Chit Chat

By Ted Belman

From now on comments on every post must relate to the content of the post.

Comments that don’t relate to the post must go here.

Any person who contravenes this demand will be put on moderation. Also their offending comment will be trashed.

The reason for this demand is so that people who want to read comments which pertain to the post, don’t have to wade through the chatter.

Everyone will be happier.

April 16, 2020 | 7,908 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 7908 Comments

  1. @ King of the Smears:

    “Boys invariably play along w/ girlie games w/o knowing they are playing, but that’s because they cannot see that there is a game in play — actually, a game at work — in the first place. But the little girls ALL know it.

    Mind you, even they don’t know WHY it works, only that it does (just as most car-drivers know little of WHY their vehicle works, only that IT does) — and that they can easily exploit this reality to institute a ‘rewards’ system to get the boys to do pretty much whatever they want.

    Remember when you were in, what, 7th grade maybe, and suddenly it seemed like the girls always were giggling together over something? If you could’ve been a fly on the wall, what you would’ve heard, time & again, would’ve sounded like something on the order of, ‘and that’s all I had to do. . . . to get all that????’

    It’s not limited to the scatter-brain types, however. The bright ones are equally subject to its appeal — and the boys on whom it’s used are largely HELPLESS under its very powerful sway — unless there are intelligent adults on the scene who know what they’re looking at, and have the presence of mind to break the ‘spell’ with a word, a glance, a gesture, etc.”

    “another bit of psychobabble”

    That’s his left-handed way of inadvertently admitting that he’s still playing his part in the game.

    “attempting to obfuscate your use of the misogynist derogatory smear ‘Twinkie’…”

    Blah-blah-blah-obfuscate-blah-blah-misogynist-blah-blah-smear-blah-blah-twinkie-blah-blah-blah-blah-psychobabble-babble-babble-babble-psycho-psycho-psycho-psycho. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    “do you write fairy tales?”

    All the fairy tales have already been ‘written.’ All that remains is to learn from them.

    And you haven’t yet started.

  2. @ Huff’n’puff:

    “My dear Twinkie, if YOU honestly believe that what you saw (in the BR post you referenced) constituted any species or measure of ‘gallantry’ — then whatever I know about the subject, you know LESS

    — less by a country mile.”

    “How can one know less than nothing?”

    You do love riddles, don’t you? Okay; very simple, actually.

    An honest man (there are still a few who know what that means) knows that he must ALWAYS face reality ANEW with a blank slate, emptying himself of preconceptions and “knowing that he does not know” — thus rendering himself AVAILABLE and OPEN to being shown by Reality itself.

    To know LESS than nothing is to be subject to precisely those prejudices to which those who mistakenly think they know are invariably subject. If that sounds a little too esoteric for your tastes, think of it this way: You can’t weigh the facts if you’ve got the scales weighed down with your own opinions. (Yeah, I’m sure lotsa folks musta said that long before I did, but am I going hunting for a cite? — nah. YOU’ve got the time for that.)

    Bottom line (and back on-point): There wasn’t a scrap of ‘gallantry’ in the Smear King’s remark.

  3. @ Huff’n’puff:

    “I much appreciate your gallantry and I thank you.”

    “…‘Gallantry’?— on what planet???

    Even a Twinkie can’t so dense as to miss what he’s about.”

    “HB baited him successfully above and he fell into it…. Discernment is not one of his strong points.”

    If you believe that HB was baiting me with that line to the King of Smears, then it’s YOU whose weak suit is discernment.

    Oh, she’s more than capable of trying to bait me, no doubt about that — but that line of bullcrap about BR’s ‘gallantry’ was aimed strictly at the Smear King himself, to keep her on his ‘good’ side.

    It’s just one more installment in an ongoing parade of games she plays as part of an elaborate balancing act to keep everybody who’s part of her world from being hostile toward her for doing the same thing with everybody ELSE who’s part of it (or ANYBODY else who’s part of it). Capisci?

  4. @ Huff’n’puff:

    “There is a whole group who have voiced similarly their opinion of you quite independent from each other.”

