By accepting this framework, Bibi is accepting the same preconditions he so vehemently rejected six months ago. Regardless of whether the framework is binding or not, Israel will be committed to uprooting 150,000 Jews which is about 50% of the settlers outside Jerusalem. We get nothing out of this deal that we didn’t already have. No one can force the right of return on us nor define us. And this deal leaves Jerusalem out of the question. It must be rejected. If the Iran deal was a “bad deal” this is a horrible deal.
Do not extend negotiations on these terms. I am saddened that this trio are going to accept it.
How can they bypass the Cabinet when so much is being given away. The government should fall over this. Ted Belman
BY YIFA YAAKOV AND TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF
February 2, 2014,
Yifa Yaakov, TOI
Israel is set to give its wary assent to US Secretary of State John Kerry’s framework peace proposal as the basis for continuing talks with the Palestinian Authority through to the end of 2014, Channel 2 news reported on Saturday night.
The TV report said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman are all inclining to accept the US framework terms, some of which were detailed by Martin Indyk, the State Department’s lead envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, in a conference call with American Jewish leaders on Thursday. The framework document would have to be finalized in the next few weeks, ahead of a scheduled fourth and final phase of Palestinian prisoner releases set for March, the report said.
The US framework document, whose terms will not have to be signed off as fully binding by the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, provides for talks on Palestinian statehood based on the pre-1967 lines with land swaps to enable 75 to 80 percent of settlers to come under Israeli sovereignty, relates to Israel as the Jewish state, provides for compensation for refugees but no Palestinian “right of return,” and does not go into detail on the fate of Jerusalem, Indyk indicated.
Well-placed political sources told The Times of Israel at the weekend, meanwhile, that Netanyahu’s agreement to continue peace talks on the basis of the framework proposal need not provoke a coalition crisis with the right-wing Jewish Home party. Provided the framework deal was not binding and was not brought to a government vote, the sources said, the party’s leader, Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett, would likely not choose to bolt the coalition over it.
Reports in recent weeks have indicated that the Palestinian Authority is set to reject the framework document, but these reports have not been confirmed.
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator over the weekend again ruled out the notion of Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Speaking at a Munich conference, on a panel with his Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni, Erekat said the demand was unacceptable: “When you say ‘accept Israel as a Jewish state’ you are asking me to change my narrative,” he claimed, asserting that his ancestors lived in the region “5,500 years before Joshua Bin-Nun came and burned my hometown Jericho.”
Several Israeli right-wing politicians castigated Kerry on Saturday for comments he made at the same event, the Munich Security Conference, warning Israel of dire consequences if the current peace effort fails. Kerry said he was utterly certain that the current status quo was “not sustainable… It’s illusionary. There’s a momentary prosperity. There’s a momentary peace.” But that would end if the talks failed, he said, noting that already Israel was facing increased delegitimization and boycott threats. (A series of banks and pension funds in Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Holland have announced a cessation of dealings with Israeli banks and companies in recent days because of those firms’ West Bank activities.)
US Secretary of State John Kerry (photo credit: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
US Secretary of State John Kerry (photo credit: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
Kerry said failure to reach a peace deal would damage Israel’s capacity to be “a democratic state with the particular special Jewish character that is a central part of the narrative and of the future.”
The secretary also responded to last month’s highly critical comments about him by Ya’alon, who apologized after being quoted calling him “obsessive” and “messianic” in his push for peace. Kerry said he was “surprised” by the reports, and that rather than being obsessive or fanatical, he and his team were “just working hard, because the consequences of failure are unacceptable.”
In response to the secretary’s warnings about the delegitimizing and boycotting of Israel, Bennett, the economy and trade minister, accused Kerry of incitement and of serving as a “mouthpiece” for anti-Semitic elements attempting to boycott Israel. To Kerry “and all advisers,” Bennett wrote in a Facebook post, “the Jewish people are stronger than the threats against them.” He added that the Jews would not “surrender their land” as a result of economic pressure.
“Only security will bring economic stability, not a terrorist state close to Ben-Gurion Airport. We expect our friends around the world to stand by our side to face the anti-Semitic attempts to boycott Israel, not to be their mouthpiece,” Bennett added. ”In any case, we knew how to stay strong in the past and we will now as well.”
