Please support the work I do and my message

By Ted Belman

Publishing Israpundit is a full time job for me and has been for 13 years. My time is spent searching for the best articles I can find on sites in Israel the US or the EU. I also spend considerable time moderating the comments and attending to technical problems. Occasionally I write articles which are published by American Thinker, Canada Free Press, Israel National News and others, in addition to Israpundit.

In addition I attend conferences and lectures weekly to keep informed and to network.

This year has been particularly difficult as my host server was illegally entered and my former domain name stolen. Luckily I was able to purchase a new domain, israpundit.org, and reconstitute the site. Of course I couldn’t have done it without employing my technical expert. If that wasn’t enough, I had to retain a new host server to host my email program and mailing list. A few months later this host server crashed and all was lost. Luckily my technical expert who set it up for me was able to set me up on another host server.

Needless to say, it all costs money.

Many people tell me that they look forward to receiving my Daily Digests and very much appreciate the message I am delivering.

I invite you to be a partner in delivering that message by making a donation, large of small. It will help to defray my costs, ease my financial burden and ensure the continuance of Israpundit. Use the donate buttons under the banner above.

Checks may be sent payable to Theodore Belman, Hagdud Haivri #1, Jerusalem, 92344, ISRAEL.

November 17, 2014 | 113 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 113 Comments

  1. Mr. Belman. I did sent a small contribution but did not received confirmation from PayPal. Two days ago some people impersonating PayPal sent an email saying I had been blocked and must have the information reset in order to unblock it.
    I did not give my credit card number but called PayPal and told me what I had suspected. It was not PayPal. However,
    they checked my account and everything was in order.
    Please let me know if you received the donation. Thank you.
    “HAPPY THANKSGIVING” TO YOU AND ALL ISRAPUNDIT PARTICIPANTS.
    Thank you all and thanks to Dove for the beautiful link.

  2. @ yamit82:
    @ dweller:
    @ honeybee:
    @ bernard ross:
    It really bothers me to have to wade through this chit chat to come to comments which deal with the post.
    So from now on I am going to do a post titled Chit Chat and you can go there to banter.
    If any of you violate my demand, I will put you under moderation. Thank you for understanding.

  3. @ b-e-r-n-a-r-d-r-o-s-s:

    “Do you deny projecting when calling HB ‘Twinkie’…”

    Yes, I deny it. Told you: I cannot project.

    “…or are you calling her a baked item?”

    More like half-baked.

    @ b-e-r-n-a-r-d -r-o-s-s:

    “[‘Twinkie’] always referred to a certain kind of woman — and that’s the way I’d always used it since at least the late 70’s.”

    “So… you are a misogynist and used the scornful term as a misogynist rather than projecting as an ‘effeminate gay man’?”

    The term is appropriate to her, and one needn’t be a ‘misogynist’ to use it.

    “Scornful” is not insulting — two different concepts.

    Am not a misogynist. (But YOU are.)

    I do not project. (But YOU do.)

    Am not homosexual.

    Homosexuals are not ‘gay.’

    “Gay” means cheerful, carefree.

    Homosexuals are nothing of the sort; they are inwardly miserable creatures.

    Their polarities are reversed, and they are horribly bent.

    Big mistake to succumb to using their language to characterize them.

    They aren’t entitled to that kind of legitimacy.

  4. @ b-e-r-n-a-r-d-r-o–s-s:

    “[‘Twinkie’] always referred to a certain kind of woman — and that’s the way I’d always used it since at least the late 70’s.”

    “Gosh, is this an example of the misogyny and women hating you always get accused of but ALWAYS deny?”

    Always‘ get accused of?

    “Gosh,” no, Mr Jerkoff. There’s no misogyny, no woman-hatred about the term, “Twinkie.” (I’ve known hard-core feminists who used it quite freely.) There are simply certain women who are content to conduct themselves in such a manner as befits the term. It’s on THEM — not on those who have the perception to see its appropriateness.

    What’s more, the only persons who have EVER accused me of ‘misogyny’ are yourself and that other putz whom you rely on for support in this matter. Furthermore, I daresay, HE’s been accused of woman-hatred & misogyny, just as you have — and not merely by other MEN. . . .

    “Perhaps there would be less confusion…”

    There is no ‘confusion’ here, Sir. I can see what you’re up to, and I’m hardly the only one to notice.

