Against the Jews

Shieldmaiden4Christ said:

I'm perfectly calm, but your tone did seem to be an attempt to contradict my statement. Perhaps you should have clarified that in your first post, and given me the same benefit of the doubt you're saying I should've extended to you. Not trying to be rude, but that kind of door swings both ways. I'm not discounting what you've said, but in terms of how I understand and relate to the world (in terms of generalities), my statement totally encompasses what you said. I also did not in any way suggest that the establishment of a homeland was something that Arabs were universally against; that said, the establishment of Israel from the state-making standpoint (not just the process of how the establishment played out), was in fact destabilizing for the whole region in the boundary-drawing process. To expand further on the boundary process, the arbitrary boundary drawing for all of the countries in that region done by colonial powers was pretty destabilizing in the first place.

That's pretty much what I meant by "establishment of Israel" in the post you were referencing.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, Not seeing where someone can read tone over an online response where one does not have access to body language or how one's voice is said - as it things were stated similar to what you said before and what I said was no different than it was now.

People then had NO issue since it was already understood what was said was agreement while stating their own nuance. Simple. And as I never came out saying "You're wrong!!" and gave benefit of the doubt (counter to you saying I was trying to contradict), there is only aggression in assumption on one side with regards to where benefit of the doubt was not given. If you agreed with what I said, then of course one can say "I agree - I was actually keeping that in mind" - and of course, I am not going to ask what you thought on your statement since I already agreed with it......and thus, chose to make my general statement echoing what you already said. If I was not in agreement, I would have said "Why do you feel that way? Do you mean this?" ....

Again, IMHO, it'd be beneficial for you to not assume others were trying to contradict you - and acknowledge it when they said so and not think they are behind in any kind of understanding. As said before, I have already taken courses on the issue and it was NOT just the establishment of Israel that causes destabilization - others historically have spoken on the issue such as Malcolm X when it comes to seeing what caused the destabilization of the Middle East and this is not an issue historical scholars shy away from. I never said boundary processes in map-making were not a problem, as that has been spoken on before as well - if looking up what was stated before in UN vote recognizes state of Palestine; US objects and Double-Take: How the Middle East IS Northeast Africa historically & had Image Change (on how the Middle East was ALREADY divided long before any territory or divisions came up with Israel).


As another noted:

And as said before:

Gxg (G²) said:

Respectfully, Not seeing where someone can read tone over an online response where one does not have access to body language or how one's voice is said - as it things were stated similar to what you said before and what I said was no different than it was now. People then had NO issue since it was already understood what was said was agreement while stating their own nuance. Simple. And as I never came out saying "You're wrong!!" and gave benefit of the doubt (counter to you saying I was trying to contradict), there is only aggression in assumption on one side with regards to where benefit of the doubt was not given.

Again, IMHO, it'd be beneficial for you to not assume others were trying to contradict you - and acknowledge it when they said so and not think they are behind in any kind of understanding. As said before, I have already taken courses on the issue and it was NOT just the establishment of Israel that causes destabilization - others historically have spoken on the issue such as Malcolm X when it comes to seeing what caused the destabilization of the Middle East and this is not an issue historical scholars shy away from. I never said boundary processes in map-making were not a problem, as that has been spoken on before as well - if looking up what was stated before in Double-Take: How the Middle East IS Northeast Africa historically & had Image Change

Click to expand...

Fair enough. That said, tone is still a component of textual discourse - it's just that word choice and sentence structure are involved. Otherwise, I wouldn't have had to write needlessly on the "tone" of a selection in my lit classes! I still think we're kind of quibbling unnecessarily over a semantic distinction. At this point, I don't see how I'm saying things that aren't being said by you, and so forth, just that maybe it's being said differently. That's kind of what's confusing to me about this exchange. Is it the difference between my understanding of establishment in the general and your understanding of establishment in the specific in regards to this issue? Or are we accidentally being complements in this exchange?

Really confused at this point.

gurneyhalleck1 said:

Others mention Seinfeld and Star Trek and Dune too much!

Click to expand...

One can never mention Star Trek too much

Star Trek

Star Trek

Star Trek

Am I the only who finds Seinfeild overrated. To each their own but the humor seems dry and Star Wars beats Star Trek anyday except the newer Star Wars.

Orthodoxjay1 said:

Am I the only who finds Seinfeild overrated.

Click to expand...

BANNED.

Orthodoxjay1 said:

Am I the only who finds Seinfeild overrated.

Click to expand...

Seinfeild is totally overrated for sure. Seinfeld, on the other hand, is gold.

I kid, I kid (aside from the latter sentence, that one is true).

gzt said:

BANNED.

Click to expand...

I don't like Seinfeld either.

NO SOUP FOR YOU!!

No. Say "muchas gracias." LOL!!!

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Yes I did, thank you. Can I say Shalom? ;-)

Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa, hold....the...phone here!

Back up now!

Seinfeld overrated? Seriously? If you were in front of me I'd shake you and slap you with a wet noodle!

Seinfeld and King of Queens, imho, are the two funniest observational humor shows of the past 30 years. Sheer brilliance. It was outside-the-box humor and poking fun at selfish, self-absorbed, egotistic people caught up in their own little world. I think that show had brilliant social commentary. It has brought me to tears laughing on more than one occasion. It completely changed comedy. I can't overemphasize how solid that show was.