Naftali Bennett (L), leader of the Jewish Home party, seen with Jewish Home MK Uri Ariel at a faction meeting in the Knesset on October 28, 2013. (photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)
Naftali Bennett (L), leader of the Jewish Home party, seen with Jewish Home MK Uri Ariel at a faction meeting in the Knesset on October 28, 2013. (photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)
Housing and Construction Minister Uri Ariel (Jewish Home) was also quick to respond to Kerry’s comments. ”Kerry said today that Israel’s economic prosperity and security are an illusion, and that if peace talks fail, Israel will be boycotted. But the truth is that the only illusions are the peace slogans Kerry is trying to sell to Israel. Slogans that cover up an existential threat to the State of Israel,” Ariel posted late Saturday on his official Facebook page. ”The Palestinians can hardly believe how lucky they are to have such a ‘fair’ mediator,” he added. “This is what incitement looks like.”
Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely, meanwhile, said Kerry’s “threats of an unprecedented boycotts” were “attempts to intimidate Israel in an effort to impose a dangerous agreement that runs contrary to the position of the Israeli government.” She said such an agreement, would “jeopardize Israel’s security,” and be “worse than any economic boycott.”
Likud MK and deputy minister Ofir Akunis also lambasted Kerry for his remarks, saying they were indicative of Washington’s “aggressive policy towards Israel.” He added, “We were here before Kerry, we’ll be here after him as well.”
Israeli government sources quoted by Channel 2 urged Kerry to pressure the Palestinians not Israel, and said that his warnings to Israel only made the Palestinians more obdurate in their positions.
@ dove:
I must say that given the gruesome plans becoming reality, it is amusing to still read great minds proclaiming surprise at what was obvious for years. Since Oslo at least it was plain and clear that the ultimate goal by the unJews was not “peace”. It was the post Jewish dream to destroy all Jewish Heritage and Jews.
Who could honestly believe that the high treason sequel starting then was based on lack of knowledge? Oh please! The unJews knew precisely and subscribed to the Arafat and all Islamics plans to destroy the State. And us. Arafat and all of that gang are proxies for the unJews.
The grotesque Saint Vito’s dances by the most deviant traitor ever, Netanyahu, demanding the Abbas recognition of a “Jewish state” is beyond the pale. Netanyahu gives away all that is Jewish, including destruction of Jewish education, but demands WHAT?
Netanyahu did not agree to a new document. Netanyahu, Peres, Livni, the Lapids, Barak/Beinish/Grunis, Weinstein, etc. Most if not all staff “generals”, police, GSS and Mosad have been part and parcel of the planning of the document from day one of the Obama cycle. Remember the famous “lecture” by Netanyahu at the WH? Planned with Obama.
Remember the red marker on cardboard stunt and connected speech? All stuffed junk.
Netanyahu never intended and will not do a thing about Iran. And adding insult to our soldiers by arming them with paint ball rifles into a trap, is paying our taxpayer 20 million dollars as compensation to Turkey. I would applaud the day that filthy coward is gone from any function in Eretz Israel.
And they are all stashing away goodies for the aftermath. Billions on business, casino and other common enterprises are on line.
Solutions?
Only what could have been done years back. Today all forces are prepared to all contingencies to destroy us.
@ yamit82:
Be my guest; split a gut, if you like — it remains a fact, all the same — no fixation.
He himself forbids it.
An irrelevant distraction, perpetrated typically by “JW’s” (that’s: Jehovah’s Witnesses). I’ve known a passel of ’em.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel, I see, to make such absurd claims.
— How desperate you must be. . . .
All ‘pleading’ was started and ended in the Garden of Gethsemane. (“If it be Thy will, let this cup pass from me; but nonetheless, not my will but Thine be done.”)
— There was no pleading at the cross. Quite the contrary, you have read into the narrative what you wanted to read.
It doesn’t say that. You have an inside source?
Well you got that right (’bout time you got SOMETHING right); he died the way Rome executed most common criminals.
Nu, and you’ve discovered a long lost gospel that has all the dirt, eh?
—Can I get a copy while I’m waiting in line at the supermarket checkout stand?
All well & fine had it BEEN carried out by Jewish law.
— It wasn’t.
Judea hadn’t been sovereign for 90-something years. Jewish law did not hold sway. Roman law DID.
And Rome had no scruples against torture, disfigurement, OR agony.
It’s apparent that most or all of your post is Jehovah’s Witness joshing.
Funny how you just can’t make your own arguments where this stuff is concerned. Always gotta rely on somebody else. Don’t trust yourself, do you?
— That’s ok. I don’t trust you either.
