[Lumberjack]

Ok Nazi boy, why don't you discuss the article. We all agree that you are pretty good at disrupting the thread. With gene therapy I think there may be hope for you yet.

My what an offensive statement. If you had bothered to read the posts prior to yours, you would have seen that I did in fact discuss the article. Further, if you had bothered to read the posts prior to yours, you would note that I am pro-Israel and 100% opposed to racisim or religious persecution. But you didn't bother, you just came in and, if I'm not mistaken, made a personal attack. Is this the only method you know of to address people? Does it make you feel "cool"? Please, inform the viewing audience why you think ad hominem attacks benefit you, while in fact, in light of my previous posts, they simply make it appear that you haven't bothered to read any of my replies, but rather wish to engage in attacks for attacks sake.

[PA Engineer]

Well aggrieved one, I have taken the time to compile every post of yours before #95. For the life of me I cannot see where any of them are on topic. You were very successful though at disrupting the tread as a newbie along with a couple of your sidekick stormfront friends. I have decided to list them here to give you the benefit of the doubt as to where I may have missed your on topic post.

Post #2 Not directed at you, but at the author of this and other articles like it. Arabs, by definition, cannot be anti-semitic. Semites are peoples of the Near East and Northern Africa, including Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews and Phoenicians. For an Arab to be anti-Semitic would be the same as a white person being anti-Caucasian. Sorry, but I really do expect people in the media to at least recognize basic word definitions. Call me a dreamer.

Post #7 That definition is incorrect Veronica. I've other dictionaries that state the exact phrase that I've quoted in my original post. Besides, I happen to have studied history, and can tell you that all Semitic people are supposedly the descendents of Shem (which includes both Arabs and Jews), hence the source of the word Semite (Shem/Sem). What you give is the "common" usage of the word, much in the same way people say "Kleenex" when they mean any facial tissue. Yeah, there I go again, expecting words to have meaning.

Post #16 Thanks for implying that I'm a liar Veronica. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/disc.pl?term=semite You are now free to be as abusive of the language as Clinton, which appears to be your wish. Sorry to have intruded on your "living, breathing" definitions.

Post #21 Israelis and Palestinian Arabs are genetically identical, therefore Anti-Semitism is not racism, but religious hatred and discrimination. Thank you.

Post #24 Doesn't the Bible also alude to them as the descendents of Shem?

Post #26 Wow, sorry to offend you with expecting a word to mean something. Please, feel free to abuse the language in any way you see fit. Don't let me and all us rigid "word-ists" stop you, ok?

Post #29 Genetically similar, but that means nothing. Croats, Serbs and so-called Bosinaks are of the same ethnic group. So then you would feel comfortable labeling them as "anti-slavic"?

Post #32 You're right, how foolish of me to state in the open that those in the media should use words correctly. The next thing you know, I'll be expecting Congress and the Supreme Court to follow the wording of the Constitution, under the evidently false notion that words have meaning. It is no wonder the Democrats and Socialists are able to subvert this nation so easily. Its not that words are used incorrectly, but that so many people get upset when you request that those in official publications use words correctly.

Post #35 I'm not in the media and typing at a fast rate. I only suggested that those in the media use words correctly. I'm sorry that this offends you.

Post #42 Funny! I'm waiting for all these "words have no meaning" folks to poke at a Democrat or Clinton in a future post for improper or incorrect use of the language. They rail when Clinton mouths the Elastic-Depends-On-How-You-Define-The-Word-Is-Lie-Of-The-Day, but for the life of me, I do not know why, given their attitude on this. All I suggested was that *THE MEDIA* use words correctly. I wasn't aware that this was an offensive request.

Post #47 I know what the definition of anti-semite is, and I know it is an incorrect use of the word Semite when applied to Arabs hating Jews. I also know that many if not most people call all facial tissue Kleenex as well, but hey, they must be right since they call it that, right? There are even dictionaries that define "Kleenex" as any facial tissue or "soft absorbent paper". But in the media, they are still required to NOT use the word Kleenex unless specifically refering to the trade brand of the company that manufactures Kleenex. Now granted, anti-semite is not a trade name. But is is an incorrect usage of the word semite, period. You win. Words are inconsequential. Its all how we define them at the moment, subject to change at any time, for any reason. You win.