    No such thing as ‘independent’ among the remaining regulars here, esp on chit chat. They’re all insecure in their “Jewishness” and rely on PresentCompany for validation & reinforcement. What’s more (and altho unbeknownst to them), YOU are every bit as Jewishly insecure as they, albeit in a different way — so YOU, in turn, rely on their RELIANCE on you.

    Toldja before (a dozen times & counting), you’re like drunks leaning on each other & holding each other up as they stumble home after last call. Along comes somebody who won’t play that game, and you all, quite predictably, act threatened by his ‘differentness.’

    “None of us know one another.”

    Of course not. You don’t know yourselves, don’t know the viciousness of which you’re each individually capable; so how could you possibly be EXPECTED to know each other?

    But knowing or not knowing each other has no bearing on the point. The individuals comprising a lynch mob often don’t know each other either. Doesn’t keep them from leading, hosting & joining lynching parties.

    “Seems to know you is not to love you not even like you…”

    But you don’t know me. You know me even LESS than you know each other — and we already covered how little THAT is.

    “… and i don’t know anyone who respects you.”

    Neither do I (not among regular bloggers here). But then, that’s not my problem; that ‘s THEIR (and your) problem. I’m not here in search of ‘respect.’

    My self-respect isn’t DEPENDENT on somebody else’s respecting me.

    I realize that’s inconceivable to you, as your OWN self-regard & self-respect are INDEED dependent on the respect of those in your environment & universe. It’s bound to be disconcerting & even scary, at times, to contemplate a noticeably different paradigm. But I have no problem with it.

    “If someone calls you an Jackass ignore it but if several call you a Jackass then buy a saddle”

    Cockeyed concept. And Jews (of all people) know better than to hold a brief for what amounts to a built-in condemnation of the minority. Truth is (just in case the truth counts for anything) that if Jews throughout history had taken that moronic adage to heart, there wouldn’t be any Jews left ion earth.

  5. @ Huff’n’puff Puffed:

    “Especially for dweller!”

    What part of ‘no plug-ins here’ do you not understand?

    @ Huff’n’puff Puffed:

    “He thinks he is the christian (Pauline) moral majority cop on this blog”

    I’ve never thought anything of the sort.

    That’s YOUR conclusion, not mine

    — and evidence (telling evidence INDEED) of your sick need to silence your nagging conscience.

    @ Huff’n’puff Puffed:

    The quarrel in the mainstream Jewish community (both scholarly and lay) is not today — nor has it EVER been — over the authorship of NT, but over its significance.

    “Do you wish to retract that lie before I crucify you like your pagan god????”

    I don’t tell lies (even to liars).

    And I don’t retract truths (especially under threat).

    Nor do I take kindly to those who attempt such vicious inducements.

    Piss up a rope.

  6. @ bernard ross:

    “I found [the text of Universal Jewish Encycl] online at a bookseller and the link to pg 174 is as follows, you will have to register as i did to see the individual pages. If you google the book you can find editions.”

    Then why did you not quote anything more from the text than what you found on the JFJ website? If I could’ve found the text somewhere online, I WOULD have.

    “It is obvious that you went to jews for Jesus…”

    ‘Obvious’ ONLY to a mind pre-primed & pre-agendized to believe that. And that description fits you to a “T.”

    — To an objective third party, however, it is anything BUT ‘obvious.’

    “…and after I posted that quote from the encyclopedia you went to it to get more quotes so as not to look like a crook.”

    And from where would I have gotten those “more” quotes? — not from the JFJ webpage you linked to. They have nothing more than what you quoted, which aint much. Where would I have gotten “more quotes” — the Fuller Brush Man?

    I got them from the actual 8th volume of the physical encyclopedia in the library’s reserve section, and could’ve given them to you right away if you’d asked for them.

    “Now which of the two quotes more closely resembles your claim above, the JFJ quote or the encyclopedia quote…?”

    Who gives a roly-poly turd? You’re trying to make a case out of empty air. They are both generic assertions which summarize a common finding that ANYONE would make upon reading the material I excerpted in post #34, prev pg. [repeated here, soon, just below].