And if you’ll swallow that one, then I’ve got some choice Arizona beachfront property to sell you for a song. Been saving it for just the right buyer, and if you buy the “Jesus married” story, then you’re certain to be the one.
— What’s more, if you’ll pay cash (gold eagles are preferred), so I don’t have to wait for your check to clear, I’ve still got seven (7) nice Bay Area bridges left, and I’ll gladly throw in one of ’em just to sweeten the deal (’cause I’m such a fine fella). It connects up the Marin Headlands to the San Francisco peninsula — and it’s solid gold!!!
I already SHOWED Catarin why that silly ‘married’ Jesus tale was a crusty crock. Tossed it around with her when the story broke, 16-18 months ago — it’s in the archives here.
The simple reality is that if haNitzri HAD been married, , neither you nor anybody ELSE outside his day would ever have HEARD of him.
@ dove:
This is abuse. It is NOT ‘torture.’ The two terms are not synonymous. (Sometimes they overlap, sometimes not. Here they do not.)
As a general rule, the Third Reich did not torture; that is fact, not conjecture.
— That hardly exonerates them for what they did do, but simple integrity demands sticking to the facts, and not making the Germans a catch-all for every crime that was ever committed.
The Reich was certainly more than capable of true torture: to make an example of those who resisted it, like the Maquis (the French Resistance) and other partisans, and like those involved in the unsuccessful Officer’s Plot to kill Hitler (Count von Stauffenberg, et al).
But as a purely PRACTICAL matter, Germany’s goal of exterminating the Jews made torturing them a luxury it simply couldn’t afford, because it was racing the clock to kill as many Jews as it could — beginning as early as it could, and persisting as long as it could.
“Considered”? — no. Either they ARE or they are NOT. There are objective criteria for torture.
— If there aren’t such criteria, then the word has absolutely no value except as a propaganda tool.
If it does not entail the deliberate infliction of pain as its primary intention, then whatever else may be said about it, it isn’t torture.
That doesn’t justify the ‘medical experiments’ conducted by a few psychopaths on a fairly small number of Jews (had it been a large number, the extermination production would have been correspondingly, and unacceptably, slowed down); it DOES place them in context, however.
1. It’s apparent that, like Rachel Avraham, you don’t know the difference between torture & abuse
— any more than you knew the difference between compassion & sympathy.
And those who DO know the difference, and STILL persist in using the word torture inappropriately, are intellectually dishonest.
2. Not a single detail of ANY of the outrages described in the piece was unknown to me or, in all likelihood, to most other posters on this blog.
In any case, however, the article is irrelevant and OFF-POINT to the matter at hand in the post to which you referenced yours
— because the issue under discussion there was your implication that the Nazis “sloooooooowly” dragged out the Holocaust as a means of prolonging the agony of the Jews.
I have already SHOWN you (multiple times now) that this was simply not so — and as a matter of clear-sighted logic, COULD not be so.
But in your insecurity as a Jew, you persist in these displays only as a means of ingratiating yourself with the Jewish community, despite the damage such strivings do to your own dignity.
@ yamit82:
You said you enjoyed the challenge???? Sugar xxxxxoooo
yamit82 Said:
And I will be waiting with a shot-gun. You have aroused the Medea in my soul.
yamit82 Said:
I may be a dumb womean,but I ain’t that dumb!!!! You are up to your cute ol’knees in it,Love!!!!!!
@ yamit82:
You should see my painting of a Zev. I was busy tonight useing my superior intellegence to make blueberry cobbler. Tx is rolling on the floor in extasy.
honeybee Said:
I was quoting studies, not my personal opinion. On average women were rated higher than men except at the polar fringes of the curve.This relates to relative intelligence not achievements.
dove Said:
Consumer reports I think just came out with a report on all antibacterial products on the market and found they are no more effective than regular soap. If true save your money.
honeybee Said:
Yes but only when there is a full moon.
@ dove:
Read what Yamit82 said about Jewish women, you will be forcibly feeding him the gel.
@ yamit82:
Watch out for the tourists. I heard you had a record number there in January and use anti-bacterial gel…..seriously. That’s what we have to do here.
@ yamit82:
You never disapoint,,,,,well maybe Bar Rafaeli!!!!!!!! You only come out at night????????????/
comment to Dove in moderation???
honeybee Said:
I wish!!! 😛
honeybee Said:
I wish!!! 😛
@ dove:
Thanks Dove I’m prepared to return the bug to from whence it came. Feeling a bit better due to lots of meds and sleep.
