this context, blaming Jews for societal problems, most famously the bubonic plague, was possible because it drew upon centuries of Jewish persecution. Medieval art is rife with antisemitic woodcuts and drawings portraying Jews with particular physical characteristics: short stature, large hooked-noses and hairy features.
We see these aesthetic features in imagery from the most notorious and widely distributed antisemitic publication of modern times, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1903), and throughout Nazi propaganda.
So, while an artist depicting goblins may not intend them to be Jewish, particular combinations of features carry heavy historical baggage.
This archetype has been absorbed and reinforced by art and media since the Middle Ages, and the portrayal of the goblins in Hogwarts Legacy is no exception. Jewish or not, they resemble antisemitic caricatures with histories far longer than the Harry Potter franchise.
In the 14th century, European life was structured around Christianity, not only as a common religion but as the foundation for social and cultural organization.
In this context, blaming Jews for societal problems, most famously the bubonic plague, was possible because it drew upon centuries of Jewish persecution. Medieval art is rife with antisemitic woodcuts and drawings portraying Jews with particular physical characteristics: short stature, large hooked-noses and hairy features.
We see these aesthetic features in imagery from the most notorious and widely distributed antisemitic publication of modern times, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1903), and throughout Nazi propaganda.
So, while an artist depicting goblins may not intend them to be Jewish, particular combinations of features carry heavy historical baggage.
This archetype has been absorbed and reinforced by art and media since the Middle Ages, and the portrayal of the goblins in Hogwarts Legacy is no exception. Jewish or not, they resemble antisemitic caricatures with histories far longer than the Harry Potter franchise.
And we can pass over, for the moment, the shofar, oh, and also the 1612 pogrom; after all it's a video game. Besides, who knows, maybe it will be like the transgender novels and inspire her to write a novel about how a bunch of Jew-lovers are trying to get her killed. At it is, Rowling deserves the freedom to keep hanging herself.
But let's not pretend it's not happening. If the historical discussion is how much of history we can throw out in order to keep bottom-shelf naïveté in the realm of respectability, we're doing it wrong.
We can line up a string of coincidences and blame: That one's on a director; that's another director; hey, those are software people, so whaddaya expect, amirite? However, the one thing the allegedly left-leaning Badenoch supporter never seems to do is apply even the mildest of liberalism: 「Look, maybe once upon a time there was some some rough-hewn ignorance or insensitivity about the character archetype, and, y'know, sure, that bit in the one movie looks kind of clumsy, in retrospect, and then the other bit in the other movie probably didn't help, and, let's face it, yes, the thing with the video game is kind of symptomatic of the industry, so, yeah, it's probably not unreasonable to put in a little bit of effort to guard against, y'know, accidentally piling on even more.」
And inasmuch as, last month↑, I suggested racism and misogyny are very similar, Rowling's ongoing relationship with notorious prejudice starts to stack up and present itself more clearly.
Also, remember, this whole thread is a digression from the Trump 2.0 thread (#1068-75↗), so it's worth making the point again: When are people going to learn, this is what it gets them? You can't just dabble↑ in one part of this stuff and expect that's all there is to it. People need to learn↑: This is a package deal, you can't just dabble in it here and there, and this is what it gets them. And if, for the dabblers, the trade is worth it↗, then they probably weren't really dabblers to begin with. And, toward that↗, sure, there's a point at which, no, we don't really wonder, anymore.
So, sure, Hanlon's Razor, but at some point the incompetence it implies is disqualifying. It's one thing to cut Rowling some slack, as Parmalee↑ suggests, but that pertains to then. In the period since, Rowling's ongoing relationship with notorious prejudice started to stack up and present itself more clearly.
____________________
Notes:
Edell, Celia. "How 'Hogwarts Legacy' video game reinforces antisemitic scapegoating with goblins". The Conversation. 4 April 2025. TheConversation.com. 16 May 2025. https://theconversation.com/how-hog...-antisemitic-scapegoating-with-goblins-202710
???
Who cares? But, sure, let's go with... a "piece of shit". Does that work for you? What exactly does it have to do with anything that is being discussed?
Now, explain whatever it is that you are trying to communicate with this post:
Jon Stewart:
"There is no reasonable person that could have watched it and not seen it as a light-hearted conversation amongst colleagues and chums.
Having a laugh, enjoying ourselves about Harry Potter and my experience watching for the first time in the theatre as Jewish guy and how some tropes are so embedded in society that they're basically invisible even in a considered process like movie-making.