    It’s not about HB.

    It’s about YOU, shmuck.

    — It’s always been about you — and only about you, you 24 karat phony.

    “… as to the meaning of your projections…”

    I don’t project; don’t need to. Already pointed out [above] why that’s impossible for me to do. You might care to review it. Either that, or sign up for a course in remedial reading at the local Junior College.

    “… if you ceased using the term ‘Twinkie’ to insult Honeybee, a woman? “

    It’s not an insult. It’s a suitable and entirely appropriate observation. And she knows it — and WHY (knows it better than you, obviously).

    (And this little “knight-in-shining-armor” gambit of yours is wearing thin. In fact, the suit itself is of such ersatz quality as to be invisible — kinda like the Emperor’s New Clothes, know whatta mean, Mr Jerkoff?)

    When HB’s attitude changes, the name I give her will change. Until it does, her manner is itself an insult.

    But if YOU don’t like the name, you’re welcome to kiss my arse on Youtube. Just be sure to bring disinfectant. (One never knows where some mouths have been.)

    1-Lie: “..NEVER projecting,”

    Not a lie. Nobody who isn’t imprinted w/ the traumata caused by emotional reaction can possibly project. YOU ARE A LIAR. (Also an incredible ignoramus.)

    2- “Psychobabble- actually projecting ‘twinkie in the next sentence”

    It was neither projection NOR ‘psychobabble.’ Nor am I a fag. But YOU ARE A LIAR and slimebucket.

    3- insulting: using the term “twinkie” to insult HB

    Not an insult. “Twinkie” fits her like a glove. And “LIAR” fits you just as well.

  5. @ b-e-r-n-a-r-d-r-o–s-s:

    “If there is anyone projecting it’s you on steroids.”

    “Hardly. I’m the one poster on this site who NEVER projects. And for perfectly good reason: Projection is the product of an emotional reaction to an event or condition — and unlike yourself [yamit], I DON’T react, so I don’t get imprinted with [what might’ve otherwise been reacted TO]. Consequently I don’t wind up with something to ‘project’ later on.”

    “You project verbal violence at every opportunity .”

    Yeah? — show me an example [of projected verbal violence], Twinkie.

    “The use of the capitalized NEVER is absolute and implies it is true in any context.”

    There is no rule about anything in ALL-CAPS being ‘absolute.’ You made that up for your own purposes. In any event my statement IS a fact.

    “No context is necessary for this quote. “

    Irrelevant. You cobbled it to another remark as if to make it appear that I said what I did not say.

    “It is not my fault if you drew attention to the fact that you might be projecting…”

    Then it will not be MY fault if I twist & stitch YOUR words so as to make you out to say things YOU did not say.

    “… call Honeybee a name which obviously she fits neither definition.”

    She DOES fit the classic definition of “Twinkie” to which I alluded.

    What’s more, nobody knows that fact better than she.

    In any case, as I told you before, that’s between her and me. If she has a problem with it, then SHE can ask.

    “which are you denying: that you call her Twinkie or that you NEVER project?”

    Neither. Both are factual.

    However, I asked HER for evidence in support of HER claim that I “project verbal violence at every opportunity” and I’m still waiting for it — from HER.

  6. @ honeybee:

    “How many have you killed?”

    “No more than needed killing. What’s it to you?”

    “Can you describe how you did it and to whom?”

    “Moonlighting for the DA’s office, are you, for extra hanukah gelt this year, Senor Snitch? You haven’t answered my question: why do you ask?”

    “If any one is a snitch, it’s you Sweetie.”

    Got some evidence, or are you just being your usual Twinkie self?

  7. dweller Said:

    It always referred to a certain kind of woman — and that’s the way I’d always used it since at least the late 70’s.

    So your defense against “projecting”, when calling HB “Twinkie”, is that you are a misogynist and used the scornful term as a misogynist rather than projecting as an “effeminate gay man”?

  8. dweller Said:

    “You project verbal violence at every opportunity .”

    “Yeah? — show me an example [of projected verbal violence], Twinkie.”

    It appears you are arguing about whether your projecting is violent or just plain projecting. Is this a red herring designed to draw attention from the your use of the word twinkie and your assertion that you never project? I agree that the term “Twinkie” does not imply violence but I am merely referring to your claim of NEVER projecting juxtaposed with your repeated use of the inappropriate term “Twinkie”. Do you deny projecting when calling HB “Twinkie” or are you calling her a baked item?