Funny thing is we have the mildest winter on record, during the day spring like temps. Must have caught it from someone.
@ dove:
I don’t think he’s sick, I think he ran off to Brazil with Bar Rafaeli!!!
@ yamit82:
Thanks so much for taking my Canadian flu. I never felt so healthy! 🙂 Hope your feeling better. So far my chicken soup has kept the bug away!
@ bernard ross:
This is insane….
And those that point out the folly of it all, are silenced scorned demonized and have their character assassinated . (Chamish comes to mind…)
And the rest of the sheep continue to bleat…… Peaaaaace, peaaaaace
the phoenix Said:
Vivaldi was a Italian from sunny Italy. Here is an Arcadian song to dance: http://youtu.be/Kv_JDow1I38
Very popular in East Texas,
When the arabs sign this document the world will say ” you Jews got what you were asking for, you said the whole conflict revolved around this, that it was not about borders or security but about recognition. Now that you got what you wanted get out of YS, you have no more excuses, you have been beating this drum, you got your main demand” the fool Jews will sit there and wonder how it happened that once again they gave something for nothing.
another myth, it requires nothin of the sort.
I would prefer territory to recognition. this demand will prove to be a red herring a meaningless and trivial fig leaf to the giving away of territory. The hell with recognition: get land. BB will give recognition and take away land for recognition. I can see it now: “I said there would be painful sacrifices but we got our main demand; the arabs had to make a greater sacrifice when they gave “recognition”. The indians who took $24 for manhattan were smarter.
Land for peace is now the mantra of land for recognition: an absurdity replaced by another absurdity.
This is so dumb my mind boggles. Is this all the swindlers have to do to con the Jews?? It’s becoming embarrassing to be Jewish.
@ honeybee:
the weather does have a lot to do with it. This has been the harshest winter on record since 1945 (long before I was born) in most parts of the country so people are a little owly for sure. 🙂
@ honeybee:
Ok. So it is -27C ((with the windshield factor)
Logs are burning in the fireplace, Vivaldi is in the background and my rag doll cat is purring up a storm… 🙂
What is there to be grim about? 😉
@ honeybee:
She was the wife of a pastor and she didn’t want to get stoned by her own. 🙂
@ the phoenix:
Are Canadians really that grim,must be the weather???????
the phoenix Said:
Its now tomatoe salad!!!!!!!
dove Said:
Who cares!!!!!!!!
@ the phoenix:
You encourage me to go back to my 3x a day prayer – thanking Hashem for not making me a MAN. My reasonings are different than the Orthodox prayer regarding women. I am thankful that I am not of the gender who is going to have to answer to Hashem for not getting it right. What I don’t understand about the prayer the Orthodox men say is why don’t they follow it up by being humble enough to ask Hashem to help them be a better man towards woman so that her life does not have to be so harsh? That is not the way it is suppose to be!
@ honeybee:
of coarse there is. There is even a difference in terminology across Canada just like there is a difference in terminology across the U.S. and it can be taken differently.
I knew this American woman who lived here for a few years. She kept referring to her children as little buggers around religious people. They were shocked that a seemingly nice girl kept calling her children buggers. When she caught on she said that where she was from in the U.S. a little bugger was the same meaning as a little critter. She stopped using the word bugger as she didn’t want people to get the wrong impression.
That’s how it is sometimes – adapting.
@ the phoenix:
the phoenix….please don’t try to imply something that does not exist.
@dove:
@ honeybee
Tomayto’. Tomah’to
The effects of smoking the peace pipe are already wearing off???
dove Said:
Yes there is a differance in teminalogy between Canada and Texas. I I said “bad cowgirl” in Texas ,I would receive a wink,a back slap , feigned shock or a laugh. It would be understood as a joke, nothing more.
@ honeybee:
You were the one who said that you were a bad cowgirl. You didn’t say that you were a fun lovin flirtacious cowgirl. Is there not a difference?
@ dove
You don’t understand “cow cowgirl” in a the Texas context, It means flirtacious and fun lovin, but not permiscous.