This morning, I wake up, it's trending on Twitter, and here's the headline... 'Jon Stewart accuses JK Rowling of anti-Semitism'.
So let me just say this super-clearly, as clearly as I can, 'Hello, my name is Jon Stewart. I do not think JK Rowling is anti-Semitic. I do not think the Harry Potter movies are anti-Semitic.'
I really love the Harry Potter movies, probably too much for a gentleman of my considerable age.
I cannot stress this enough - I am not accusing JK Rowling of being anti-Semitic. She need not answer to any of it. I don't want the Harry Potter movies censored in any way. It was a light-hearted conversation."
Having a laugh, enjoying ourselves about Harry Potter and my experience watching for the first time in the theatre as Jewish guy and how some tropes are so embedded in society that they're basically invisible even in a considered process like movie-making.
This morning, I wake up, it's trending on Twitter, and here's the headline... 'Jon Stewart accuses JK Rowling of anti-Semitism'.
So let me just say this super-clearly, as clearly as I can, 'Hello, my name is Jon Stewart. I do not think JK Rowling is anti-Semitic. I do not think the Harry Potter movies are anti-Semitic.'
I really love the Harry Potter movies, probably too much for a gentleman of my considerable age.
I cannot stress this enough - I am not accusing JK Rowling of being anti-Semitic. She need not answer to any of it. I don't want the Harry Potter movies censored in any way. It was a light-hearted conversation."
Was there a point you were trying to make with that post, James R? If so, care to spell it out for those of us that can't read minds? I mean, it's been raised and covered previously in this thread (see #480 where Tiassa even links to a BBC article that gives this very quote), so I'm unclear what you are trying to achieve by posting it in isolation, without additional comment of your own?
Are you saying, for example, that Stewart is saying JKR is not an anti-semite because he thinks there are no anti-semitic tropes in the films or books? Are you saying that if Stewart doesn't think JKR is an anti-semite then there surely can't be anything in the book that can be considered anti-semitic? Or are you saying that he, at least, agrees with Tiassa's, Parmalee's, my view, etc, that there's a difference between someone being anti-semitic, and them (let's say inadvertently) doing something that is anti-semitic or resembles anti-semitism? Do you appreciate that there even is a difference? What is your view on the matter?
Or are you just going to post quotes from people with no input of your own?
Are you saying, for example, that Stewart is saying JKR is not an anti-semite because he thinks there are no anti-semitic tropes in the films or books? Are you saying that if Stewart doesn't think JKR is an anti-semite then there surely can't be anything in the book that can be considered anti-semitic? Or are you saying that he, at least, agrees with Tiassa's, Parmalee's, my view, etc, that there's a difference between someone being anti-semitic, and them (let's say inadvertently) doing something that is anti-semitic or resembles anti-semitism? Do you appreciate that there even is a difference? What is your view on the matter?
Or are you just going to post quotes from people with no input of your own?
I would add here that in thread wherein one has acted and intervened several times in their moderator capacity, it's a little alarming that one would choose to overlook a number of at best questionable posts made by Foghorn over the past few pages.
Foghorn has stated or implied that Jews are "happy" to portray Jewish stereotypes, and further, given the lack of requested clarification, he seems to be implying with the Al Jolson related comments that Jews are also "happy" to stereotype Blacks--and I think that's a fairly generous interpretation even. (Moreover, Jolson is a rather infamously confounding subject: with limited knowledge, I can at least say that I think that Jolson was a far more decent person than many (most) of his peers. My understanding is that Jolson believed that was some solidarity between Jews and American Blacks over shared suffering and disenfranchisement.)
Edit: Then there's this post:
Seriously? Complaining about people "complaining" about racism? Being "happy" with the tropes? This is disgusting.
Last edited:
Shelter of Sarcasm (Shield of a Permanent Grin)
And, yet, in a thread where people expect "the Left" to graciously receive prejudice and discrimination↑, or even hope to devalue bigotry↑, "complaining about people 'complaining' about racism" just feels strikingly uncreative.
It's supremacism. Someone like Foghorn fears only to appear ridiculous in such a manner as to embarrass potential supporters out of hopping on and falling in. "How futile and frivolous discussions about the reality of his hatred appear to him," Sarte describes↑, and we see it easily enough in Foghorn's self-denigrating pretense of disqualifying ignorance. Unable to advance an honest argument, fronts like Foghorn offers "delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert". They can't make their argument on merit, so the only thing they can do is keep casting their net in hopes of catching up some unfortunate, similarly ignorant other person: "They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side."
