Jews stoned in East End (again)

[ViolentPanda]

How low can you go, Canuck, making such ill-conceived inferences.

He can go much lower.
This little number is one of his regular charges; if you don't follow the Canuck consensus line on things to do with Yids, you're obviously anti-Yid as far as Johnny is concerned.

Spion, like the rest of us on this thread, don't doubt that it felt like an antisemitic attack to the Lecturer who was badly injured and the other Jewish attendees on the Jewish Heritage tour.What he and others have said is that we have no idea that the motivation of the stone-throwers was antisemitic - given that there have been other stone-throwing attacks in the area from bangladeshi youth against all manner of people regardless of their religion or ethnicity - there have been attacks from youths within the same ethnic group.

ip, you're forgetting that in JohnnyWorld none of that counts. What counts is what Johnny says counts, and that means that only the facts that he deems important, not what might have actually happened.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Oh look, Johnny's doing the old insinuation that a Jew is "self-hating" or "anti-Semitic" schtick again.

It wasn't true when you used it on guinnessdrinker, it wasn't true when you used it on me, and it's not true this time either.

If jumping to conclusions was an olympic event, you'd be on the podium fer shure.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Last time I looked, being jewish doesn't insulate one from being a twat, same as anyone else.

 

[ViolentPanda]

whatever VP .. i did read you post and dear you havn't read mine .. i never said you called anyone a fasc! you were talking of the idiots who shout that ( and bracketing me with them .. nice) .. i was simply pointing out that i get called that ( and other shite) ignorently on here fairly often but morons .. ironic hey

i'm glad we we agree about morons shouting racist and fascist

No, you bracketed yourself in with them. You made the assumption I was referring to you, and the only way you could have done that is if you actually identified yourself with the negative characteristics I mentioned in the same post.

Shot yourself in the foot there, I think.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Surely you know better after all this time than to try the "omg you judophobic" thing. This is hardly a forum which is tolerant of anti-semitism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If jumping to conclusions was an olympic event, you'd be on the podium fer shure.

It isn't, I wouldn't, and you're playing your old game. Do yourself a favour and drop it before you humiliate yourself again.

Or don't. It's always fun seeing you make a complete and utter fool of yourself.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, you bracketed yourself in with them. You made the assumption I was referring to you, and the only way you could have done that is if you actually identified yourself with the negative characteristics I mentioned in the same post.

Shot yourself in the foot there, I think.

Oh.....Hi!

You still here?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Surely you know better after all this time than to try the "omg you judophobic" thing. This is hardly a forum which is tolerant of anti-semitism.

Are you talking to me?


I understand spion to be jewish; I doubt he's antisemitic.

But that doesn't change the truth of my observation.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Surely you know better after all this time than to try the "omg you judophobic" thing. This is hardly a forum which is tolerant of anti-semitism.

As I said, he's pulled this one over and over again. If you're not towing the Canuck line on Jews and Jewishness he starts throwing shit at you.

He doesn't seem to understand the story of "the boy who cried wolf", and why it's important to some of us that Judaeophobia/anti-Semitism is an appellation that's only used where it fits the crime, otherwise it becomes cheapened, and when it really hits the fan (if it does) no-one will pay any attention, because hey, it's just the Jews whining again, isn't it?

Sorry for ranting, but Canuck boils my piss when he pulls this shit.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Are you talking to me?


I understand spion to be jewish; I doubt he's antisemitic.

But that doesn't change the truth of my observation.

Yes, I am. I don't really see the point of saying something like "On any issue here involving jews, you will invariably be on the other side" unless you are trying to accuse someone of a systematic bias against jews... which would imply anti-semitism... unless there's something I'm missing here?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Last time I looked, being jewish doesn't insulate one from being a twat, same as anyone else.

Who are you to judge? Except that you do, don't you? You're always ready to jump on Jewish people on this board and tell them what is and what isn't acceptable for them to think or believe. Who do you think you are, Johnny, YHWH?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes, I am. I don't really see the point of saying something like "On any issue here involving jews, you will invariably be on the other side" unless you are trying to accuse someone of a systematic bias against jews... which would imply anti-semitism... unless there's something I'm missing here?

You're not missing anything.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes, I am. I don't really see the point of saying something like "On any issue here involving jews, you will invariably be on the other side" unless you are trying to accuse someone of a systematic bias against jews... which would imply anti-semitism... unless there's something I'm missing here?

You can draw whatever conclusion you like. Spion is consistently the sceptic on any thread related to jews. He'll have to figure out his own motivation.

Have I broken some rule by pointing this out?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You can draw whatever conclusion you like. Spion is consistently the sceptic on any thread related to jews. He'll have to figure out his own motivation.

Have I broken some rule by pointing this out?

It's all very well saying "he'll have to figure out his own motivation" but the implication is very clear. You can't say "X is consistently the sceptic on any thread related to Jews" without implying that "X's consistent scepticism indicates a bias against Jews" - unless you're just saying it as some sort of abstract statistical fact, and X has an equal chance of not being a sceptic the next time, oh isn't that interesting. Which is not believable.