@ honeybee:
Not southern women but Canada does have their fair share of bad cowgirls and of coarse other types of bad girls. Myself I just chose not to go that route because it would have finished me. The man who raised me (not the biological one) was very evil and had hoped to replace Hitler. I was fortunate enough to be very protected by G-d.
dove Said:
I encouter all manner of religious nuts,Texas is a hot bed for all types of nonsence. I am comfortable in what I believe,so they don’t bother me. Dweller is such fun to pay with, like Yamit82’s cat with mice. I, as we say in Texas,jest love to tickle him, cause he is so damn pompous. Like to pay with Yamit82 also, he’s sexy. I’am a bad cowgirl! I guess in Canada you don’t have Southern women?
@ honeybee:
I had never actually encountered Messianics (or whatever he is) like Dweller before until 1997. They CAN be deadly. Maybe we should challenge dweller and tell him that we will do to him what was done to the Jews in the Holocaust and just before we finish him off we’ll ask him if he thinks he was tortured or not.
@ dove:
A friend of mine’s Mother recentely passed away. She was force to be Dr Mengele’s cook. Evey thing in your article is true,according to testamony.
dweller Said:
You’re a cold hearted bastard,Daddy.
dweller Said:
Really Daddy????/
dweller Said:
Yes Daddy, I bet you like it when the Ladies call you Daddy!!!!!!!!!Daddy
dweller Said:
ROTFLMAO
Yeshu was not crucified on a cross, did not suffer and even pleaded for his life sobbing like a little child afraid of death and pain. Apparently he died as any common criminal. He was not bodily tortured nor have defacing marks to the body and died as painless as possible. Just like a cow ( Jewish law) Laws of ritual slaughter.(Kashrut) All death including execution had to be quick and painless. (Except Stoning) but even here itwas a quick mode of death and if the victim was knocked out quickly there would be little to no pain)
True Christians do not use the cross in worship. One important reason is that yeshu did not die on a cross. The Greek word generally translated “cross” is stau·ros?. It basically means “an upright pale or stake.” The Companion Bible points out: “[Stau·ros?] never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle . . . There is nothing in the Greek of the [New Testament] even to imply two pieces of timber.”
In several texts, Bible writers use another word for the instrument of yeshus’ death. It is the Greek word xy?lon. (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24) This word simply means “timber” or “a stick, club, or tree.”
The most convincing proof of all, however, comes from (christian god’s) Word. The apostle Paul says: “[yeshu] by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: ‘Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake [“a tree,” King James Version].’” (Galatians 3:13) Here Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, which clearly refers to a tree, not a cross. Since such a means of execution made the person “a curse,” it would not be proper for christians to decorate their homes with images of [yeshu] impaled.
There is no evidence that for the first 300 years after the death of yeshu, those claiming to be christians used the cross in worship. In the fourth century, however, pagan Emperor Constantine became a convert to apostate christianity and promoted the cross as its symbol. Whatever Constantine’s motives, the cross had nothing to do with yeshu. The cross is, in fact, pagan in origin. The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The cross is found in both pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures.” Various other authorities have linked the cross with nature worship and pagan sex rites.
Why, then, was this pagan symbol promoted? Apparently, to make it easier for pagans to accept “christianity.” Nevertheless, devotion to any pagan symbol is clearly condemned by the Bible. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) The Scriptures also forbid all forms of idolatry. (Exodus 20:4, 5; 1 Corinthians 10:14) With very good reason.
BTW; yeshu was married!! 🙂
According to a top religion scholar, 1,600-year-old text fragment suggests that some early Christians believed yeshu was married—possibly to Mary Magdalene
I wonder if he had a lot of little yeshus’ and a whole line down to this day? Maybe dweller is one of his seeds?
@ dweller:
Here is another example of torture used on Jews by the Nazis
@ dove:
Nothing set me off. I simply saw the game you were playing, and are still playing
— and called you on it.
No fixation of any kind, on Jesus or anything else.
You obviously know nothing of compassion (and less-than-nothing about me). Compassion is never focused on some as distinct from others. If you are compassionate to any, you are compassionate to all. If it is object-specific, it is not compassion, but SYMPATHY — an entirely different beast altogether.
You have seen nothing “demonstrated” — and you aren’t GOING to.
Unlike some, I’m not into ‘demonstrating.’ I leave that to those with axes to grind. (PresentCompany, for example.)
The comparison was nothing of the sort, until you cleaned up (and very quickly at that) after your nose was soundly rubbed in your ignorance.
Your original comparison was clearly of physical death v. physical death — and you knew it when you made it.
By invoking his name in this you only show the depths of your dishonesty.
No, not a “different torture.”
Not torture.
Death, yes. Extermination, yes.
Torture, no.