We should observe, then, the point↑ of reminding↑ Foghorn's own advice↗ that he should not be taken seriously, is not simply to remind him, since he knows and chooses to behave this way, but to remind others. What he shows is the language of supremacism and the behavior of a bully running with the pack. They aren't bound by much of an affirmative argument, but by their shared scorn toward anyone who would harsh↗ their buzz↑.
In some cases, there really is no communicating with someone because that simply isn't part of their plan. When that happens, one thing we can do is choose our occasions to simply answer for the sake of the record. There will always be an element of know-nothingism in zombie reiterations of the latest trad-sup trend, and toward that one important thing in the historical record will be the markers reminding that people knew it was bullshit in its moment. It's not so much a solidarity across time as making the point, over and over again, there is nothing new about this mean spirit.
And, yet, in a thread where people expect "the Left" to graciously receive prejudice and discrimination↑, or even hope to devalue bigotry↑, "complaining about people 'complaining' about racism" just feels strikingly uncreative.
It's supremacism. Someone like Foghorn fears only to appear ridiculous in such a manner as to embarrass potential supporters out of hopping on and falling in. "How futile and frivolous discussions about the reality of his hatred appear to him," Sarte describes↑, and we see it easily enough in Foghorn's self-denigrating pretense of disqualifying ignorance. Unable to advance an honest argument, fronts like Foghorn offers "delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert". They can't make their argument on merit, so the only thing they can do is keep casting their net in hopes of catching up some unfortunate, similarly ignorant other person: "They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side."
We should observe, then, the point↑ of reminding↑ Foghorn's own advice↗ that he should not be taken seriously, is not simply to remind him, since he knows and chooses to behave this way, but to remind others. What he shows is the language of supremacism and the behavior of a bully running with the pack. They aren't bound by much of an affirmative argument, but by their shared scorn toward anyone who would harsh↗ their buzz↑.
In some cases, there really is no communicating with someone because that simply isn't part of their plan. When that happens, one thing we can do is choose our occasions to simply answer for the sake of the record. There will always be an element of know-nothingism in zombie reiterations of the latest trad-sup trend, and toward that one important thing in the historical record will be the markers reminding that people knew it was bullshit in its moment. It's not so much a solidarity across time as making the point, over and over again, there is nothing new about this mean spirit.
Thanks for asking, Sarkus.
There's a lot of hysteria here from a few people, who seem to be wanting to read in racism, transphobia and more, not only into material written or said by JKR, but also into material written and said by other people, like Jon Stewart, for example. Of course, the hysteria doesn't stop there. It extends to what people have written and said right here on sciforums.
We've seen hysterical attacks against myself, apparently because there's something wrong with looking at the facts of what JKR has and hasn't said. We've also seen hysterical attacks against foghorn. All of it smacks of a somewhat desperate attempt by some to take offense at things that haven't actually been said or written.
I think it's worth injecting a reality check now and then, using what people have actually said and written. You know, to put some fact and balance into the "debate". Don't you agree?
Is it not clear to you that Tiassa is continually cherry-picking what he quotes of articles like the BBC one? I mean, the whole article is explicitly about Jon Stewart saying he didn't mean to accuse JKR of anti-semitism. He explicitly says, in addition, that he doesn't think that the Harry Potter movies are anti-semitic. But Tiassa didn't quote any of what Jon Stewart actually said.
It follows that if Tiassa - or you, or parmalee - want to argue that Harry Potter is anti-semitic, it doesn't help any of you to point to Jon Stewart and pretend that he thinks they are. It does nothing to help you make a case.
Understand? Tiassa surely does not. I don't think parmalee does, either.
It's also no coincidence that the three of you are teaming up to try to paint myself and foghorn as anti-semites and transphobes. After all we have:
- parmalee hates foghorn and has an ongoing personal feud with him.
- Tiassa hates me, and until recently spent years persecuting a personal grudge based on his hatred.
- You and I have a recent history of some unfortunate run-ins in which you made a bit of a fool of yourself, and you're still sore about that.
As result, the three of you are running around wielding your metaphorical tar brushes with wild abandon.
At this stage, I'm just popping in now and then to remind y'all that there are facts, because you all seem too angry to want to pay much attention to such things, most of the time.
No, I'm not saying that. Did anything I post suggest that? Why do you mention it?
Again, no, I'm not saying that.
If, however, you want to make a case for there being something in the Harry Potter books that is antisemitic, then by all means make it. God knows nobody else has, yet.
