babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Anti-Semitism, eh?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Anti-Semitism, eh?
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 26 November 2003 04:31 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting article answering some of Mishei et al.'s regular innuendo/drive-by-implications.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/364637.html

quote:
One of the deepest wounds the Holocaust inflictedon the Jewish people is a distorted view of
present and future dangers. Every anti-Semitic
incident stirs memories of the horrors that
occurred and sabotages any accurate assessment of
the severity of the phenomenon, its causes and the
solution. One result of this situation is the
making of mistakes in the methods of confronting
anti-Semitism and its initiators.

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 November 2003 09:01 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
An Israeli cabinet minister told General
Assembly delegates that it is possible that the
first nuclear bomb will fall on Tel Aviv, "but
the second will explode in New York" (the
largest Jewish city in the world). One might
ask if it is wise to position the war against
Iran at the top of the Israeli agenda, but
apart from that, it is doubtful that many
American Jews will be enthusiastic about this
direction for the shared fate with Israel.

I'm not sure I share those doubts. I read about a week ago that when Hollinger took over the Jerusalem Post and its editorial position moved far to the right, the number of American subscriptions grew sizeably, and in my experience, the most extreme and hateful voices on the pro-Sharon side of the Israel/Palestine question come, almost invariably, from Americans. So I don't think this will change much. The right-wingers will perceive the Iranian threat (real or imagined) as further proof that Muslims are evil and should be destroyed. And I think the perception of a threat tends to push people to the right; note how many of Israel's activities in the West Bank are accepted as justifiable "security measures."


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 26 November 2003 09:58 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
University paper pulled after anti-Semitic comment
quote:
Copies of The Gargoyle, the bi-weekly student-run newspaper of University College at the University of Toronto, were pulled off newsstands last Friday after an anti-Semitic note by the editors ppeared in the Nov. 21 edition.

The comment, which stated “…shut the fuck up, you stupid greedy Jew,” was written following an article by Josh Lieblein criticizing a cartoon that appeared in the previous paper.

Part of a series called “Adventures in Objectivism,” the cartoon showed two men “poking their heads out,” Lieblein said, with one of them carrying a bag of money and wearing a black hat and sideburns. He questioned whether the artist had meant to intentionally portray the character as a Jewish Shylock.

The editorial note defended the cartoon and concluded with the anti-Semitic slur. It said the drawing was made by “a 19th-century British guy with mutton chops.”



From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 26 November 2003 10:44 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has anyone seen the newspaper in question? Is this just a case of misfired irony or is it real? Certainly it's hard to give any benefit of the doubt based on the article above.

A few years ago a newspaper I was involved in was accused of anti-Semitism due to a cover that actually intended to condemn anti-Semitism (I know, I put it together). The cover was a photo of a Jewish cemetary desecrated with swastikas taken from a book on anti-Semitism and we put statistics on the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust and I believe the number of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada in a recent year. The back cover was an "ironic" mock ad consisting of a photo of Hitler and Leni Riefenstahl standing beside each other with a Guess jeans logo on the bottom of the page - meant to be a sardonic comment about propaganda and advertising.

The front cover was meant to be provocative but, to our minds, it was clearly meant as a condemnation of anti-Semitism and to make the point that it was a serious problem. We were criticised because the message was too "ambiguous", ie we didn't actually put up text that said something like "anti-Semitism is bad" or "stop anti-Semitism". We just let the stats and image speak for themselves with the expectation that people would draw the obvious conclusions (and given that we were addressing a university audience we thought that was a reasonable expectation).

Anyway, all hell broke lose, Hillel house wrote us nasty letters as did the ADL which implied that the cover could be seen as an endorsement of anti-Semitism (Despite the fact that everyone involved in putting together the cover was Jewish). The back cover only made things worse as did the fact that there was no accompanying article inside the magazine, as an "alternative" we experimented with the idea that images could stand on their own to deliver a message without the need to be contextualised with written content. Maybe we were naive?

Anyway, accusations of anti-Semitism against us were the result of misunderstanding which was, in part, our fault for not understanding the ambiguity of imagery and particularly not anchoring the image with an article inside the paper. The Gargoyle issue, as described in the previous post, doesn't seem to be the result of any sort of misunderstanding or unintended ambiguity but not having seen it I can't ascertain whether or not there might have been a misreading of the text. Anyone have any information?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 November 2003 11:18 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mycroft I saw the issue of the Gargoyle. It is just as described in the CJN article you quote. An outright case of stupid antisemitism.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 26 November 2003 11:21 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Mycroft I saw the issue of the Gargoyle. It is just as described in the CJN article you quote. An outright case of stupid antisemitism.