    “the word ‘scholars’ only appears in the JFJ quote ….”

    That’s a CROCK! (This is even significant to you??? The word, “scholars,” is not exactly some obscure term dredged up from secret arcana!)

    — The word, “scholars,” appears in par. 2 of the textual excerpt I quoted [repeated here, below]:

    “In its present form, the New Testament is written in Greek, although it is possible that some of the books were originally in Aramaic. Most of the writers of the various parts were Jews … The authors drew more or less from contemporary Jewish ideas, ethics, legends, parables, and sayings.

    “The New Testament cannot be understood without a knowledge of the Judaism of the times, a fact recognized by both Christian and Jewish scholars. Thus, in the case of many of the sayings of Jesus, it is possible to arrive at a more exact meaning by reconstructing the original Aramaic or Hebrew in which they were uttered. Because of the large proportion of Jewish ideas and the fact that so many Jews participated in its writing, the New Testament may be reasonably regarded as a part of Jewish literature… [p. 174]

    “…The New Testament was much read in the early church, restricted to the clergy during the Middle Ages, and restored to the people by the Protestant Reformation. Modern antisemitism tries to eliminate the New Testament as a Jewish literary product from the religious life of mankind with almost the same fervor as it seeks to ban the Hebrew Bible…” [p. 175]

    [Rabbi Ernst I. Jacob, in The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol 8 (New York: Ktav, 1969)]

    THE BOTTOM LINE, HOWEVER, REMAINS THE BOTTOM LINE, HOWSOEVER YOU MAY TRY TO OBSCURE IT — REPEATED HERE:

    Now that it’s clear what you are up to, I fully expect YOU to do anything possible to create red herrings to obfuscate the original central point at issue — which was, and remains, that except for a few isolated cranks (whom nutcases like Huffy love to pull out & dust off), Jews are as much agreed as anybody else that NT was the work of 1st century Judean & Anatolian Jews.

    And the idea that you or anybody else would try to unjustly & prejudicially CONFLATE those who wrote and lived by those writings for a full century or more (before the destruction of that Jerusalem-based movement) with the gentile perpetrators of subsequent Jewish persecution is an outrage that no honest, fair-minded person can rightly ignore.

    All Thought Police — of any stripe — are filthy pigs.

  7. dweller Said:

    When a little girl grows up, of course, she puts aside such games — relinquishes that kind of ‘power’ — and becomes what used to be known by the now quaint-sounding title of “an honest woman” — if she IS honest.

    is there no end to this psychobabble which he claims he never says?

  8. dweller Said:

    It’s not limited to the scatter-brain types, however. The bright ones are equally subject to its appeal — and the boys on whom it’s used are largely HELPLESS under its very powerful sway — unless there are intelligent adults on the scene who know what they’re looking at, and have the presence of mind to break the ‘spell’ with a word, a glance, a gesture, etc.

    another bit of psychobabble attempting to obfuscate your use of the misogynist derogatory smear “Twinkie”
    do you write fairy tales?

  9. dweller Said:

    2. The book’s text is not online (it was published decades before the advent of the web) — so you will not find anything other than remarks ABOUT the book there.

    more baloney… I found it online at a bookseller and the link to pg 174 is as follows, you will have to register as i did to see the individual pages. If you google the book you can find editions.
    http://www.publishersrow.com/Preview/PreviewPage.asp?shid=1&clpg=1&pid=1&bid=2867&fid=31&pg=184
    here is your comment:

    Dweller said
    It’s commonly accepted by scholars of virtually EVERY stripe and background. But if you must have a specific reference, this one will do for now:
    The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York: Ktav, 1969), p. 174.

    Here is the Jews for jesus site:

    Most scholars agree that the writers of the New Testament were Jewish (with the possible exception of Luke). ………
    Endnotes
    The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York: Ktav, 1969), p. 174.
    http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v10-

    here is the quote from page 174 of encyclopedia and quoted on the jews for Jesus site and immediately follows the Jews for jesus quote above in the next sentence on that JFJ page.