Torture entails the INTENT to inflict pain. That takes time. ROME intended that a crucifixion death take time, because pain was a deliberate part of such an execution.
But the intent of the Third Reich was NOT to drag out the deaths of the Jews. Quite the contrary, the intent was to get rid of them as quickly & efficiently as possible.
If the Reich could’ve done it all in one fell swoop, right away, it WOULD have. (Not because it was ‘generous’ or ‘compassionate,’ but because it had a massive undertaking to accomplish, and deliberate infliction of pain would’ve only slowed down the production.)
National & international politics, however, did not permit the Reich to kill all the Jews right away in 1933. Hitler had to take it one step at a time. And he did it brilliantly. He played the diplomatic universe like an Old Master with a prized Stradivarius.
The Holocaust was an extended agony for the European Jews not because the Nazis were INTO pain, but because they were into extermination
— and that meant playing their cards right.
For the Jews, that translated into all KINDS of hardships & anxieties leading up to their deaths — but THAT IS NOT TORTURE, and it’s disingenuous to call it that.
@ dweller:
It is YOU who have belittle the torture of the 6 million by YOUR words –
purport
vb /p???p??t/(transitive)1. to claim (to be a certain thing, etc) by manner or appearance, esp falsely
2. (esp of speech or writing) to signify or imply
@ dweller:
So that’s what set you off. Belittling the torture of crucifixion? What I was trying to point out to you is that (and I did mention this as well) is that Jesus was by far not the first or last Jew to be tortured and killed. Your fixation on Jesus ONLY does not permit you to have compassion (that I have seen demonstrated) for other Jews who have suffered tremendously. The comparison was this – Jesus capture and death lasted only a short time in comparison to the slow twisted torture and demise of the Jews of the Holocaust. I 100% believe that Jesus would agree with me. Their final way of death may have been different but the Jews of the Holocaust suffered a much longer torture (albeit a different torture) if you consider the time it took from their capture until their final demise.
@ dove:
Sorry. As I’ve told you before, no sound here.
But by all means do listen to it yourself.
@ honeybee:
No ‘indulgence,’ nor ‘self-justification.’ What I said was not only thoroughly rational, but also quite objective. I daresay my criticism was more constructive than was your claim that it was “mean.”
Jaques was speaking metaphorically.
— I wasn’t.
And you are conflating the two modes.
From a PROFESSIONAL point-of-view, I always used to “review” my performances (for myself).
It guaranteed that I became a better actor than might otherwise have been the case
— since I was a much tougher critic of my work than anybody else could’ve been.
That all being said, however, what I told Dove had nothing to do with any ‘performance’ of mine, and did NOT constitute a review. What I did was to CALL her on the inanities of her remarks belittling the torture of crucifixion in comparison with the purportedly “sloooooooow” deaths of Jews in the Shoah. The very fact that I did call her on it was grounds, in her mind, for attributing ‘cold-heartedness’ to me in that regard. So, I questioned her need for emotionalism in the first place.
The line you blockquoted [“I am an actor. I am able to ‘show’ you emotion any time, anywhere, at the drop of a hat…{etc}…”] was offered not by way of blowing my own horn, but by way of illustrating that looking for emotion is using a false criterion for sincerity, right from the get-go:.
@ dweller:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5350R3_-8hU&feature=player_detailpage much adieu about nuthin!
@ dove:
I repeat what I know.
Unlike some, who repeat what they DON’T know.
I went to great lengths to be PATIENT with you; nothing more.
— And nothing less.
Your “direct question” was bullshit.
(You might as legitimately have asked the classic, ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’)
I would not dignify it with a response.
When I patiently challenged your question’s PREMISE (and even suggested that you re-read my post that you found so “cold-hearted”), you ignored the challenge — and persistently repeated the question, false premise and all.
— THAT made it warmed-over bullshit, no more warranting of an answer than the original, freshly-dropped variety.
When answering a direct question amounts to LEGITIMIZING an otherwise illegitimate one, then leaving it unanswered is precisely the correct thing to do.
Your “direct question” is not entitled to the dignity of a response.
If you find that unacceptable, then I suggest you perform an act which, albeit by all reckonings anatomically impossible, is very much in order about now.
Quite so: Julius Henry Marx.
I seriously doubt that my dead relatives would find great comfort in your carrying a torch for them.
(More likely, they’d be even more embarrassed at your pretensions than I am.)
Of course not.
After all, I make you question yourself
— and why would you wanna do a thing like that?