posted on May 18, 2002 03:02:54 PM new
helenjw- apparently twinsoft's complaint to AW was successful at getting a stupid, hateful thread removed. I don't know if krs was suspended but he certainly should be. As AW presumably wouldn't do such a thing unless the thread was totally offensive, don't you feel at all embarrassed at your callous response? Actually this question should be rhetorical, as you seem to think that your libertarian right to say anything here precludes you from having to think first.
"helenjw- apparently twinsoft's complaint to AW was successful at getting a stupid, hateful thread removed. I don't know if krs was suspended but he certainly should be. As AW presumably wouldn't do such a thing unless the thread was totally offensive, don't you feel at all embarrassed at your callous response? Actually this question should be rhetorical, as you seem to think that your libertarian right to say anything here precludes you from having to think first."
<end quote>
stusi,
Looks like I'm not getting an answer to my question about your accusation that I made a callous remark. I have a complete copy of the thread and I made no callous response.
The thread appeared to me to be a silly spoof and nothing else. I'm sincerely surprised that the thread was removed.
BTW...I always think before I speak or write comments.
posted on May 18, 2002 03:59:05 PM new
It must have been very tasteless for it to get removed, as I've seen any large number of tasteless threads stay on here no matter who complains. And it must have been awfully bad indeed if KRS would get suspended over it. Embarassed, maybe, but not suspended.
posted on May 18, 2002 04:07:19 PM new
<quote>
If you don't remember what humor you related in that thread what's the point? I'm going to dinner-goodnight!
<end quote>
First you say my remark was callous and now you say that it was humour?
And you say that I should be embarassed?
It's my opinion that you are the one who should be embarassed. I have noticed over the past several years that krs has made meaningful contributions to your threads on a regular basis. Why you would object so vehemently to this innocuous thread is more than I can understand.
Sometimes people post exerpts here that they do not agree with but as simply something to chat about.
posted on May 18, 2002 04:39:54 PM new
Bloom wants you girls back in the Lot at once!
If I wasn't the newish kid on the block I would share my observations, but being the new kid I can't, except, trust me on this one: One good old-fashioned one-on-one fisticuffs and y'all would be best friends.
posted on May 18, 2002 07:01:14 PM new
Stusi, I complained to AW but I also sent a link to the ADL and Simon Weisenthal Center, and let AW know about THAT. From past experience I have found that AW doesn't care what KRS does, that's why I resorted to arm twisting right away. Sorry, I don't take racist, anti-semitic remarks as a "parody" or joke. Nycyn, if you don't like that, you change the channel.
posted on May 18, 2002 07:16:23 PM new
Good for you twinsoft! I didn't post to it because it was meant to provoke and I wasn't about to give him the satisfaction. If the same hateful spew had been posted about any other ethnic or religious group, the oh-so-politically correct here (you know who you are) would have been having a fit. Evidently these same persons found this #*!@ "humorous". Go figure.
Krs is one of the most outstanding members of this Round Table. He is neither anti-semetic or racist and you know that. He did not say anything anti-semetic or racist. He simply posted an excerpt of an article for discussion. It appears that stusi is the only individual here who took the article seriously. Even you were surprised. Your exact words were, "LOL Best troll thread I have read here since "God Bless The NRA." Thanks for sharing."
In my opinion this is an exaggerated and embarrasing reaction to a thread that was just presented as a topic of discussion. I don't know a single member of the round table group who is an anti-semetic or a racist or a natzi. What total nonsense.
posted on May 18, 2002 08:05:39 PM new
>>Sorry, I don't take racist, anti-semetic remarks as a "parody" or joke. Nycyn, if you don't like that, you change the channel.<<
TWINSOFT: i missed the threaad as The Kid and I HAVE BEEN HUSTLING IN THE STREETS. (oops--cap lock.)
I probably have maternal Jewish blood, meaning I am probably a Jew which means I can get on the subway with a metrocard.
Even if I'm not a "Jew" I've been knighted an "Honorary Jew", never mind that if you don't speak some yiddish you are not a NY'er, thru and thru.
In any event, some NYC jews laugh at my suggestion that we turn "The Holy Land" over to Disney.
posted on May 18, 2002 09:42:41 PM new
Helenjw- You really are thick headed! "..just presented as a topic of discussion"? "innocuous thread"? 1. So in your humble opinion, if someone makes a statement that is rascist, anti-religious, etc., then it's perfectly fine with you because it's being presented for discussion?