I haven't said that. It might be true. Interesting concept though, when you think about it. Being anti-semitic inadvertently. People are to blame even when they aren't aware that they're in the wrong.
This is worse that the Thought Police. You're all trying to police people who haven't even had the thought.
Oh, so now you want to know my view, Sarkus? Really? I don't think you do. I think you're just looking for excuses to continue to persecute a grudge.
Made you think, didn't I? Well, almost.
Last edited:
You filed three reports recently. None of them warrants moderator intervention. Your reports were not "overlooked".
If you think foghorn's posts are "questionable", try explaining why that is, in the thread, maybe. It's a discussion forum.
Where? And are they?
When you say "seems to be implying", that is giving your opinion. Opinions can differ, and disagreements can be discussed on a discussion forum. Censorship is not always the answer.
Besides, I'm sure you wouldn't want your views censored. Yet, you're constantly calling for the views of others who disagree with you to be censored, in effect.
You're lucky that I'm so even-handed in my moderation, I'd say. I haven't chosen sides in your personal spat with foghorn (which, I might add, looks very one-sided from my point of view).
Well, your opinion is certainly out there, and available for all readers to consider, along with other people's posts - including the ones you're so upset about.
Has anyone noticed how it's always "supremacism", whenever anybody takes issue with anything Tiassa posts?
Funny, that.
It's comforting to know that we have Tiassa as the paragon of all that is right and good in the world, here to guide us all towards Right Thinking.
Indeed. It's like when bloggers treat sciforums like their blog. Discussion is never part of the plan.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I was curious to see what caused you to say this so I couldn't resist taking a peek.
I am astonished that Tiassa would have the unmitigated temerity to express such a self-burn out loud.
"Hysterical?" The root of that is hystera, the Greek word for "uterus" - and was used as a derogatory term for women, implying that they could not control their emotions due to their womanly parts! You're a sexist as well as an anti-Semite! O the humanity!
(just kidding in case it wasn't clear)
“Here’s how you know Jews are still where they are,” Stewart began. “Talking to people I say, ‘Have you ever seen a ‘Harry Potter’ movie?’ and people are all like, ‘Oh, I love the ‘Harry Potter’ movies!’ and I’m like, ‘Have you ever seen the scenes in Gringotts Bank?’ and they’re like, ‘Oh, I love Gringotts Bank’ and I’m like, ‘Do you know what those folks who run the bank are?’ and they’re like, ‘What?’ and I’m like, ‘Jews.’”
Stewart continued, comparing the portrayal of the goblins to caricatures of Jews. “Let me show you this from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I just want to show you a caricature and they’re like, ‘Oh, look at that, that’s from ‘Harry Potter,’’ and you’re like, ‘No, that’s a caricature of a Jew from an anti-Semitic piece of literature.’ J.K. Rowling was like, ‘Can we get these guys to run our bank?’ and you’re like, ‘It’s a wizarding world. It’s a world where the train station has a half a thing and no one can see it and we can ride dragons and you’ve gotta pet owls. Who’s gonna run the bank? Jews?”
Stewart added, “They look like Jews but what if the teeth were sharper?”
The former “Daily Show” host then explained that he immediately picked up on the troublesome portrayal when seeing the first “Harry Potter” movie in theaters, but felt like he was in a horror movie when no one else felt the same.
“It reminded me of those horror movies where everyone’s been taken over by the thing but you haven’t so you’re looking around and every time someone sees you they go, ‘Ah!’ It was one of those things where I saw it on the screen and I was expecting the crowd to be like, ‘Holy s—, she did not in a wizarding world just throw Jews in there to run the f—-ing underground bank,’ and everybody was just like, ‘Wizards!’”
Stewart’s observation concluded with, “Even Dobby was like, ‘That’s f—ed up.’”
Jon Stewart Goes Off on ‘Anti-Semitic’ Caricature of Gringotts Bank Goblins in 'Harry Potter' Franchise
Jon Stewart called out J.K. Rowling for her anti-Semitic portrayal of Jews in the form of the goblins in the Harry Potter franchise.
www.thewrap.com
For the record, lying bigoted troll (that's directed at you, James, just so we're clear) this is the article I linked to.
Again, for the millionth fucking time, Stewart does not say that Rowling is antisemitic, and neither have I, nor has Sarkus, nor Tiassa. Rather, he is referring to antisemitic tropes, as I have and as others have.
Learn how to fucking read.
Last edited:
Please do not insult other members.