    “…’Most of the writers of the various parts were Jews, and the writings were designed for Jewish readers who had embraced the Christian faith’….”

    It is obvious that you went to jews for Jesus, used their claim, used the footnote at the top of the list at the bottom of the site, and after I posted that quote from the encyclopedia you went to it to get more quotes so as not to look like a crook.

    Now which of the two quotes more closely resembles your claim above, the JFJ quote or the encyclopedia quote…?

    the word “scholars” only appears in the JFJ quote ….

    ..oh snap 😛

  10. @ Huff’n’puff:

    “At your age and physical condition are you sure you have any teeth left.”

    “Told you long ago: I have all my original teeth, and am in superb physical condition for a man of ANY age — let alone, a 70-year old”

    .

    “Dentists i hear cost money.”

    “Not much really, if you don’t need them for anything other than preventative maintenance.”

    “you have been show to be a fabricator first class.”

    Have never fabricated anything here, nor have I EVER been ‘shown’ to. That’s merely a favorite conceit of yours that you rely on in hopes of discrediting your own conscience in your own mind’s eye.

    ” One must assume that a sponge and a bum would have unresolved dental and medical issues.”

    I would assume that about a sponge & a bum too. But I am neither. That’s just more of the above-noted conceit, a convenient vehicle for evasion of what I say.

    What I told you about my teeth is fact. (Not the first time the subject has come up either.) I go in for a cleaning every 4-6 months, and that’s it (unless a crown comes loose or something like that). I get around on a bicycle (as you already knew), unless I have to travel more than 20 miles in any direction. I could tell you plenty more to illustrate the point about my being in good condition, but you’d only call it ‘bragging.’

    All-the-same though, my docs are in unanimous agreement that I have “the BP of a teenager.”

    (Of course most of THEM are women and what would they know. . . .)

  11. “A twinkie is a grown woman who plays girlie games.”

    “Define girlie games?”

    You mean you really don’t know?

    Yet you’ve said, for example, that when HB tosses you a bone, she has a willing chaser. . . .

    (She does have a willing chaser in you — but FAR more frequently than you can begin to imagine.)

    Lemme put it this way:

    If you don’t know when a grown woman is playing girlie games

    — then you’re not a grown man, only an OVER-GROWN little boy.

    Boys invariably play along w/ girlie games w/o knowing they are playing, but that’s because they cannot see that there is a game in play — actually, a game at work — in the first place. But the little girls ALL know it.

    Mind you, they don’t know WHY it works, only that it does (just as most car-drivers know little of WHY their vehicle works, only that IT does) — and that they can easily exploit this reality to institute a “rewards” system to get the boys to do pretty much whatever they want.

    Remember when you were in, what, 7th grade maybe, and suddenly it seemed like the girls always were giggling together over something? If you could’ve been a fly on the wall, what you would’ve heard, time & again, would’ve sounded like something on the order of, ‘and that’s all I had to do. . . . to get all that????’

    It’s not limited to the scatter-brain types, however. The bright ones are equally subject to its appeal — and the boys on whom it’s used are largely HELPLESS under its very powerful sway — unless there are intelligent adults on the scene who know what they’re looking at, and have the presence of mind to break the ‘spell’ with a word, a glance, a gesture, etc.

    Anyway, that’s one example of a girlie game. There are others.

    When a little girl grows up, of course, she puts aside such games — relinquishes that kind of ‘power’ — and becomes what used to be known by the now quaint-sounding title of “an honest woman”

    — if she IS honest.

  12. dweller Said:

    The quarrel in the mainstream Jewish community (both scholarly and lay) is not today — nor has it EVER been — over the authorship of NT, but over its significance.

    What??????
    Sharpening my trust sword!!!

    Do you wish to retract that lie before I crucify you like your pagan god????

  14. @ bernard ross:

    “I did provide a substantial excerpt [post #34, previous page] from the book itself — no, NOT from the website. I clicked on your link and checked out the website. It has only a line or two. You won’t find most of what I quoted on the site. You WILL find it in the BOOK.”