  9. dweller Said:

    “I’m the one poster on this site who NEVER projects…”

    No context is necessary for this quote. The use of the capitalized NEVER is absolute and implies it is true in any context.
    Furthermore, no context is needed for your repeated use of the word “Twinkie” which you regularly label Honeybee in various contexts. Are you calling her a baked item or a gay effeminate man?
    I did not comment on your post, I merely quoted you verbatim and gave the Google definitions for the word “twinkie” which you hurl regularly at Honeybee, I believe in an attempt to smear her. When you used the capitalized NEVER to describe your projecting you immediately drew attention and suspicion to your assertion…and when you immediately followed it with calling her “Twinkie” the obvious sprang into mind. If there was any smear it is your repeated use of the term Twinkie to smear Honeybee. It is not my fault if you drew attention to the fact that you might be projecting after vociferously denying that you NEVER project and then immediately call Honeybee a name which obviously she fits neither definition.
    dweller Said:

    attempts to make me appear to say things I did not say EITHER.

    which are you denying: that you call her Twinkie or that you NEVER project?
    dweller Said:

    It always referred to a certain kind of woman — and that’s the way I’d always used it since at least the late 70’s.

    Gosh, is this an example of the misogyny and women hating you always get accused of but ALWAYS deny?

    Perhaps there would be less confusion as to the meaning of your projections if you ceased using the term “Twinkie” to insult Honeybee, a woman? After all the glove doesn’t fit and if the glove doesn’t fit you must acquit….but if you are projecting it makes more sense because if the shoe fits, then wear it. 🙂
    dweller Said:

    Pull that little stunt again, Sir, and you will discover that two can play that game as easily as one. I daresay, you may find it somewhat less appealing to find yourself on the receiving end of the gambit. This is the only warning you will get.

    Oooooh, I’m shaking Mr. “Macho Man”….Are you threatening me with having to play an eternal game of “fetch”, where I throw you a bone and you compulsively bring it back like HB does with you?

    I told you that if you lie,psychobabble or insult people i will point it out. Looks like I got a threesome without even making a comment on your post:
    1-Lie: “..NEVER projecting,”
    2- Psychobabble- actually projecting “twinkie”in the next sentence,
    3- insulting: using the term “twinkie” to insult HB

    stones, glass houses? 😛

  10. @ b-e-r-n-a-r-d-r-o-s-s:

    HERE’s the way — and context — in which it was actually stated:

    “If there is anyone projecting it’s you on steroids.”

    “Hardly. I’m the one poster on this site who NEVER projects. And for perfectly good reason: Projection is the product of an emotional reaction to an event or condition — and unlike yourself [yamit], I DON’T react, so I don’t get imprinted with [what might’ve otherwise been reacted TO]. Consequently I don’t wind up with something to ‘project’ later on.”

    “You project verbal violence at every opportunity .”

    “Yeah? — show me an example [of projected verbal violence], Twinkie.”

    And now HERE’s the way in which you ‘edited’ those two comments:

    “I’m the one poster on this site who NEVER projects…”

    …. show me an example, Twinkie.

    “Twin•kie noun…a gay or effeminate man, or a young man regarded as an object of homosexual desire.”

    You deliberately cut, then cobbled together two separate remarks of mine — each of which was responsive to a different comment — as if the 2nd were directly germane to, and part of, the 1st — and strictly for the purpose of creating a smear.

    Not only do I not take kindly to smears, but nor do I deal gently with attempts to make me appear to say things I did not say EITHER.

    Pull that little stunt again, Sir, and you will discover that two can play that game as easily as one. I daresay, you may find it somewhat less appealing to find yourself on the receiving end of the gambit.

    This is the only warning you will get.

  11. @ yamit82:

    “This is just one more attempt of [HB’s] at expressing sour grapes at being consistently unable to control a man thru his emotions.”

    “Fegele you ain’t no man.”

    What could’ve ever given you the idea that YOU (of all persons) would know?

    @ yamit82:

    “I can become quite Zen like when I kill enemies.”

    “Me too. . . . But not only DURING the dispatching — also AFTER and BEFORE. So, unlike yourself, my discernment & rationality as to when killing is truly called for (and when not) are never distorted — nor ever animated by an urge to personal vengeance masquerading as ‘service to the divine glory’ or OTHER self-serving conceits.”