I don't even recognise this scepticism in the first place for that matter. We do have Real Live Jews starting threads here you know.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't even recognise this scepticism in the first place for that matter. We do have Real Live Jews starting threads here you know.

Perhaps Johnny thinks that some of us "Real Live Jews" don't know our place, perhaps some of us not conforming to a pro-Israel, pro-Zionist stereotype means that he sees us as no-good uppity Jews.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't even recognise this scepticism in the first place for that matter..

Is this the same thing as saying you disagree with my observation. If so, why not just say so?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Perhaps Johnny thinks that some of us "Real Live Jews" don't know our place, perhaps some of us not conforming to a pro-Israel, pro-Zionist stereotype means that he sees us as no-good uppity Jews.

How does this relate to "No, those jews in London were mistaken. They weren't stoned for being jews. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's all a coincidence"?

 

[invisibleplanet]

We do have Real Live Jews starting threads here you know.

Wait a minute. I think I'm channeling my Great Auntie Myers. She's got a message for the canadian troll.....she's saying 'Vifil yor er iz gegangen oyf di fis zol er geyn af di hent un di iberike zol er zikh sharn oyf di hintn'.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Who are you to judge?

Judge what: whether or not I think someone is a twat?

Who better than me to know what I think?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You're always ready to jump on Jewish people on this board and tell them what is and what isn't acceptable for them to think or believe.

You just made the same sort of generalization about me, that I made about Spion.

Let's see if anyone jumps down your throat with cries of outrage.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You just made the same sort of generalization about me, that I made about Spion.

Let's see if anyone jumps down your throat with cries of outrage.

I have a feeling that that may have been a little... ironic.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I have a feeling that that may have been a little... ironic.

You don't know vp very well, do you?

Are you just in a bad mood because of your laptop or something?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Is this the same thing as saying you disagree with my observation. If so, why not just say so?

Sorry, was it not clear enough when I said I didn't agree? Er, okay, NO NO NO NO. But that's not actually the point.

To be fair I don't think that you are the sort to really argue that a bit of scepticism here means general bias and anti-semitism, I think you're probably being argumentative for the sake of it at the moment, but I must say it's making you look a bit of a tool if that's the case.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Sorry, was it not clear enough when I said I didn't agree? Er, okay, NO NO NO NO. But that's not actually the point.

To be fair I don't think that you are the sort to really argue that a bit of scepticism here means general bias and anti-semitism, .

This is the part you're not getting. I noted the constant scepticism. You made the leap to general bias and anti semitism. I don't presume to know his motivation. I can only observe what's in the posts.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

This is the part you're not getting. I noted the constant scepticism. You made the leap to general bias and anti semitism. I don't presume to know his motivation. I can only observe what's in the posts.

Oh come off it, don't play dim. I've covered that repeatedly. Here's a link if you don't want to scroll up.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Oh come off it, don't play dim. I've covered that repeatedly. Here's a link if you don't want to scroll up.

Nah, this is boring.

Here: I'll fix it.

Spion, you're a lovely person, who is totally fair. I take it all back, everything I ever said.

And I'm really really sorry, to boot.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Here you are again, refuting some jews who say they were attacked. What is it with you - do you think all jews are congenital liars? On any issue here involving jews, you will invariably be on the other side.

surely the converse is also true if you support a group any group without question?

in this case one of the victims of this has said they felt it was becuase they were jewish. why did they feel it was becuase they were jewish?

was it that some judeophobic comments were made whcih lead them to beleive this or was it that they saw Asain youths and assumed they were muslims and then fell back on there own prejuidices to join the dot's.

without further information no one in their right mind would say we have sufficent facts to say one way or the other but to refuse to accept a newspaper story at face value and also to say there are two sides to every argument particularlly when you don't know the fact's isn't called antisemitism it's called being an adult.

 

[Spion]

Here you are again, refuting some jews who say they were attacked.

Sorry, where have I refuted jews saying they were attacked? Clearly they were. I have simply pointed that there is no evidence that the motivation was anti-semitic. Please provide evidence that I refuted jews saying they were attacked.

What is it with you - do you think all jews are congenital liars? On any issue here involving jews, you will invariably be on the other side.

An accusation of anti-semitism requires evidence. Please provide it

 

[Spion]

you are a nasty piece of work .. there is NO basis to your smearing scummy little accusation .. I nor any group i have been involved with have ever "tailor[ed my politics ] to the anti-immigration sentiments among the w/c." as you suggest ..

Except that you've spent the last year or more starting threads that a) castigate anyone not against immigration controls for siding with the bosses b) call for local jobs for local people.

 

[Spion]

do you really disagree that they would have had a differrent attitude if it was a bunch of white kids attacking bengalis?

A different attitide to what? Different to their attitude to a spurious story in a local paper? Have you asked them their attitude? Have you provided contrasting evidence to show their attitude in other cases? No is the answer to all of these.

I simply don't accept that it is valid to criticise someone for something when: a) it is not proven that there's even anything to criticise them about b) you haven't asked them to respond.

You may consider it good politics to hang people for something they literally haven't said about something for which there is flimsy or non-existent evidence, but I don't.