That's quite disturbing. Who are the editors? Is there any action that can be taken against them through the Human Rights Office (assuming U of T has one).

From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 November 2003 11:41 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft:

That's quite disturbing. Who are the editors? Is there any action that can be taken against them through the Human Rights Office (assuming U of T has one).

I hope so.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 November 2003 08:37 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is the story as reported in the Varsity.

Anti-Semitism charges rock UC paper


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 November 2003 10:13 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That sounds patently offensive, racist, and anti-Semitic to me, and I don't see how any argument about "ironic" context is going to save the dork who wrote such a comment.

I see that other editors pulled the issue immediately, which is reassuring. Still, it is distressing to think that anyone could get to U of T, much less to an editorial position on a UC paper, who thinks that this sort of racist crap is going to meet with anything but universal jeers and condemnation.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 November 2003 11:59 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
That sounds patently offensive, racist, and anti-Semitic to me, and I don't see how any argument about "ironic" context is going to save the dork who wrote such a comment.

I see that other editors pulled the issue immediately, which is reassuring. Still, it is distressing to think that anyone could get to U of T, much less to an editorial position on a UC paper, who thinks that this sort of racist crap is going to meet with anything but universal jeers and condemnation.



On this we are in full agreement.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 28 November 2003 04:00 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is Anti-Semitism growing in Europe?
quote:
Henri Wajnblum, former president of the Union of Progressive Jews in Belgium:

It is certainly true that we have seen more incidents of anti-Semitic violence in the recent past: graffiti, arson attacks and the like, which are indeed worrying. But it is wrong to talk about a new wave of anti-Semitism gripping Europe.

What we are seeing is mounting hostility towards Israel - particularly among Arab immigrants who feel solidarity with the Palestinians. It is Israeli policy in the Middle East which is fuelling this to a large extent, and in that sense, the government of Ariel Sharon itself must take a share of the responsibility.

The idea that we are seeing a new wave of anti-Semitism is in part stirred up by those Jewish communities in Europe who ally themselves closely with Israel, but also the Sharon government.

Mr Sharon wants more Jews in Israel, he wants to gain the demographic advantage. He is, in part at least, exploiting fears of anti-Semitism to persuade Europe's Jews to emigrate.



quote:
Yaron Ezrahi, professor of political science at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem:

The right-wing in Israel describes every criticism of the country as a form of anti-Semitism. It is very convenient for the present government - which is the most right-wing in Israel's history and headed by a prime minister who has not taken the smallest initiative in the direction of a diplomatic effort in the peace process - to blame everything on anti-Semitism.

Any attempt to make the current government and its very questionable policies invincible to legitimate criticism should be wholly rejected

This way, they try to write off any criticism of their own policies.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has a long record in defining Israeli critics as disloyal. Any attempt to make the current government and its very questionable policies invincible to legitimate criticism should be wholly rejected.

When Yithzak Rabin was leading the peace process, there were extremely positive attitudes in Europe. It was very rare during that period to hear anti-Semitic voices.


[ 28 November 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 November 2003 02:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wish I could link to this article, but I can't, because Heeb Magazine doesn't publish their articles on their site. I just read this yesterday and loved it. You must all go out and get the latest copy. Now.

Excerpt from an interview with Tony Kushner, "playwright, essayist, radical gadfly":

quote:
Q. You've compared the present-day squabbling between Democrats and leftists to the Social Democrats battling the Communists in Germany just prior to the Third Reich, and of course the unspoken third point in that triangle is Bush/Hitler. As we also know, comparing anybody to Hitler or comparing anything to the Holocaust is as close as we Jews can get to a cardinal sin; people get absolutely pilloried for it. Do you think it's legitimate to make such comparisons?

A. Art Spiegelman said that the problem with using the Holocaust to say that this or that is like the Holocaust is that usually the bad guys haven't earned it yet. I think that's true. But I firmly believe that the mistake we've made in terms of thinking about the Shoah is that we metaphysicalize it. We remove it from the continuum of history, and specifically of political history. Nazism was a triumphant project of the German political right and it needs to be seen as that. It was an event that occurred in real time and it was a political event, and the real meaning of the Holocaust, the thing that I think we need to think about, is not the ways it can be used to justify our oppression of the Palestinians, but rather that it could have been avoided before it happened by ordinary determined political strategic thinking and resistance, and that once it really got started it was virtually impossible to stop without an apocalyptic global conflagration.