2. You made a statement(s) that YOU apparently thought was humorous but I and others thought was callous! Get it?
3. Does the fact that someone has made many posts here mean that they are KNOWN to you to not be rascist, anti-semitic etc.? Weren't you here when Networker espoused support for Jesse Jackson's anti-semitic statements and others here questioned my rebuff of Networker? All harmless fun in your opinion? Isn't it possible that someone might decide to make their feelings known for the FIRST time? You seem to make some very definitive but misinformed statements such as the one about NO ONE being able to control certain dogs.
4. Once again- krs did NOT quote anyone or state a source for his original statement. As such my comments were definitely appropriate. If he had they were still so IMHO.
5. It should be clear to you now, having read others' posts here, that I am not alone in my thinking. Read KatyD's post again!
6. Can't you ever admit you are wrong?
7. krs' contributions to my threads have been limited at best and certainly of no consequence to this issue.
[ edited by stusi on May 18, 2002 09:48 PM ]
posted on May 18, 2002 10:38:58 PM new"Evidently these same persons found this #*!@ "humorous". Go figure."
I don't think that I bothered to post in it at all. I quickly glanced at it, saw nothing bad to write about Bush, and then moved on. I didn't read enough of it to find it humorous or not. It was about something that I wasn't interested in discussing further.
What KRS had to say was enough for twinsoft to send the URL to the ADL and Simon Weisenthal Center. The ADL I can see, but isn't the Simon Weisenthal concerned with escaped Nazi World War II criminals? Isn't that a bit of an over-reaction? What could KRS have possibly have said that would have prompted such an action? Did he say that he hates Jews? Did he say that he wishes that they were all dead? Did he threaten to personally go do that? What?
Ken posted an excerpt from an article, much like someone might post an excerpt from the Onion newspaper.. I went out to plant tomatoes and when I returned, I found that stusi was taking the article seriously and attempting to argue with Ken about it. He did not respond except to offer credible news sources that did not support the article, of course. KEN WAS PLAYING A GAME.
Even twinsoft recognized this when he responded, "LOL Best troll thread I have read here since "God Bless The NRA." Thanks for sharing."
posted on May 19, 2002 06:41:21 AM new
I have the freedom to say - I don't like Jews if I want. I don't have the freedom to say let's go down and burn the scummy so and so's out.
There is a wide gap between opinion and violence. That is why when I told a fellow at work about a deli I liked I did not correct him when he said it was OK if you could stand all the Hebs yelling at each other. Actually he was right - the help and owners all yell at each other all day long.
However later when he objected to hiring a
jewish person I spoke up and said it had no place. One is a matter of taste and freedom of opinion. The other is active discrimination.
When it becomes impossible to say in fun or seriously either one that "OK you Jews - You are starting to act like the very people you complain about treating you bad."
posted on May 19, 2002 08:05:31 AM new
Of course I can't reproduce the excerpt that was wombed but I can excerpt one of the following eighteen pages. This one suggests putting a bounty on the heads of the military in CUBA dead or alive.
EBTX - War Without BombsWar Without Bombs
All the recent ballyhoo about Elian Gonzales has reminded me of my personal
plan for the overthrow of the Castro regime (devised in the 70's I think).
I wanted to answer the question, "What is the most cost effective way to
overthrow a government when it is substantially smaller than the U.S.?"
In the case of Vietnam, nothing was gained against North Vietnam in ten
years of expensive combat ... just stalemate. Of course, here the real
question was "How do you overthrow a smaller country which you can utterly
obliterate in 15 minutes?". The answer was never found (nor were the
Russians able to figure it out in Afganistan).
In the case of Cuba, we have a fairly easy target. It's population is much
smaller than Vietnam so that attrition would grind them down in maybe two
years of fighting, i.e. they wouldn't be able to replace the dead soldiers
as fast as they were killed.
But if killing soldiers is the most cost effective way to knock off
another government I wouldn't be typing this out ... would I?
In fact, the best way to get rid of the thing is a combination of
imagination with a bit of force. I mean ...
Money
Advertising
"Conmanship"
Timing
Brute Force (last resort)
Let me elucidate ...
The first thing to do (given that you don't want to throw American lives
away) is to establish how much money you are willing to spend on the
project. I think it would be worth $5 billion to get rid of this
"problem". Some might think less ... others more. This is just a
hypothetical figure anyway.
Now, how many new homes could you buy? ... new cars ... new TVs ... new
computers nowadays ... just "stuff" that people want. We're gonna' give it
away to the Cuban people in the "Freedom Lottery". Just drop the lottery
tickets on their heads one day from the air (the Cuban air farce couldn't
stop it). Here's your ticket.