Post #53 Didn't you see my post? You win. Words have no meaning, and are subject to change at the whim of the person using them. You win. Now please, go about your business proudly. I'll stop asking that the media use words correctly, especially since this concept offends you so much. You win, get it?

Post #61 The definition of anti-semite was, if I read your's and other's posts here, invented by German racists. How dare that I accuse Jew Hating racist precursors of the Nazi movement of using a word incorrectly. You win man, you win. Love, peace, joy dude. I'm sorry this small (and what I had thought inconsequential) quip at the media offends you so much.

Post #69 Apparently saying that a group of 19th century racists who incorrectly used a reference to Semites are wrong is offensive. Evidently this places me in the "brownshirt" category, according to these posts. I meant the original post as a small barb to the media, in passing as it were. I'm completely in agreement that many Arabs are anti-Jewish and that this is a bad thing. Some people seemed to take that remark personally, as if noting the fact that both Arabs and Jews are Semites is wrong, somehow.

Post #73 Hey man, you win. Peace, groovy, love, all that stuff. You win man. Dontcha getit? You win! Pat yourself on the back dude, you win! Feel better man? You win! Sorry for suggesting that a 19th century racist political party incorrectly used a reference to Semites, man, and that modern usage of the word is technically incorrect, you win! It was just a quip in passing at the media, but thanks for making it your crusade, man.. You da' man, you win!

Post #82 Thank you for at least approaching me in a civil manner on this. I agree, it is in fact meaningless. I made it as a barb towards the media and at the incorrect reference to Semites that the word antisemitism conveys. It was a quip, nothing more, and I didn't really expect an answer, let alone the "brownshirt","racist" and "leftist" references and inuendo people have been tossing at me. I think that people haters (where people = any given group picked as the scapegoat of the day)are ignorant and foolish, and that goes for the subjects of the original posted article. I've always found Arabic hatred of Jews foolish and stupid, regardless of what they label their hatred as. Again, thank you for the civility. Nice to see that people can still debate without resorting to foaming at the mouth mad dog tactics.

Post #84 Hey, you win too man. Semites are whatever you wish to call them, ok? You da' man, you win! If you would have bothered to read any of my posts condemning Arabic hatred of Jews, you wouldn't be making these remarks, but hey, why bother, right? You win. You all win. The 19th c. Jew hating German political party definition which incorrectly references Semites, which you cling to is right, ok? You win.

Post #85 I wasn't aware that Shem's children were a geographical and linguistic area as opposed to human beings. Thanks for the correction. Hey, you win too. Words have no meaning. I'll accept all of your definitions derived from a 19th century German Jew Hating political party. You win.

Post #89 Oldbie, I see civility is not a strong point with you. When you become my drill sergeant, you may address me in this way, otherwise, buzz off. Again, how could somebody who is against racism or religious persecution in any form be what you claim? I see that you still haven't bothered to read my previous posts where I state as much. I'm sorry if the long, complicated, polysyllabic words perplexed you. I shall attempt in future posts to use only simple, one syllable words for you, to avoid the obvious confusion you are experiencing.

Post #94 Thank you for the reasoned reply. I understand completely where you are coming from. Couldn't the argument be intelligently made that the continued use of the word antisemite by those opposed to racism/religious persecution only add fuel to the fire and further the cause of confusion originally intended by those who coined this word? IOW, why refer to this as antisemitism and not straight forward racism or intolerance, or the simpler and much more honest phrase Jew Hatred?

Post #95 I do hope you are paying royalties to Jesse Jackson for your splendid use of his "You don't agree with me ergo you are a racist" card. I also see you've not bothered to read any of my posts that do not directly reference yourself. Ok, let me make it simple in language you may understand (maybe not, but one must try nonetheless). Race hate bad. There, did that sink in, or was it too complicated a concept? Do you need clarification? Or would you rather throw out more of your name calling posts for a while? Please, whatever makes you happy, ok? Have fun with it! :)

All I see here is someone kicking the anthill. How about you?