    “after I cited from the book you had to run there to get quotes”

    Didn’t have to ‘run’ to do anything, dummy. The book is in the university library, where I was posting from; it’s been there for as long as the library’s been there. I could’ve given you a mountain of quoted textual material if you’d asked for it at the time, but all you DID ask for at first was a CITE. (Apparently you don’t know the difference between a quote and a cite; I seem to have underestimated your ignorance.)

    “… to deflect from the fact that you had your citation from Jews for Jesus. Before you posted I had already found the book on the web and posted from their mission statements’.. “

    1. The citation [title, publisher, date, pg] was an accurate citation, and it came from me, not some website. If they cited in the same format, that’s perfectly logical, as that is the standard citing format throughout the contemporary publishing universe. Any number of other sources would have used precisely the SAME format.

    2. The book’s text is not online (it was published decades before the advent of the web) — so you will not find anything other than remarks ABOUT the book there.

    “go back and read my comments on the book. don’t fret, I expect you do do anything possible to create red herrings to obfuscate that you use Jews for Jesus as your source for these arguments.”

    Go back and read the excerpts from the book [post #34, prev pg]. Don’t fret , I expect YOU to do anything possible to create red herrings to obfuscate the original central point at issue — which was, and remains, that except for a few isolated cranks (whom nutcases like Huffy love to pull out & dust off) , Jews are as much agreed as anybody else that NT was the work of 1st century Judean & Anatolian Jews.

    The quarrel in the mainstream Jewish community (both scholarly and lay) is not today — nor has it EVER been — over the authorship of NT, but over its significance.

  15. @ bernard ross:

    I wish you had Pinocchio’s for symbols He is already off the chart. 😉

    He thinks he is the christian (Pauline) moral majority cop on this blog 🙂 A Stinking sick prig AH. 🙂

  16. dweller Said:

    A twinkie is a grown woman who plays girlie games.

    Define girlie games??? Fegele !! I know what they mean by girlie men. Must have had you in mind when they coined the term. Classic fit just like OJ’s Glove. 🙂

  17. dweller Said:

    She is, after all, such a ding-a-ling

    hush….misogenyst, pauline, jews for jesus mole at work who:
    doesn’t lie 😛
    doesn’t psychobabble 😛 😛
    doesn’t smear 😛 😛 😛
    doesn’t hate women 😛 😛 😛 😛
    Is not obsessive compulsive nor anal retentive 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛
    just a cornered cat….. 🙁

  19. @ honeybee:

    “what indeed is a Twinkie ?”

    “My goodness, do you really not know? (Or was your question purely rhetorical?)”

    “No, please enlighten me, I haven’t had a good laugh in days.”

    Certainly. A twinkie is a grown woman who plays girlie games.

    ” Who is Twinkie that all our Swains commend her”

    “To her let us garlands bring.”

    (She is, after all, such a ding-a-ling.)

  20. yamit82 Said:

    if several call you a Jackass then buy a saddle”

    😛 😛 😛
    Dweller Said:

    He is a malicious, vindictive creep who found himself a “cause” a few years ago — Israel & the Jewish people — to use as an outlet for his hatred. Well, Israel doesn’t NEED that. But again, it’s not even about Israel. “Israel” is his vehicle, just as you are. This is one desperately sick puppy.

    from the one who doesn’t psychobabble 😛
    honeybee Said:

    what indeed is a Twinkie ?

    It is a derogatory slur… I believe that the meaning he is using is synonymous with airhead, intellectually lite, dumb blonde, etc…… His view is that it is not a smear if it is true and in his view it is true. However, I would not want to put words in his mouth, but I have heard of no other meaning other than that and the ones discussed before. I will bet my bottom dollar that he means nothing nice!

  21. yamit82 Said:

    He’s losing it, that’s for sure….. I love it!!!!

    Its an interesting study to see the painstaking ways he tries to cover up his lies.

  24. dweller Said:

    You WILL find it in the BOOK.