Cuba Freedom Lottery #3368595921
Hey Cubes! Wouldn't you like to be free? ... and make money too?
Just save this ticket and redeem for valuable prizes on your
Independence Day
~ Read other side for details ~
Now on the other side (this could be a fold out thingy too cause we may
need more space ... or tear off ticket at dotted line).
We need to list the winnings which are possible, i.e. how many new homes
and something about square footage, etc. , how many TVs & cars ... blah,
blah, blah. Some pics would go over well also.
A description of their new government, its benefits, etc. and a detailed
list of formal philosophical reasons for dumping the present system are
required. For moral support, you might send individualized messages from
American families encouraging them to ... fight for what's right!
And ...
Now, we also need to give a "bounty" for military hardware captured &
turned in or just eliminated. Like "Earn $250,000 cash for a tank" ...
"$100,000 for a helicopter" ... "$300,000 for a gunboat".
There is a statement in "The Art of War" ... "Always give your enemy a way
out". The reason for this is that the enemy will not fight as hard if he
knows that there is an alternative other than death. So we want to give
the army commanders a way out ... from a life threatening situation to a
"beachfront retirement" by employing the simple expedient of turning
himself in for the bounty. Remember, our goal here is to displace the
tyrant ... not kill people (even if they deserve killing). Therefore ...
$20,000,000 for Castro (live) $10,000,000 (dead)
$500,000 for a general (live) $250,000 (dead)
$250,000 for a colonel (live) $125,000 (dead)
blah, blah, blah
$10,000 for a sergeant ...
These lists should be as specific as possible, detailed, with directions
on how to proceed after the "war" is won. The "brochure" should be in
Spanish of course and very upbeat ... like real advertising.
You need a date now.
When is this to take place? No one is going to go out and risk his life
not knowing if others around him will back up his rebellion. One of the
main reasons that a culture can be enslaved over long periods by a small
percentage of its people is the lack of communication and the
impossibility of coordinated attack.
In every possible way this is to be decided beforehand for them in the
advertising brochure.
After the "AD drop" comes the "Gun drop" ... individually parachuted,
loaded, ready to rock, rifles. Decent effective ones. And other
anti-personnel hardware, i.e. hand grenades, etc. These gun drops go on
every day for many weeks to ensure that many people who want them have the
"tools" of meaningful rebellion.
They should be directed to capture-kill immediately the lower echelon of
government. They won't be able to get to the higher but the lower always
has its butt hanging out. Removing the lower echelon worked to great
effect in Solzhenitzen's Gulag Archipelago ... it should work anywhere.
This will serve, in connection with the next ingredient, to break the back
of the incumbent resistance.
Now ... the kicker.
The USA promises in the brochure that if the rebellion begins in earnest
... it will weigh in militarily to support and ensure the success of the
enterprise. It must say so in no uncertain terms that come what may ...
the thing will succeed. With all the foregoing in place ... Castro is
history with the minimal loss of life and least dollar expense.
Some of these ideas will work in any situation. They are based
fundamentally on the principle that if you want a person to go in a
specific direction ... give him a positive to move to and a negative to
move from.
[ edited by Helenjw on May 19, 2002 08:06 AM ]
[ edited by Helenjw on May 19, 2002 08:11 AM ]
posted on May 19, 2002 08:22:50 AM new
gravid- you are correct to a point. That point is where one accuses Jewish people of acting like Nazis who herded people into gas chambers as a purification measure. This is one thing that Jews will never be guilty of; conducting a war of self defense where innocents may be killed is not remotely the same. Use of the term to describe Jewish people will always be highly resented.
Helenjw- you were very quick to question my lack of immediate response to you yesterday. No response to my last post, just some totally irrelevant double posting?
posted on May 19, 2002 09:01:41 AM new
Maybe you think the post KRS made was harmless. I do not. It was propaganda and lies, and of course Jews are perfectly familiar with that type of "joke."
Isn't it interesting that when talk moves to the extreme far left, at one point the extreme far right. appears. The reason being that pure hate isn't aligned with any political party.
Unfortunately the feeble-minded can't distinguish between politics and hate.
posted on May 19, 2002 09:38:54 AM new
Another strange AW episode. The satirical nature of the piece could quite appropriately have appeared in the Onion, as Helen observed. Of course, many people don't find some of the articles in the Onion to their taste, and others are uncomfortable with satire as a mode of expression. So I can see that someone of unusually delicate sensibilities could find it offensive. Hate speech, however, is a less subjective term. I saw nothing in the article that approached the hate designation, though the author's purpose was obviously to present a Palestinian viewpoint. The position that to favor one cause over the other in the Palestian/Israeli conflict would automatically equate to one's hating the group that he does not favor is illogical.