For me, that's the lesson: it's a political thing. You go to the Holocaust museum here or to Yad Vashem and that part of it is suspiciously missing. Hindenberg was right of center. The Nazis were radical right. These were political parties and they were supported by a group of right-of-center Catholics and right-of-center businessmen.

I think the Republican Party in this country shows over and over again that it doesn't have the faintest idea of what due process or constitutionality actually mean. These are people who have a certain amount of tolerance for the law until it really gets in the way of getting what they want, and if it does get in the way, they'll just kick the shit out of you. These people are Nazis, absolutely. You can read it in the papers every day. A machine is getting set up now in the United States for a one-party system, and the only thing that will limit its tenure is the fact that the world will probably go up in atomic flames as a consequence if they're not stopped.


He goes on in this interview to talk about an anthology he is putting together with Alisa Solomon that will be filled with articles by progressive Jewish Americans who are critical of Israel. His comments on Israel/Palestine:

quote:
I believe that Ariel Sharon is an unindicted war criminal and I can't believe that this figure from the absolute margins of Israeli right-wing politics has now become the popular Prime Minister. And that people who formerly would have called themselves liberal or progressive Jews are now standing up in defense of Ariel Sharon.

...

I'm vexed by this illusion that there is one simple opinion of the Jewish American community about Israel, which is uncritical, unqualified support. About a year before I went [to Israel], there was an ad in the New York Times signed by a number of writers who I admire, though not necessarily with good politics - Cynthia Ozick, Saul Bellow, David Mamet, Harold Bloom - expressing literally uncritical support for Israel and calling it the hope for world Jewry, which I thought was kind of outrageous given that these were all Americans who have lived incredibly fortunate lives as Americans and as Jews free of anything resembling the real effects of anti-Semitism because of the successes of American constitutional democracy. So I called Alisa Solomon... [and] asked her how she'd like to edit an anthology with me of progressive Jewish American voices, because I want to have a book that says, look, there are a lot of Jewish Americans who think Ariel Sharon is a nightmare and a disaster for the Jewish people as well as the Palestinian people and who oppose the occupation and so on. We have 58 contributors in the book from the whole spectrum, Zionist anti-Sharon to anti-Zionist anti-Sharon. I think it's going to be an amazing book. It's called "Wrestling with Zion: Progressive Jewish American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict."


I think it will be too - I look forward to reading it.

The rest of the interview (it's much, much lonter) is really great. The magazine was worth it for this interview alone, but it's chock full of other interesting stuff too. However, this is the excerpt that was relevant to this discussion. I posted it here because I think that according to the standards of anti-Semitism that some people on babble have tried to set, that this remarkable and intelligent guy would probably fall under that - or under the "self-hating" label.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 November 2003 09:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I wish I could link to this article, but I can't, because Heeb Magazine doesn't publish their articles on their site. I just read this yesterday and loved it. You must all go out and get the latest copy. Now.

Excerpt from an interview with Tony Kushner, "playwright, essayist, radical gadfly":

I think it will be too - I look forward to reading it.

The rest of the interview (it's much, much lonter) is really great. The magazine was worth it for this interview alone, but it's chock full of other interesting stuff too. However, this is the excerpt that was relevant to this discussion. I posted it here because I think that according to the standards of anti-Semitism that some people on babble have tried to set, that this remarkable and intelligent guy would probably fall under that - or under the "self-hating" label.


No I dont think so.

Kushner is an avowed leftist, pacifist but has never to my knowledge advocated for the dissolution/destruction/dismantling of the Jewish state of Israel.

Like Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun, he is extrememly critical of Sharon, the occupation and those policies which support it. However like Lerner he is strong in his Jewish values and is a Zionist who believes in a democratic, ethical Jewish state of Israel.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 28 November 2003 11:55 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because, of course, you wouldn't want him to be like the rest of us, with our ever so inferior non-Jewish values.

Edited to add that I should have moderated my tone, and to apologise for offense I may have given. Still, I would like to know exactly what is meant by "Jewish values."