    LOL, after I cited from the book you had to run there to get quotes to deflect from the fact that you had your citation from Jews for Jesus. Before you posted I had already found the book on the web and posted from their “mission statements”.. go back and read my comments on the book. don’t fret, I expect you do do anything possible to create red herrings to obfuscate that you use Jews for Jesus as your source for these arguments.

  35. dweller Said:

    My dear Twinkie, if YOU honestly believe that what you saw (in the BR post you referenced ) constituted any species or measure of ‘gallantry’ — then whatever I know about the subject, you know LESS

    — less by a country mile.

    How can one know less than nothing? Zero not Zorro but Zero, see I know the difference,. 😛

  36. yamit82 Said:

    That’s my driving force for living to experience that which I haven’t yet had

    Try a fried Twinkie. Can found at food stands at every Rodeo. Cowboys love them.

  37. dweller Said:

    (Or was your question purely rhetorical?)

    No, please enlighten me, I haven’t had a good laugh in days.

    ” Who is Twinkie that all our Swains commend her”

  39. dweller Said:

    My goodness, do you really not know?

    (Or was your question purely rhetorical?)

    Could it be besides you dweller only your hairdresser knows for sure? What’s his name? Luke?

  41. @ honeybee:

    “Gallantry’?— on what planet???

    ‘Gallantry,’ indeed — get real, HB.””

    “Gallantry !!! My Dear dweller you are speaking of a subject of which you know nothing.!!! Sweetie”

    My dear Twinkie, if YOU honestly believe that what you saw (in the BR post you referenced ) constituted any species or measure of ‘gallantry’ — then whatever I know about the subject, you know LESS

    — less by a country mile.

    @ honeybee:

    “what indeed is a Twinkie ?”

    My goodness, do you really not know?

    (Or was your question purely rhetorical?)

  42. @ honeybee:

    Would you believe I never ate or tasted a real Twinky? Don’t have them here…. All this talk of twinkies is exciting my curiosity to finally try one to taste that delicacy so much talked about here.

  43. dweller Said:

    Gallantry’?— on what planet???

    dweller Said:

    ‘Gallantry,’ indeed — get real, HB.

    Gallantry !!! My Dear dweller you are speaking of a subject of which you know nothing.!!! Sweetie

  44. @ yamit82:
    yamit82 Said:

    What’s a Twinky????

    This is a question that has long plagued the best of our scientist and philosophers. what indeed is a Twinkie ? The questions remains throughout the ages ???

  45. dweller Said:

    He is a malicious, vindictive creep who found himself a “cause” a few years ago — Israel & the Jewish people — to use as an outlet for his hatred. Well, Israel doesn’t NEED that. But again, it’s not even about Israel. “Israel” is his vehicle, just as you are. This is one desperately sick puppy.

    ‘Gallantry,’ indeed — get real,

    At least he is a Jew and not a JFY scuzzy mole. We don't need or want your kind not here and not as supporters which you really are not.

    BR Caught you in another act of plagiarism!!! My My!!! Pot kettle Black!!! What would Jeezus say?????

  46. @ bernard ross:

    “the key clue was the exact same footnote in a thousands of pages encyclopedia right down to the parentheses, commas, periods, abbreviations, colon,…. what are the chances of that?”

    Only about 99 to 1, dipshit.

    It’s the standard form used in all research papers, right out of the MLA Style Manual, and which you will find in damned-near every post of mine where I cite or quote ANY text. “Key clue,” get a clue.

    he did not make an exact quote

    You didn’t ask for one, at the time. You asked only for a cite, which I gave you — and which you challenged (for the most boneheaded and disingenuous of reasons).

    However, I did provide a substantial excerpt [post #34, previous page] from the book itself — no, NOT from the website. I clicked on your link and checked out the website. It has only a line or two. You won’t find most of what I quoted on the site. You WILL find it in the BOOK.

  47. @ bernard ross:

    Late at night I lose concentration with multiple long dissed comments even during the day 🙂 With him I think what you are doing is the correct approach stay on message don’t let his wiggle out and pound away. He survives through obfuscation and misdirection of discussion away from what he can’t defend then uses sophistry to try and reverse defense to attack. Good sophists always beat philosophers in Ancient Greece. HB baited him successfully above and he fell into it…. Discernment is not one of his strong points.