    “How many have you killed?”

    “No more than needed killing. What’s it to you?”

    “Can you describe how you did it and to whom?”

    Moonlighting for the DA’s office, are you, for extra hanukah gelt this year, Senor Snitch? You haven’t answered my question: why do you ask?

    “we all know you project your homo fantasies”

    You ‘know’ nothing of the kind. Already told you I never project (and I also told you WHY I don’t).

    What’s more, I told you, as well, that I don’t fantasize. That’s the truth.

    So maybe it’s your OWN unresolved faggotty fantasies you were projecting onto me. It’s a lead-pipe cinch that you do have them, or you wouldn’t keep trying to lay them on me.

    “… on every guy on this blog…”

    There are ‘guys’ on this blog???

    — prove it.

    “… so if you want to show what a real man you are…”

    Why would I wanna do that?

    Why would I need to do that?

    I know who I am. I’m satisfied with that.

    “… and not the fabricator we know you to be…”

    You mean, not the fabricator you WISH I were.

    — It would make your frustration SO much easier for you to live with if you could somehow convince yourself that I was a ‘fabricator.’

    @ yamit82:

    “Urban Dictionary; twinkie American Gay Term”

    That’s news to me, though I can’t say I’m surprised that they would use it.

    The term was around

    long before the urban dictionary picked it up

    long before the internet ever existed

    and long before the homosexuals ever appropriated it to themselves.

    It always referred to a certain kind of woman — and that’s the way I’d always used it since at least the late 70’s.

    So, since a homosexual is a man created, as it were, b’tzelem eisha — in the image of a woman — it’s no surprise that they would adopt it in the construction of their mock universe.

  12. @ bernard ross:

    Urban Dictionary;

    twinkie
    American Gay Term: Refers to a young pretty gay boy that is very fun to look at, play with, filled with white creme but has no nutritional (intellectual) value whatsoever. Twinks are usually referred to by older men.

  13. dweller Said:

    No more than needed killing.

    — What’s it to you?

    You said you are an unemotional killer on a public forum.
    Can you describe how you did it and to whom?

    You don’t have to but we all know you project your homo fantasies on every guy on this blog so if you want to show what a real man you are and not the fabricator we know you to be lets have some details. Fegele

  14. dweller Said:

    This is just one more attempt of yours at expressing sour grapes at being consistently unable to control a man thru his emotions.

    Fetch Fido, fetch !!!!!!!!!!

  15. @ yamit82:

    “I can become quite Zen like when I kill enemies.”

    “Me too. . . .

    But not only DURING the dispatching — also AFTER and BEFORE.

    So, unlike yourself, my discernment & rationality as to when killing is truly called for (and when not) are never distorted — nor ever animated by an urge to personal vengeance masquerading as ‘service to the divine glory’ or OTHER self-serving conceits.”

    “How many have you killed?”

    No more than needed killing.

    — What’s it to you?

  16. @ honeybee:

    “I’m the one poster on this site who NEVER projects.”

    “You project verbal violence at every opportunity .”

    Yeah? — show me an example, Twinkie.

    This is just one more attempt of yours at expressing sour grapes at being consistently unable to control a man thru his emotions.

    @ honeybee:

    “The distinction is clear: in these cases the leaders of the people are not being petty or vindictive for their own private honor, but rather are defending the honor as well as the safety and well-being of the entire people.”

    “Not in the case of Samson, an overgrown schoolboy, for whom revenge — PERSONAL revenge — seems to have been a regular and frequent obsession throughout his life. Easy to see his appeal for PresentCompany.

    “You couldn’t kiss present companies feet.”

    PresentCompany is an expression referring to the person to whom the speaker addresses his remarks. In the present case, that would have been ME. . . .

    Are you saying I couldn’t kiss my own feet?

  17. @ yamit82:

    “I can become quite Zen like when I kill enemies.”

    Me too. . . .

    But not only DURING the dispatching — also AFTER and BEFORE.

    So, unlike yourself, my discernment & rationality as to when killing is truly called for (and when not) are never distorted

    — nor ever animated by an urge to personal vengeance masquerading as ‘service to the divine glory’ or OTHER self-serving conceits.