Already cited, countless times.
Read. The. Fucking. Thread.
Seriously, how fucking stupid are you?
Good to know that you have now clarified that you, in fact, are an apologist for bigots, just as countless people have been maintaining for years.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
It was here...
Ron had a little song and dance. He wasn't giving the image he was being forced to star in the film.
The same for Al Jolson making a living at playing the black trope. Are These stars 'lazy racist'?
Last edited:
Maybe you could elaborate upon this then
Are you at all familiar with the concept of a dog whistle? Are you familiar with the concept of metaphor?
??? Is this you telling me you haven't read what people have said without actually telling me you haven't read what people have said?
Provide evidence, for example, of where anyone has suggested that Jon Stewart has said or written anything antisemitic, or transphobic? I mean, have you actually read what has been written in this thread?
As to you actually responding to the questions I asked:...
I don’t agree that it’s worth it when it is superfluous, e.g. when, as in this case, you are simply restating what has already been posted (albeit via a link). In full. This entire thread is about what JKR has said, for example. And the tropes that are actually in the Potter books. (Have you read the books, James R?) And about what Stewart has said and written, both as criticism of the antisemitic tropes in the book, and in defence of JKR as an anti-semite.
I also don’t think it’s worth it if all you’re doing is repeating that which has already been posted, and doing so without comment. You criticise others for simply posting videos without comment, and here you were posting a response by Stewart without comment.
??? Is this you telling me you haven't read what Tiassa has said without actually telling me you haven't read what Tiassa has said?
First he links to the BBC article that has the quote in full. So he’s not hiding anything, despite your desperate wish for him to be so nefarious.
He then clearly summarises Stewart’s view. To wit:
“But Stewart didn't say Rowling is an antisemite. Rather, he observed the presence of historically antisemitic tropes in the film.” – Tiassa – post #480
Are you disagreeing with this summary of what Stewart has said, taking into account both the quote in the BBC article and what he has previously said, explicitly highlighting the presence of historically antisemitic tropes in the film?
So you really haven’t read what anyone has been saying. Okay. Got it. Is there any point in me reading more of what you've offered when you misrepresent, or simply misunderstand, what people are saying.
But let’s start here: do you understand the difference between…
• That one has done something antisemitic, or resembling antisemitism.
• That one is an antisemite.
Or do you think that saying that you think someone has done something that resembles antisemitism is an accusation of them being an antisemite?
The only one not understanding, James R, is you, which seems to be due to the fact you haven't actually read what people have been saying, but instead relying on your view of your history with them...
WTF?
There is no "teaming up", there is also, on my part at least, no effort to try and paint anyone as an antisemite or transphobe. So an apology would be appreciated. Or can you point to anything I've said that suggests I'm trying to do that?
Tell you what, James R, try reading and understanding what people are writing, rather than relying on your interpretation of their history. You are letting your emotions obscure you actually paying attention.
As for our own history.
Sure. Whatever. There’s no defeating your delusion in such matters. You think I'm still habouring a grudge, yet you're the only one that keeps bringing up the past. Get over yourself already!Facts that people have already been cognisant of, and have been using in their analysis. If you want to disagree with their conclusion, simply restating the facts is showing you to be little more than a troll.
You didn’t post anything, James R. Hence the question I asked. I am trying to find out.
Again, you’re really only telling me you haven’t read what anyone has said, without actually telling me. And there you were, talking about facts. You just choose to ignore them when it suits you, I guess. Ah, well.
No, you haven’t said anything, which is why I’m asking what you think. So, what are you saying on the matter, James R? Just repeating facts with no opinion of your own?
At the moment it’s very much like:
Teacher: “James, what is 2+2? Is it 5?”
James R: “I didn’t say that!”
Teacher: “Do you think it is 6?”
James R: “Again, no, I’m not saying that.”
Teacher: “So, what do you think it is?”
James R: “Waah! Waah! This is worse than the Thought Police!”
There’s no grudge, James R. Not on my side, at least. Notice that you’re the one who keeps bringing up the notion. You’re the one that keeps reflecting back. All I see is you trying to avoid having to respond to what is actually asked of you, and what is actually said.You made me think that I was right that you haven’t read, or at least haven’t understood, what people have been saying in this thread. You have maybe given a cursory look, but you haven’t really understood. You see the players, and you unfortunately just fill in the gaping holes with whatever satisfies your agenda.
Therefore you misrepresent, argue strawmen, and you make yourself irrelevant to the actual discussion.
That’s what I think.