  48. dweller Said:

    Even a Twinkie can’t so dense as to miss what he’s about

    What’s a Twinkey ????

    Another slur against HB a woman??
    Maybe she said what she said to BR because she wanted to see your reaction. A bone!!!!! You came through with flying colors. 🙂

    You slur her then ask her to side with you against BR???

    Some piece of work you are totally devoid reality…

    What’s a Twinky???? 😛

    Do ya think she is so dense as To not see what you are, Fegele? There is a whole group who have voiced similarly their opinion of you quite independent from each other. None of us know one another. Seems to know you is not to love you not even like you and i don’t know anyone who respects you. “If someone calls you an Jackass ignore it but if several call you a Jackass then buy a saddle”

    What is Twinky?

  49. yamit82 Said:

    I haven’t been following closely your progression till now.

    that is truly a pity as I completely unmasked that he was using Jews for Jesus as his source for arguments but posted the JFJ footnote as his own without reading the actual “jewish source”. As he did not make an exact quote I googled the footnote he provided which led me to the JFJ site where I found their statement very close to his followed by the encyclopedia quote which was nowhere near commensurate with Dwellers statement asserted. I posted the statement from the JFJ site quoted by them from the encyclopedia and he then used that later as if it was his original citation. The fact is that he used the JFJ conclusion but attributed to the Universal jewish encyclopedia and then found that there was no such conclusion in the encyclopedia he lifted from JFJ so he used the one I posted that was on JFJ and the encyclopedia which was not according to his original quote..yamit82 Said:

    Would you say he plagiarized is attributions?

    absolutely… he pretended that his statement came from the “jewish source” but it was almost verbatinm lifted from JFJ who used the source decptively to support their claim what are the chance of having the exact same footnote as the JFJ as below
    bernard ross Said:

    The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York: Ktav, 1969), p. 174.

    😛 😛 😛
    He has obviously always been going to JFJ for his arguments against Jews and using their sources. he got sloppy and didnt read the actual source and directly used the JFJ claim.
    bernard ross Said:

    Dweller said
    It’s commonly accepted by scholars of virtually EVERY stripe and background. But if you must have a specific reference, this one will do for now:
    The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York: Ktav, 1969), p. 174.

    Jews for Jesus said:

    Most scholars agree that the writers of the New Testament were Jewish (with the possible exception of Luke). ………
    Endnotes
    The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York: Ktav, 1969), p. 174.
    http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v10-

    the key clue was the exact same footnote in a thousands of pages encyclopedia right down to the parentheses, commas, periods, abbreviations, colon,…. what are the chances of that? 😛
    our JFJ mole has been doing this here for years

  50. @ Huff’n’puff:

    “No marks on me Fegele”

    “None you’re willing to let yourself see. But then, most of them are self-inflicted anyway. (You are continuing your downward slide.)”

    “friom a nut job like you we must assume the opposite is the truth.”

    Only a nut job makes that kind of assumption in the first place. The prisons are full of guys who do the opposite of whatever anybody says just BECAUSE it’s the opposite. It’s nutty as hell, and I knew a lot of ’em in the joint. It’s clear that they’ve been traumatized and have never gotten past that infantile way of dealing with the original hurt.

    “You’ve neve clled one right or accurate to date you can prove and substantiate as correct.”

    You demonstrate my accuracy every time you get upset — which increasingly is every time you post.

    Good God, even your typing has begun to reflect it; fine motor skills (coordination of small muscle movements) are always the first thing to suffer when somebody is upset.

    “Here we can add one more failure to a long list of dweller flops as and earner and as a man.”

    What long list are you talking about??? — Show me the ‘list.’ (This should be good.)

    “I just tore your smirk off your toady face.”

    “Only in your dreams. And I don’t smirk; that’s purely your own projection. In any case, you can’t lay a glove on me and we both know it. You never have; never could; never will.”

    “Shit dweller… I used the term smirk as a figure of speech …”

    So did I, Huffy.