[ 29 November 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 29 November 2003 01:57 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Smith's comment is beneath contempt.


As for the controversy itself, I read the following in Mishei's link:


quote:
Jewish students on campus are up in arms after an editor's note in the Gargoyle referred to a contributor as a "stupid, greedy Jew."

The issue, which was pulled off stands by editors and members of Hillel within an hour of release, also featured a comic depicting violent rape scenes.

The Gargoyle, a campus newspaper from University College, has long been known for its tongue-in-cheek attitude, but all parties involved agree the paper went too far this time.

In a letter delivered to the Varsity, representatives of the paper noted that "There is no excuse for the careless and offensive comments published in our November 21st issue," and that "the comment was absolutely not intended to be hateful towards the author, or the larger Jewish community."


As I gather, the editors thought that, if a Jewish person writes complaining about unconscious anti-semitism, it is SO funny to respond with an outright slur.

As it happens, I think that racism many times returns to public discourse through similar "funny" commentary. For example, I think that several black comedians, while being funny about attitudes and activities within the community, perform the function of cleansing the
stereotypes for further use by others.

I am willing to believe that the collegiate editors are not openly anti-semitic; but their idea of humour is terribly insensitive and amounts to an unconscious anti-semitism in itself.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 29 November 2003 02:04 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
jeff house, why do you refer to the "editors," plural?

Did you bother to read all the links above? It is clear from the evidence presented in this thread that the clearly anti-Semitic slur was the work of one person, and that the other editors, several of whom are Jewish, pulled the entire issue from newsstands within hours.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 29 November 2003 03:10 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Smith's comment is beneath contempt.

I apologise for the way that must have sounded. I am just a little tired of hearing values like democracy, justice, etc. attributed to one religion or another. They are not the exclusive property of any religion, or of religion at all; I am tired of hearing them referred to as such.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 29 November 2003 03:20 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course there's a chance it's a stupid person's idea of satire, rather than an intentionally anti-Semitic comment. The author is instantly exposed, so why do it? Then again, this "editor" may be just as sincere, and as suicidal, as Harper's little homophobe-buddy revealed himself to be over at the Alliance.
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 29 November 2003 04:10 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:

I apologise for the way that must have sounded. I am just a little tired of hearing values like democracy, justice, etc. attributed to one religion or another. They are not the exclusive property of any religion, or of religion at all; I am tired of hearing them referred to as such.



Then Jeff House was quite correct not only was it beneath contempt but your aplogy given your explanation is worthless. What can you be thinking Smith? I had felt that your latest posts on Babble were far more sensitive than in the past and less cofrontational, but this...???!!!

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 29 November 2003 04:16 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
jeff house has some 'splainin' to do himself on this thread. Bad misreading of the situation, very bad.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 29 November 2003 06:01 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
jeff house has some 'splainin' to do himself on this thread. Bad misreading of the situation, very bad.
Of course he does. That;'s becuase you read it absolutely right and he read it absolutely wrong..


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 29 November 2003 06:26 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Splanation:

Maybe I read it wrong.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 29 November 2003 07:21 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Splanation:

Maybe I read it wrong.


Well Jeff if Skdadl says you are wrong then you are wrong,no?

Seems to me that even Smith realized her error (why she didnt just edit it out however is a bit of a mystery but I appreciate her honesty I guess), nonetheless when she tried to explain herself she went right back to her original error.

For the record, Jewish values pertain to what is expected of Jews within a Jewish ethical framework. It DOES NOT mean that other ethical frameworks are better or worse. Religion and a peoples' history do play a role in shaping individuals especially if they admit to adhereing to a value set. To adhere to Jewish values is as laudable as adhering to any set of values that promote acceptance, understanding, freedom and tolerance.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 29 November 2003 08:31 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well Jeff if Skdadl says you are wrong then you are wrong,no?

Not invariably.

But in this case, and given you also think I am wrong, I fear that the gamut of responsible opinion is against me.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 30 November 2003 01:12 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
This kind of censorship on what one cannot say seems still problematic to me. Would it have been acceptable if he had written '...keep it up, you lovely Jew.'? If we cannot be anti-semitic, can we be pro-semitic? Is that not just as racist? On these snowy and slushy days I feel realy anti-truckers. As a group they are a race of mud-slingers on those days. What is wrong with expressing an honest emotion about something that has caused you grief or pain? It tells me more then a 'filtered sentence', and is that not what communication is about. Also it is anti-reader to have this kind of sensorship, it assumes that they are too stupid to form their own opinion, and that they have to be taught normed social skills. I wonder if there is a huge insecurity in our society that so many are so easily offended?
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 November 2003 01:41 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Not invariably.