    “Revenge is a cause for joy, celebrating G-d’s victory over the wicked.”

    Beholding — OBSERVING & CONTEMPLATING — Adonoi’s vengeance after the fact certainly IS cause for joy.

    Executing vengeance, OTOH, is not — even when it’s His vengeance (let alone, when it’s your own).

  18. @ yamit82:

    ‘He who heaven’s vengeful sword would bear should be as holy as severe. . . .’ [Measure III, 1]“

    “Leaves you out, dweller !”

    “…leaves out every flesh-&-blood person.”

    “No, leaves out your shrunken, shriveled, bloodless soul.”

    “Sheer projection, Twinkie, and nothing but.”

    “If there is anyone projecting it’s you on steroids.”

    Hardly. I’m the one poster on this site who NEVER projects.

    And for perfectly good reason: Projection is the product of an emotional reaction to an event or condition — and unlike yourself, I DON’T react, so I don’t get imprinted with it. Consequently I don’t wind up with something to ‘project’ later on.

    “Some cases in Scripture where we find that vengeance is proper? For example, the children of Israel are ordered to attack the Midianites.”

    Quite so. The critical factor, however, is to be found in the word in your remark [above] that I’ve bolded for you. YOU get a direct Order? — act on it. Not unless, not until.

    “Revenge out of anger or hatred is unacceptable”

    Indeed.

    So, of course, that lets you out — since anger & hatred are the very CORE of your impulse toward revenge.

    “…but [vengeance] based on the desire to increase G-d’s glory is a mitzvah.”

    Absolutely

    — provided that He directly COMMANDS it. Not otherwise.

    “Samson is granted Divine assistance when seeks vengeance against the Philistines for the loss of his eyes (Judges 16:28).:”

    We’ve been over this before. It DOESN’T say that he was granted divine assistance, only that he asked for it — and not for God’s sake NOR for Israel ‘s sake, but strictly as revenge for the loss of his eyes. Moreover — and this is important: it ALSO says his hair was already growing back. . . .

    One could EASILY argue that he was permitted, at the end, to do what he did in SPITE of his request, not because of it.

    He was never commanded to do what he did, only that he maintain himself as a n’tzir — his sevice to Israel’s recovery was to be a direct OUTGROWTH of that.

    “The distinction is clear: in these cases the leaders of the people are not being petty or vindictive for their own private honor, but rather are defending the honor as well as the safety and well-being of the entire people.”

    Not in the case of Samson, an overgrown schoolboy, for whom revenge — PERSONAL revenge — seems to have been a regular and frequent obsession throughout his life. Easy to see his appeal for PresentCompany.

  19. @ dweller:

    If there is anyone projecting it’s you on steroids.

    Some cases in Scripture where we find that vengeance is proper? For example, the children of Israel are ordered to attack the Midianites.

    Revenge out of anger or hatred is unacceptable but based on the desire to increase G-d’s glory is a mitzvah

    (Numbers 31:2); Samson is granted Divine assistance when seeks vengeance against the Philistines for the loss of his eyes (Judges 16:28). The distinction is clear: in these cases the leaders of the people are not being petty or vindictive for their own private honor, but rather are defending the honor as well as the safety and well-being of the entire people.

    R. Shlomo Ibn Gabirol (Midos Ha-Nefesh 2:4) writes: “This trait [of cruelty] is in the soul [of one] who achieves revenge against enemies. It is not that bad when used in this way even though the enlightened person should not fully achieve this trait and should not exact revenge on his enemy with all his ability because this is not a good trait. As it says, ‘Do not rejoice at the fall of your enemy.’” According to R. Shlomo Ibn Gabirol, revenge is a necessary evil that the righteous should never fully embrace.

    The Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim 1:54) writes that biblical descriptions of God’s anger and vengeance represent His actions and not His emotions:

    God’s actions are similar to those that people perform as an expression of some emotion, although God does them without any underlying emotion. It is proper for a leader to emulate God in this aspect. He must do what is appropriate, but not as an expression of emotion… Yet, his acts of kindness should be more frequent than his punishments.

    Like his father, R. Avraham Ben Ha-Rambam demands that revenge be taken without anger. Not everyone is capable of such a difficult emotional task but whomever the community appoints must be able to act in such a godly fashion, acting with justice and without anger.