Now, even more importantly here, this "Star Wars beats Star Trek" nonsense. That needs a serious beat-down. But since you're a nice dude, I'll put away my Romulan disruptor and won't burn you down with it. Star Wars is a child of Star Trek only without all the awesome cerebral stuff we got in Trek. Just take Light Speed/hyperspeed and there was already warp speed on Trek. Take "proton torpedoes" from Star Wars and we had "Photon Torpedoes" on Trek. Look at the crazy gaggle of aliens and that already existed on Trek. Otherwise Trek and SW have little in common. But you have to ask would Star Wars ever have even existed had Gene Roddenberry not brought us the greatest sci-fi series in history from 1966 to 1969? No way.

Star Wars is superb, don't get me wrong. I went to see that flick in the theater in 1978 at the tender age of 3 and I fell into an ecstasy you can't fathom. I was in the Star Wars fan club (got my "Bantha Tracks" newsletter bimonthly), had every action figure you could imagine, lived and breathed it. I saw A New Hope in the theater 3 times, Empire Strikes Back 3 times, Return of the Jedi 5 times, Phantom Menace 3 times, Sith twice. I've seen the original trilogy on cable, vhs, or dvd combined for probably 40 times.

Yet, with all that SW love, I think Star Trek is superior. In the end, Star Wars isn't complex at all. It's a story of a son redeeming his father. It's about faith with solid religious overtones, friendship, and good old-fashioned government on steroids coup-d'etat political corruption. but in the end, it's mostly shoot-em-up space cowboys and indians....Don't get me wrong here. I adore SW. ADORE IT.

Star Trek themes covered:
Economics
Bio-diversity/Environmental issues
racism
suicide and euthanasia
cold wars and their futility
man trying to be god ahead of his time
do the needs of the man outweigh the individual?
time travel and its possible implications
the ramifications of interfering with other cultures and their development
seeing technology as a panacea
old age
self-determination
valid forms of government
income inequality
emotion vs. dispassion
what it means to be human
living in two worlds culturally
exploration
ethical vs. unethical science
imagination as the key to scientific breakthrough
war as a last alternative
'submarine' warfare
leadership
fascism
crime syndicates
extinction and ecology
obsession
vengeance
Greek/Roman myths
history repeats itself
ends don't justify means
addiction
father-son relationships
regrets
plausible deniability and espionage
over confidence and human arrogance
Shakespeare


You name it, Trek has covered it one way or another.

The original pilot of Star Trek entitled "The Cage" in which Jeffrey Hunter portrayed Captain Pike as the original Capt. of the Enterprise, was rejected by NBC for being "too cerebral" for the American people. Star Trek was and always has been more cerebral, conceptual, deeper than any other sci-fi of its kind, especially more so than Star Wars. Star Wars is, as I said, adventure. Star Trek is odyssey and the human experience. Often times Trek drifted into areas with which I'm not comfortable--too much secular humanism for sure, but overall I find it vastly superior.

Each has its place in sci-fi, but Star Wars appeals to the masses mostly due to its visual presentation, amazing music scores, lovable characters, and good old-fashioned good vs. evil stuff. Americans, not the brightest bulbs in the box, can "get it." Trek is often over their heads, which is the very reason that JJ Abrams re-booted Star Trek utterly free of thought, intellect, concept, or depth, and replaced it with action nonsense.

I take Trek over SW, but love both. Can't agree with your "Star Wars beats Trek anyday." You're parsecs off on that one, crewman.

Orthodoxjay1 said:

Am I the only who finds Seinfeild overrated. To each their own but the humor seems dry and Star Wars beats Star Trek anyday except the newer Star Wars.

Click to expand...

Ugh. We need a thumbs down emoticon on here! We need the equivalent of Bill Murray shocking a lab volunteer with electricity Ghostbusters style for these kinds of posts, pro!

prodromos said:

I don't like Seinfeld either.

Click to expand...

BANNED UTTERLY! I'm with you, g. The NSA should go home to home rounding up people for not liking that show!

gzt said:

BANNED.

Click to expand...

And that, my friends, is why he's not called "bottom care," but is tops in my book. I raise my goblet of Tranya to you, sir (Gurney wonders who'll get that reference in here).

topcare said:

One can never mention Star Trek too much

Star Trek

Star Trek

Star Trek

Click to expand...

I love TAW. The only place where a question about St. John Chrysostom being anti-semitic can turn into a discussion about posters using too much Aramaic and Star Trek vs. Star Wars and Seinfeld all derail it all into a delicious discussion of the most pressing debates of our times! LOL

topcare said:

NO SOUP FOR YOU!!

Click to expand...

You can keep your Cambells soup!

Orthodoxjay1 said:

Star Wars beats Star Trek anyday except the newer Star Wars.

Click to expand...

So true as far as the movies go! Star Trek is a great TV series...but the original Star War movies are much better than the Star Trek movies imho. Though the Star Trek new movies are better than the Star Wars new movies.

"Yes I did, thank you. Can I say Shalom? ;-)"

No, because we speak English on this forum.

Wrath of Kahn!!!!?? Undiscovered Country!!!!??? Voyage Home!!!!?? nuff said....

All4Christ said:

So true as far as the movies go! Star Trek is a great TV series...but the original Star War movies are much better than the Star Trek movies imho. Though the Star Trek new movies are better than the Star Wars new movies.

Click to expand...

GregConstantine said:

"Yes I did, thank you. Can I say Shalom? ;-)"

No, because we speak English on this forum.

Click to expand...

As usual Greg, you could not resist injecting yourself into the conversation if I am involved! You could not resist, could you LOL! I wasn't even talking to you....SHALOM