But in this case, and given you also think I am wrong, I fear that the gamut of responsible opinion is against me.


No in fact I believe you hit the nail squarely on its head. I aplogize if I suggested otherwise.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 November 2003 01:44 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
This kind of censorship on what one cannot say seems still problematic to me. Would it have been acceptable if he had written '...keep it up, you lovely Jew.'? If we cannot be anti-semitic, can we be pro-semitic? Is that not just as racist? On these snowy and slushy days I feel realy anti-truckers. As a group they are a race of mud-slingers on those days. What is wrong with expressing an honest emotion about something that has caused you grief or pain? It tells me more then a 'filtered sentence', and is that not what communication is about. Also it is anti-reader to have this kind of sensorship, it assumes that they are too stupid to form their own opinion, and that they have to be taught normed social skills. I wonder if there is a huge insecurity in our society that so many are so easily offended?
Please tell me I am mis-reading this. I have read it twice now and it seems to me that Bubbles is usggesting that it is all right to be racist or antisemitic.Tell me someone that I am wrong!!

or should it be


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 November 2003 10:11 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
No in fact I believe you hit the nail squarely on its head. I aplogize if I suggested otherwise.


No, Mishei. Now it is jeff house who is reading carefully and you who are forgetting what you yourself wrote earlier. Sheesh. Good thing I used to be an English teacher.

If you check back above, Mishei, you and I had agreed -- AGREED! Mishei!!! -- that some idiot editor had written a clearly anti-Semitic comment in response to a letter to the Gargoyle editors. We also both knew that all the OTHER Gargoyle editors had immediately gone out and pulled the paper from the newstands. Hadn't we, Mishei? Like, for a moment there, we were on the same page, Mishei!

Then jeff came along and neglected to apprise self of all the facts, passing judgement on "editors" plural, simply because he hadn't considered all the evidence above, such a regrettable lapse in a lawyer, after all, so I called that problem to his attention.

So jeff, being a good guy, came back and admitted his error. So, like, as a former English teacher, I am here to absolve him.

But what is Mishei doing? He is encouraging the perpetuation of error! An error he never made hisself in the first place!

It all makes me feel so needed. Sheesh, but I wish people would read each other carefully. Now I have to go shout at a family member who just misread an exceptionally clear email. An English teacher's work is never done.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 November 2003 10:21 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:


No, Mishei. Now it is jeff house who is reading carefully and you who are forgetting what you yourself wrote earlier. Sheesh. Good thing I used to be an English teacher.

If you check back above, Mishei, you and I had agreed -- AGREED! Mishei!!! -- that some idiot editor had written a clearly anti-Semitic comment in response to a letter to the Gargoyle editors. We also both knew that all the OTHER Gargoyle editors had immediately gone out and pulled the paper from the newstands. Hadn't we, Mishei? Like, for a moment there, we were on the same page, Mishei!

Then jeff came along and neglected to apprise self of all the facts, passing judgement on "editors" plural, simply because he hadn't considered all the evidence above, such a regrettable lapse in a lawyer, after all, so I called that problem to his attention.

So jeff, being a good guy, came back and admitted his error. So, like, as a former English teacher, I am here to absolve him.

But what is Mishei doing? He is encouraging the perpetuation of error! An error he never made hisself in the first place!

It all makes me feel so needed. Sheesh, but I wish people would read each other carefully. Now I have to go shout at a family member who just misread an exceptionally clear email. An English teacher's work is never done.


Skdadl I am not referring to the Gargoyle. I am referring to What I thought were Jeff's comments about Smith who said:

quote:
Because, of course, you wouldn't want him to be like the rest of us, with our ever so inferior non-Jewish values.
Edited to add that I should have moderated my tone, and to apologise for offense I may have given. Still, I would like to know exactly what is meant by "Jewish values."


And then Jeff responded:

quote:
Smith's comment is beneath contempt.
To which I responded:

quote:
Originally posted by Smith:

I apologise for the way that must have sounded. I am just a little tired of hearing values like democracy, justice, etc. attributed to one religion or another. They are not the exclusive property of any religion, or of religion at all; I am tired of hearing them referred to as such.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then Jeff House was quite correct not only was it beneath contempt but your aplogy given your explanation is worthless. What can you be thinking Smith? I had felt that your latest posts on Babble were far more sensitive than in the past and less cofrontational, but this...???!!!