Also, in all fairness to krs, having had quite a few private exchanges with him over the last three years, encompassing a wide range of subjects, he's never expressed any racist views to me. I recall the Networker episode well, and though you were correct in that instance in your objections, Stusi, also both James and krs were instrumental in discrediting him, with James eventually becoming the chief protagonist.
I don't much care for censorship, but AW is giving almost no attention to its boards now and in the way of threads and complaints will take whatever actions are quickest, most expedient, rather than spend much time at all in the examination of a problem. So the removal of the thread means little except that someone complained. Apparently no one yet knows whether or not any posters have been banned.
posted on May 19, 2002 10:16:54 AM new
I, too, find this all a bit troubling.
First, that outright lies and propaganda against those of Jewish faith or birth is intolerable, especially in light of their past history. However, some of their actions as a nation of Jews to date does not enjoy that very same protection, IMO. Therefore, it is possible to not be a racist and still decry perceived injustices committed by the State of Israel; even going so far as to make broad or direct comparisons to any other state that the shoe fits.
*
*
*
Lastly, if AW has suspended or banned KRS, I want to know. I want to know so that we can do something about this injustice (see paragraph above). If certain subjects are to be banned on AW, I'd like a List, please.
edited to make corrections
[ edited by Borillar on May 19, 2002 10:22 AM ]
posted on May 19, 2002 10:43:26 AM new
The article went further than merely presenting a Palestinian viewpoint. It compared Jews to Nazis ("Jewsies" ), accused Jews of genocide, dismissed Jewish concerns about the Holocaust, accused Jews of controlling the media, etc. All familiar anti-semitic propaganda.
I am also familiar with KRS' posts and racist or not, he is an instigator who enjoys stirring up ... the pot. He doesn't hesitate to offend others if it benefits his twisted sense of enjoyment. AW will never suspend him because he's one of the main stars of their freak show.
posted on May 19, 2002 10:43:51 AM newquote by susi
"Helenjw- You really are thick headed! "...just presented as a topic of discussion"/ "innocuous thread"? 1. So in your humble opinion, if someone makes a statement that is rascist, anti-religious, etc., then it's perfectly fine with you because it's being presented for discussion? 2. You made a statement(s) that YOU apparently thought was humorous but I and others thought was callous! Get it? 3. Does the fact that someone has made many posts here mean that they are KNOWN to you to not be rascist, anti-semitic etc.? Weren't you here when Networker espoused support for Jesse Jackson's anti-semitic statements and others here questioned my rebuff of Networker? All harmless fun in your opinion? Isn't it possible that someone might decide to make their feelings known for the FIRST time? You seem to make some very definitive but misinformed statements such as the one about NO ONE being able to control certain dogs. 4. Once again- krs did NOT quote anyone or state a source for his original statement. As such my comments were definitely appropriate. If he had they were still so IMHO. 5. It should be clear to you now, having read others' posts here, that I am not alone in my thinking. Read KatyD's post again! 6. Can't you ever admit you are wrong? 7. krs' contributions to my threads have been limited at best and certainly of no consequence to this issue.
end quote
Stusi, I have no respect for your opinions. The rant above just represents wasted energy on your part and it doesn't bother me. So what's the point?
Helen
ubb.ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on May 19, 2002 10:46 AM ]
posted on May 19, 2002 11:13:38 AM new
Helenjw- you have become krs. you make statements you can't back up, seem to think that if you quote something that is hateful it is harmless, get hung up in semantics, ignore direct pointed questions, post indiscriminately in threads you don't contribute to, and seem to enjoy attacking one particular poster for awhile before going on to the next. Saying over and over again that nothing bothers you is an understatement. That is exactly the point. It is called ignorance! BTW- it is not necessary to repeat entire posts in bold-people can read.
Borillar- I tend to agree with you in general regarding Israel or any other nation. This went way beyond that. But see MY paragraph above.
antiquary- the removal of the thread means much more than someone complaining. It shows that "unusually delicate sensibilities(sensitivities?)" to some is obvious, blatant insensitivity to others. I seem to remember that krs' comments in the Networker thread were not as directed at anti-semitism as they were at political inaccuracies. It is possible that krs is not anti-semitic, but rather as twinsoft alluded to, he is just an insensitive jerk who was responded to in a just fashion.