    “There is nothing greater and more righteous than revenge in its place and time” (R Kahane)
    His argument is theological: When the wicked prosper, G-d’s providence becomes more hidden. By facilitating divine justice, the avenger increases awareness and the glory of G-d. Revenge is a Kiddush Hashem.

    Revenge is a cause for joy, celebrating G-d’s victory over the wicked. It is a mitzvah that the most righteous Jews strive to fulfill. Admittedly, people often find it difficult to overcome their innate feelings of mercy but those who are able to do so receive ample reward . Those who cannot exact G-d’s revenge ironically display cruelty, even heresy, and deny justice its proper place in the world.

    R. Kahane makes two important distinctions regarding revenge. First, you are forbidden to take revenge on other Jews and only permitted on gentiles. This distinction is important in explaining the Torah’s apparent contradictions regarding revenge, praising it (e.g. Psalms 58:11) but also forbidding it (Lev. 19:18). Revenge against Jews is forbidden but against gentiles is even a mitzvah .

    The second distinction is a matter of intent: Revenge out of anger or hatred is unacceptable but based on the desire to increase G-d’s glory is a mitzvah .

    In avenging the cold blooded murder of Jews by non Jewish enemies vengeance done properly can become a deterrent preventing more murders and if successful what greater service can we perform than to help saving Jewish lives from future attempts to murder them.

    I can become quite Zen like when I kill enemies. Since I don’t consider you a Jew all is permissible.

  20. @ honeybee:
    BABOSO comes from BABA. Have you seen a baby when it is
    teething? The thick saliva coming out of their mouth is called
    BABA. The baby who is drooling is BABOSO.

  21. @ mar55:

    Been a long time since I experienced so much snow must jar ancient memories but for the better part of a day or so most traffic idle except on main roads, would go out and shove the front entrance and the driveway, we didn’t then have snow blower. problem isn’t so much the snow but ice once the snow begins to melt. Once I was driving on a main road where the roads were covered with a sheet of ice and Line of cars in front of me stopped for traffic signal I I plowed or slid into the car in front of me who plowed into the car in front of him and so on it was a 12 car crackup. My insurance went through the roof. Stay home if the weather is bad not worth it. You go next week when the weather is better.

  22. @ honeybee:

    “Moreover, even as to His vengeance, you are unclean and not qualified for the task.

    ‘He who heaven’s vengeful sword would bear should be as holy as severe. . . .’ [Measure III, 1]“

    “Leaves you out, dweller !”

    “…leaves out every flesh-&-blood person.”

    “No, leaves out your shrunken, shriveled, bloodless soul.”

    Sheer projection, Twinkie, and nothing but.

    Tweaked, are you, Twink?

    It figures.

  23. @ honeybee:
    honeubee, the temperatures in New York have gone down to below
    freezing. Yesterday morning it was 23o. In Buffalo New York
    they are trying to get out from 11 feet of snow. The air is full of humidity from the lake. The air effect continues and they get more and more snow.
    yamit82 how do the people manage in Buffalo when they get such
    amounts of snow? You and your siblings must have had a ball with so much snow.@ honeybee:
    BABOSO is not barboso. Look it up.

  24. @ honeybee:
    honeybee, the temperatures in New York have gone down to below
    freezing. Yesterday morning it was 23o. In Buffalo New York
    they are trying to get out from under 11 feet of snow. The air is full of humidity from the lake. The lake effect continues and they get more and more snow.
    yamit82 how do the people manage in Buffalo when they get such
    amounts of snow? You and your siblings must have had a ball with so much snow.
    How am going to get to shul tomorrow?

  25. dweller Said:

    @ honeybee:

    “Go to comment of this author”>dweller Said:

    — leaves out every flesh-&-blood person.

    No, leaves out your shrunken, shriveled, bloodless soul.

  26. @ honeybee:

    “No reason we cannot exact our collective vengeance Today even Now as I type.”

    “No reason other than the fact that it’s not His vengeance but yours.

    Moreover, even as to His vengeance, you are unclean and not qualified for the task.

    ‘He who heaven’s vengeful sword would bear should be as holy as severe. . . .’ [Measure III, 1]”

    “Leaves you out, dweller !”

    Absolutely. You bet it does, Twinkie

    — leaves out every flesh-&-blood person.

    Though it seems that some of us are a trifle slow at grasping the point.