It is you Skdadl who is wrong about what I was referring to in the first place. But then again quite a few English teachers I know have been wrong in my time.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 November 2003 10:24 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, Mishei. It was clear from my specific replies to (the admirable) jeff house that I was referring specifically to his misreading of the original case -- and his misreading was clear, in his use of the plural "editors," eg.

His and my exchanges were entirely clear. They had nothing to do with yours with Smith, or with his comments on Smith.

But then you came along and tried to conflate the two. Naughty naughty, Mishei.

jeff house wasn't co-operating, Mishei, and neither am I.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 November 2003 11:15 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
No, Mishei. It was clear from my specific replies to (the admirable) jeff house that I was referring specifically to his misreading of the original case -- and his misreading was clear, in his use of the plural "editors," eg.

His and my exchanges were entirely clear. They had nothing to do with yours with Smith, or with his comments on Smith.

But then you came along and tried to conflate the two. Naughty naughty, Mishei.

jeff house wasn't co-operating, Mishei, and neither am I.


Skdadl, with respect dear Skdadl, how could Jeff have been responding to the gargoyle issue when he stated IN HIS OWN WORDS:

And in case you need to see the entire information I post it to show conclusively I AM CORRECT when i stated that Jeff was referring to SMITH's comments.

quote:
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
posted 29 November 2003 01:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith's comment is beneath contempt.
There you have it Skdadl. I was never referring to Jeff's comments on the Gargoyle. My original reference was to Jeff's comments about what Smith stated.

Dear Skdadl, naughty naughty for your continued wilful, blindness

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 November 2003 11:25 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But Mishei, I clearly was not. If you read jeff's first post over again, you will see that it contains a clear misreading of the original links. My first answer to him clearly addressed that misreading and nothing else.

No one, until you, confused my conversation with jeff with your conversation with Smith and/or jeff. No one, Mishei.

In other words, Mishei, jeff and I were having a direct exchange that did not concern Smith -- nor you, frankly. Unnerstand? You made it look as though it did. You did that either because you misread or because you wanted to make me look bad.

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 November 2003 12:12 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
But Mishei, I clearly was not. If you read jeff's first post over again, you will see that it contains a clear misreading of the original links. My first answer to him clearly addressed that misreading and nothing else.

No one, until you, confused my conversation with jeff with your conversation with Smith and/or jeff. No one, Mishei.

In other words, Mishei, jeff and I were having a direct exchange that did not concern Smith -- nor you, frankly. Unnerstand? You made it look as though it did. You did that either because you misread or because you wanted to make me look bad.

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]



Since you can never be wrong and I was referring to Jeff's comment about Smith which you also misunderstood and since it is always much better to have personal conversations via PM so people like you and I dont get confused I am prepared to leave this at the fact we both confused/misread each others posts. Nothing was done purposely just that we both got confused. It can happen Skdadl to both of us, no?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 November 2003 12:23 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks all the same, Mishei, but I'll just trust the readers of this thread to see where my name suddenly got tossed into the wrong conversation.

My heartfelt apologies to (the admirable) jeff house. I should not have dragged out references to you so long. I should have shut up several posts ago. Life, eh?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 30 November 2003 01:02 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought you were mad that jeff had scolded Smith, skdadl.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2003 01:28 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, so did I. Because I didn't think Smith's comment was out of line either, so I thought you were criticizing Jeff House for having said that her comment was beneath contempt. Here I thought I was agreeing with you on that.

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zisel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3851

posted 30 November 2003 02:59 PM      Profile for Zisel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have read the entire thread and I agree with Michelle and Audra on one aspect, Mishei was quite correct in his interpretation. We all agree it seems that it appeared as though Skdadl was admonishing Jeff House for his being critical of Smith.

Where Michelle and I disagree is with the fact that I believe that Mr. House was quite correct in his admonition.

I do as well wonder why Skdadl seems so focused on wanting to prove Mishei wrong even despite all the evidence that Mishei was right in the first place.

Skdadl, being a former English teacher does not seem to give you any special priviledges on being right even when you are wrong.


From: Florida | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2003 03:04 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well no, actually, Mishei was wrong in his interpretation of skdadl's post, as were Audra and I, although our mistake was understandable. Unless you're saying that skdadl was lying about her intention behind her post.

Only skdadl knows what she meant at the time. If she meant it differently than Audra and Mishei and I took it, then obviously we made a mistake, whether it was an understandable one or not.

quote:
I do as well wonder why Skdadl seems so focused on wanting to prove Mishei wrong even despite all the evidence that Mishei was right in the first place.

I don't know, maybe for the same reason that, every time you surface on babble, you seem so focused on wanting to prove Mishei right on everything.

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zisel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3851

posted 30 November 2003 03:21 PM      Profile for Zisel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Well no, actually, Mishei was wrong in his interpretation of skdadl's post, as were Audra and I, although our mistake was understandable. Unless you're saying that skdadl was lying about her intention behind her post.

Only skdadl knows what she meant at the time. If she meant it differently than Audra and Mishei and I took it, then obviously we made a mistake, whether it was an understandable one or not.

I don't know, maybe for the same reason that, every time you surface on babble, you seem so focused on wanting to prove Mishei right on everything.

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]



I am confused.

Yes Mishei and I have emailed each other thanks to Babble, and discovered that his father came from the Bielsk-Ltovsk province of Poland, as did I. We share common concerns it seems about the interpretation of the Holocaust and the view of Israel.

There are others that Mishei has put me in contact with that have similar areas of interest as do I. So yes I do support Mishei at times if I believe he is correct. In fact he will ask me to check certain threads for my opinion. ...is that wrong? Should we not be corresponding?


From: Florida | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2003 03:22 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where on earth did I say you shouldn't be corresponding? How would I even know that you're corresponding?

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zisel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3851

posted 30 November 2003 03:27 PM      Profile for Zisel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Where on earth did I say you shouldn't be corresponding? How would I even know that you're corresponding?

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


So why is it so wrong of me to support Mishei when he asks me for an opinion? Are we not suppose to do that here? I am being genuine. I am truly trying to understand why you appeared to be so critical of me coming on here from time to time (yes sometimes at Mishei's request) to offer my opinion. I dont always agree with his position either. Please explain.

From: Florida | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2003 03:35 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why is it so wrong for skdadl to try to explain herself when she is misinterpreted? Mishei thought she was referring to something in her post, when she was referring to something else. It was a misunderstanding. Mishei was not "clearly right" in this case. In fact, he was clearly wrong, because only skdadl knows for sure what she was referring to in her post. It's true that people can be mistaken

Why would you take skdadl to task for trying to explain to Mishei her motivation behind her post, and then call her "clearly wrong" about her own motivations? How do you figure that Mishei can be more right than skdadl about what was going on in skdadl's mind when she made her post?

You were the one who came out of the blue and accused skdadl of always wanting to prove Mishei wrong on everything. Whereas you always seem to want to prove Mishei right on everything, so how can you complain?

By the way, I couldn't care less how often you correspond with Mishei, whether you come to babble because he asks you to, or whatever. YOU were the one who wanted to know why skdadl is so "focused" on proving Mishei wrong. Even if we assumed this was the truth, why shouldn't she be, when you are so focused whenever you're on babble with proving him right?

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 November 2003 03:36 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by audra estrones:
I thought you were mad that jeff had scolded Smith, skdadl.


Then you didn't read this, did you?


quote:
jeff house, why do you refer to the "editors," plural?

Did you bother to read all the links above? It is clear from the evidence presented in this thread that the clearly anti-Semitic slur was the work of one person, and that the other editors, several of whom are Jewish, pulled the entire issue from newsstands within hours.


That post appears earlier than any shorter comment of mine that could have been misinterpreted.

I never post to a thread until I've read the whole thing. Of course, others are entitled to their own shortcuts -- but when they can be shown to be mistaken because of them, I wish they would have the good grace to admit it.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 November 2003 03:41 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Only skdadl knows what she meant at the time.

This also is obviously not true.

jeff house grasped the situation right away, when he took the trouble to real both of my earlier posts, and then obviously went back and read the links.

Props to jeff house, eh?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2003 03:44 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's an easy mistake to make, skdadl. It looked like you posted this:

quote:
jeff house has some 'splainin' to do himself on this thread. Bad misreading of the situation, very bad.

in response to Mishei's post just above it:

quote:
Then Jeff House was quite correct not only was it beneath contempt but your aplogy given your explanation is worthless. What can you be thinking Smith? I had felt that your latest posts on Babble were far more sensitive than in the past and less cofrontational, but this...???!!!

Often people respond to more than one issue in the same thread, so it was just as easy to assume that you were talking about a side issue as it was to assume you were still on about Jeff's other comment.

Edited to add:

Good grief. When I said that only you knew for sure what you meant when you posted, skdadl, I was SUPPORTING you, not criticizing you. I was saying that there's no way that Mishei could know better than you do what you meant when you were posting because you're the only one who is inside your head when you're posting.

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zisel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3851

posted 30 November 2003 03:44 PM      Profile for Zisel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Why is it so wrong for skdadl to try to explain herself when she is misinterpreted? Mishei thought she was referring to something in her post, when she was referring to something else. It was a misunderstanding. Mishei was not "clearly right" in this case. In fact, he was clearly wrong, because only skdadl knows for sure what she was referring to in her post. It's true that people can be mistaken

Why would you take skdadl to task for trying to explain to Mishei her motivation behind her post, and then call her "clearly wrong" about her own motivations? How do you figure that Mishei can be more right than skdadl about what was going on in skdadl's mind when she made her post?

You were the one who came out of the blue and accused skdadl of always wanting to prove Mishei wrong on everything. Whereas you always seem to want to prove Mishei right on everything, so how can you complain?

By the way, I couldn't care less how often you correspond with Mishei, whether you come to babble because he asks you to, or whatever. YOU were the one who wanted to know why skdadl is so "focused" on proving Mishei wrong. Even if we assumed this was the truth, why shouldn't she be, when you are so focused whenever you're on babble with proving him right?

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]



There is nothing wrong with that at all. But on this one it was so confusing that in fact both Skdadl and Mishei may have misunderstood each othr. When Mishei posted:
quote:
I am prepared to leave this at the fact we both confused/misread each others posts. Nothing was done purposely just that we both got confused. It can happen Skdadl to both of us, no?
I thought that was helpful and accurate.

Skdadl was not seeing what Mishei was referring to and Mishei was not seeing what Skdadl was referring to...errors on both sides not just one.

Perhaps we can ask Mishei and Skdadl to use the wonderful Private message system to work this out. After all it wasn't just Mishei who was confused, both you and Audra also seemed to misunderstand.


From: Florida | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2003 03:52 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I thought that was helpful and accurate too. Which begs the question - if you wanted so badly for them to solve it themselves using the private message function, why jump in?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 30 November 2003 03:55 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Alright, hands up...who else has gotten a headache from this thread? Yes, I know, I know; I'm not helping...
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2003 03:56 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was just thinking the same thing. I'm debating about whether to close it or not since there doesn't seem to be much hope of getting back on topic - and I know I didn't help that any.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 November 2003 03:57 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
NO, Michelle. You and audra and Zisel are STILL refusing to read the post that preceded the post you KEEP referring to -- the FIRST post dispels all ambiguity, and in fact no confusion ever would have arisen if you all had read that FIRST post, which jeff house clearly did, but you still haven't, even though I just re-quoted it!!!!!

Why do I waste my breath?

jeff house: you owe me. Big time.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 November 2003 04:00 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's get this fixed in someone's memory:

I opened this part of the discussion by saying:

quote:
jeff house, why do you refer to the "editors," plural?

Did you bother to read all the links above? It is clear from the evidence presented in this thread that the clearly anti-Semitic slur was the work of one person, and that the other editors, several of whom are Jewish, pulled the entire issue from newsstands within hours.


And until everyone tells me that he/she has read those paras, I am gonna keep re-posting it.

jeff, you're excused. You can clean the erasers.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2003 04:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I did read it. I know what you're talking about. I saw the first post you wrote to Jeff House - I saw it well before you just posted it here. I knew that you were talking about Jeff's reading of the article in that post. But since Mishei had moved on to Jeff's comment to Smith, and your SECOND comment came right after Mishei's agreement with Jeff about his chastisement about Smith, then I thought you had moved on to THAT subject as kind of a side-comment.

You seem to have a habit of assuming that if someone sees something differently than you do, that they haven't read the post. What is up with that, anyhow? It's so bloody condescending. I even said that we were all mistaken, what more do you want?

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 November 2003 04:03 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I want jeff house to buy me several drinks.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2003 04:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good plan.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca