See other Israel/Zionism Articles
Title: Albert Einstein A Plagiarist?
Source:
The Guardian - UK 8-29-03
URL Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,3928978-103681,00.html
Published: Apr 5, 2006
Author: By Rory Carroll in Rome
Post Date: 2006-04-06 00:05:11 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 559
Comments: 122
Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's idea'
Rory Carroll in RomeThursday November 11, 1999
GuardianThe mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was claimed yesterday.
Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian.
Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed, said Professor Bartocci of the University of Perugia.
De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.
A Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work, said Prof Bartocci. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921.
"De Pretto did not discover relativity but there is no doubt that he was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant. I also believe, though it's impossible to prove, that Einstein used De Pretto's research," said Prof Bartocci, who has written a book on the subject.
Einstein's theory held that time and motion are relative to the observer if the speed of light is constant and if all natural laws are the same. A footnote established the equivalence of mass and energy, according to which the energy (E) of a quantity of matter (m) is equal to the product of the mass and the square of the velocity of light (c). Now known as: E=mc2 .
The influence of work by other physicists on Einstein's theory is also controversial. A German, David Hilbert, is thought by some to have been decisive.
Edmund Robertson, professor of mathematics at St Andrew's University, said: "An awful lot of mathematics was done by people who have never been credited - Arabs in the middle ages, for example. Einstein may have got the idea from someone else, but ideas come from all sorts of places.
"De Pretto deserves credit if his contribution can be proven. Even so, it should not detract from Einstein."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-32) not displayed.
.
.
.
#33. To: Starwind (#31)
I dont have a 'dog' in this fight Starwind I've not read the entire article I havent had time.. My comment was to JT.. re the war in Iraq nothing more or less.
That's a nice thought, but that isn't the real world Starwind. We tend to generalize. Blame it on the human condition. I see nothing nefarious here. As a Catholic, why is it I don't become hypersensitive when my religion is discussed? No one I know does. Plug in Jew for Catholic, and some take offense. That’s their problem.
I don't have a good answer for that. It probably has to do with European guilt over allowing the Holocaust to happen, but it could be something else. (It could also be because The Jooooos control everything, but I reject that argument.) One thing I'll stand by: there are a lot of foolish, dangerous, or outright insane people in positions of political power everywhere across the globe, and one shouldn't look to the duly enacted laws of any country as paragons of reason, rationality, beneficence, or virtue.
Agreed. I'm advocating the 'ideal'. But if this forum 'generalized' only against catholics, or if numerous posts mentioning Ted Kennedy (or any Kennedy) generalized about Irish Catholics being the cause of the world's problems, the forum would begin to take on a distinctly different taint, would it not? Freedom rightly noted a "simmering anti-semitism", and in absence on this forum of any simmering anti-catholicism, or simmmering anti-Islamism, etc, then it would appear Jews are singled out more often than not, and as this is intended to be an uncensored discussion forum, he ought to be able to call attention to it without someone taking offense, No?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
The irony here is that doing this promotes the very paranoia that is trying to be averted, just as Zundel's prosecution is promoting. People see that and the cite it as evidence of control by jewish or zionist interests albeit indirect. Seeing Zundel get prosecuted makes me personally sympathize with those crying foul against the Jews. Zundel committed no crime worthy of a single minute behind bars. I don't like such paranoia and the best way to dispel it is to permit candid discussion.
now may I ask what was the point of the use of this ?? Was it to then undermine ANY objective discussion of the topic making it seem as if they're KOOKS or racists of some type??? SO if anyone says anything critical of Israel or our foreign policy AIPAC or spying or anything else. Will then then feel that this will be used on them?? I think it's outrageous that in an open discussion that people must use hot button words in order to sway discussion but have at it.. since this is a free speech forum.. just thought I'd ask.
Because anyone with a Jewish mother is also considered a jew even if as a convert. I pointed out the other day that this means that if any one of your maternal ancestors was a converted or bloodline jew, then you are a jew. You could be a jew and not know it. In fact there's no way you can certain you are NOT a jew.
I was lampooning those who use the word that way, and say it that way. As might already be clear from my other posts, I don't have much respect for those people, and I think they're entirely worthy of ridicule.
This is pretty weak, Neil. I presume you would not permit someone advocating the killing of blacks, or Jews, or whomever, on this forum were it your decision (or Christine's, for that matter). So you DO have lines that are not to be crossed. We're talking about the best place to draw the line, which is always somewhat subjective. And someone has to do it. They will not necessarily be popular but they can be respected. Is this forum about popularity or something more worthy?
I'd say yes, you're wrong, as "presuming" on a discussion forum doesn't work very well. Well, maybe not but if "jew" means differet things to different people then that needs to be clarified. Sure, the term anti-semite has come to mean "anti-jew" in todays language. Again, then we have confusion over what "jew" actually means. I don't know what the actual practice is, but it's my firm understanding that it's a general teaching that jews do not charge each other interest. Perhaps there are marginal exceptions. It should be easy to verify or dispel whether this is practiced today. Good idea to check. But I was informed by a practicing jew that it is in fact the case. I'm open to correction. Fair enough point and any muslim that tries to carry this out ought to, if necessary be gunned down before hand in self defense of the jew/christian/hindu/buddest/whatever (infidel, I suppose).
I can, sure. And for the record, I am hard pressed to downgrade Einstein from his status as a brilliant scientist. Had he died shortly after his publication, then there'd be question, but there's no way he could have continued to lead in his field if all credit for his genius actually belonged to another. His source would have quickly been recognized as the true genius and supplanted Einstein. Perhaps there is some truth in this other fellow's studies, but if so I'd consider it likely an exceptional matter to Einstein's record.
Not on its face, it's not.
I'd say yes, you're wrong, as "presuming" on a discussion forum doesn't work very well. Ok, fair enough. I won't presume anything. Please tell me: what exactly is meant to be conveyed, when someone writes that Jews are "THE" issue. Not "an" issue, capital T-H-E issue. Enlighten me, please. [Re: Horse's comment] Well, maybe not but if "jew" means differet things to different people then that needs to be clarified. What possible meaning could it have that makes "The Jews control the press" somehow a reasonable position to take in an argument? Please enlighten me here, too. I don't know what the actual practice is, but it's my firm understanding that it's a general teaching that jews do not charge each other interest. Perhaps there are marginal exceptions. So you don't know, and I don't either. Let's suppose you're correct, however. For the sake of argument: Jews don't charge each other interest. So what? Family members sometimes don't charge each other interest either, maybe that means Jews just think of each other as family members. Does this somehow justify the discrimination and persecution that has resulted? Would this fact have any bearing on whether "the Jews control the press" or whatnot? No and no. So there must be something else to it. Incidentally, it might be in violation of law for "non-arms-length transactions" to occur - in which case, prosecute or change the law. Fair enough point and any muslim that tries to carry this out ought to, if necessary be gunned down before hand in self defense of the jew/christian/hindu/buddest/whatever (infidel, I suppose). Careful there!! You're one millimeter away from justifying the invasion of Iraq, and the ongoing War On Terror.
The way people practice their religion has a lot to do with their cultural attitudes and characteristics. The majority of muslims just want to live their lives and live right, and yes, peacefully. There are indeed the fanatics who want to kill infidels, but those types are found in all major religions. A few years ago in India a bunch of Hindus went on a rampage killing muslims in their mist. Someone tried to post that article on FR but it was taken down right away as all muslims must be bad guys now and never victims.
Well said.
Why do you believe that the topic of the holocaust has been made illegal? I don't have a good answer for that. It probably has to do with European guilt over allowing the Holocaust to happen, I don't buy that reasoning, too many Europeans suffered and died as well during WWII. Most European countries fought against Germany, some countries were occupied by them; for instance the Dutch hate the Germans to this day for the starvation and maltreatment of the Dutch people by the German occupiers, though there was a scarcity of food all over Europe as the allies and Germany bombed many railroads halting shipment of supplies including food, plus most of the men were engaged in war. The whole nazi thing has morphed into all of Europe being guilty for what Hitler did to the Jews. Time has a way of changing factual history.
Correct, of course. What constitutes "more worthy" is subjective. To me, quashing reports on Zundel's prosecution would be bad, as would his case that the number of Jews (and others) killed in Auzwich (sp?) is/must have been far less than the 4.2 million accepted for the first 40 years after WWII. Along with that, discussion about the powers that are behind his prosecution must be permitted, and that would target the jewish lobby. But I also agree with and have echoed Starwind's point that blaming alleged plagerism on one person who happened to be jewish on a jewish conspiracy is unwarranted. I guess I'm just saying that overreaction by jews/jewish interests, which does and is happening (ref: Zundel), helps to promote the very so-called anti-semitism that jews claim is victimizing them. And as I said, seeing what's happening to Zundel, for me, lends credence to those who claim there is a pro-jewish conspiracy. In fact, I'm not sure how anyone could disagree that Zundel's prosecution makes jews look bad.
Is it okay if I just delete the bulk of the article? The book excerpts could be reposted, but it's messing up the thread and the bulk of the article is not readable in it's present form anyway. May I? Besides that, the joooos are holding me at knifepoint and they'd appreciate it as well.
Let's talk about apples; it's hard for people to identify with individual apples. Suppose you want to make apple pie, and you have a dozen apples. Suppose also that you are informed, just as you begin, that one of the apples will make you ill. Do you use them all in the pies? Toss them all out and get a new batch? Or try to identify which one is the bad one? Suppose you can draw from two batches. Apples from the first batch come with a 1/1000 chance of illness. Apples from the second 1 in 50. Do you draw from both batches, neither, one of them, do some testing? Maybe the second batch is cheaper; or the severity of illness is not the same. The answer depends on the relative costs and benefits -- to you, as measured by you -- of each of the options available to you. Is it wrong to say to someone "don't get that second kind -- it'll make you sick"? (The making of a chocolate shake would work equally well as an example.)
FIRST an FYI .. Christine and
*I* are the forum owners of 4 ..NEIL is our paid webmaster and what he has said
is his opinion.. that I suppose had to be stated YET again.. AND I as one of
the forum owners, *I* DO NOT appreciate YOU making it sound as if discussion
and/or criticism can be equated to as YOU put it "advocating the killing of
blacks, or Jew, or whomever".. SO who draws the lines here on matters for
discussion? YOU? This is and will remain a free speech forum .. topics of
discussion will not be censored.. other than advocating violence in some form..
or other things that are illegal. That's it in a nutshell..plain and simple END
of that discussion.
Besides that, the joooos are holding me at knifepoint and they'd appreciate it as well. :P Fine with me Neil.. whatever works at this point.. just watch your back ;P
Comparing people with apples is like comparing oranges with apples (something like that). It's far easier for people to say nasty things about others than to say good things, and people prefer to believe the nasty things, so a lot gets blown out of proportion on both sides, like all Jews want to kill us, or all European peoples are responsible for nazi Germany. Then people burn with anger and lust for revenge and the killings start back and forth and the never-ending cycle continues.
There are some bits that are questionable, IMO. But it's interesting, because it's those bits that have been seized on by critics -- the hope being that those who have not yet read it won't. The other criticisms are that it doesn't address the whole picture (which is true), or doesn't adequately address some aspect of particular importance to the critic. This is normal in peer review. But peer review is often just a mechanism for orthodoxy, even in the hard sciences. As the authors say, those other aspects have been addressed elsewhere by others.
It is true that when people unite economically, they become more powerful than the sum of their parts. It is thereby possible for a minority of people to obtain disproportionate control over a majority that doesn't simalarly unite. This is why the USA, having just 5% of the world's population, became a dominent world power, and why the European union came about, to unite the various independent countries into an economic force greater than the sum of it's parts. So unfortunately, if this principle is applied to a special segment of people based on religion, skin color, hair color, whatever, then I do believe it's possible for that group to, on average, rise in social status above, on average, those not in the group. Does that mean that people have no inherent right to give preferential economic treatment to whomever they will? Well, first tell me if it's alright for a white store owner to refuse to sell stuff to blacks. There are good arguments to answer yes and no. With increased economic power comes increased social power. For purposes of this discussion that's unfortunate, as it does lay a *theoretical* groundwork for supporting a so-called "jew conspiracy" of media control. Again, this is IF jews have a preferential economic system in place that aids jews above and beyond that of non-jews, which beyond the interest charging practices, I do not know/believe to exist. Again, I'll emphasize this is *theoretical* on my part only. I'm not citing evidence, only theory, and this theory can just as easily apply to tall skinny people taking advantage of people who are not both tall and skinny. Not at all. Please don't make me barf.
I've made this point many times. There are about a billion muslims in the world. If all of them, or even a substantial minority, took the kill the infidels literally, then we would not be at nearly the relative state of peace we are in today. It would be far, far worse, even considering Iraq and the presence of Israel.
Certainly it's hard for people to think in a disinterested way about the Apple of God's Eye.
I agree, after all nothing has come down from the Mount recently, but all things considered - it's dead on :)
The Delphi method has traditionally been a technique aimed at building an agreement, or consensus about an opinion or view, without necessarily having people meet face to face, such as through surveys, questionnaires, emails etc. This technique, if used effectively, can be highly efficient and generate new knowledge. To build consensus, the Delphi method often uses the Hegelian dialectic process of thesis (establishing an opinion or view), antithesis (conflicting opinion or view) and finally synthesis (a new agreement or consensus), with synthesis becoming the new thesis. All participants in the process shall then either change their views to align with the new thesis, or support the new thesis, to establish a new common view. The goal is a continual evolution towards 'oneness of mind', or consensus on the opinion or view. The person co-ordinating the Delphi method can be known as a facilitator, and facilitates the responses of their panel of experts, who are selected for a reason, usually that they hold knowledge on an opinion or view. The facilitator sends out questionnaires, surveys etc. and if the panel of experts accept, they follow instructions and present their views. Responses are collected and analysed, then common and conflicting viewpoints are identified. If consensus is not reached, the process continues through thesis and antithesis, to gradually work towards synthesis, and building consensus.
I said no such thing and YOU need to read my post more carefully.
whatever.
WTC bombing - 9-11 - assassination of Israeli atheletes - hotel bombings in Bali and Africa - Embassy bombings in Africa - Cole bombing in Yemen - Bombing of marine barracks - London subway and bus bombings - Madrid train bombings - Richard Reid, attempted shoe bombing of a passenger jet liner - Phillipines bombings - West Berlin nightclub bombing - attempted attack on major Saudi oil facility - attempted missile shootdown of Israeli jetliner in Africa - successful shootdown of TWA 800 (covered up) - attempted bombing of Sky Needle in seattle - Suicide bombings in cafes, bookstores, and other places in Isreal, Afghanistan, and Iraq, some targeting children - Murder of Buddists in Tibet, other places - beheading of non-combatants in Iraq, Afghanistan, and their broadcast on TV - US embassy taken hostage in Iran - Beslan school massacre - Dubrovka theater siege in Moscow - Riots in France and Australia - Rapes in Australia and Scandanavia - DC snipers - Sgt. Hasan Akbar's grenade attack on fellow US soldiers - attempted truck bombing of a hotel where journalists were staying - successful bombing of a wedding in Jordan, at a hotel where Westerners were thought to be staying - murder of Theo Van Gogh - riots over cartoons throughout the world ... Relative state of peace, indeed!
As I said, we would not be in the relative state of peace we have today. What we'd have would make the list you gave look like certified olympic events.
Does it matter? Look to fake name and the plagiarism of Martin Luther King - he got a national holiday and the attention of another Manchurian Patsy, for all the trouble he caused. Who cares anything about Uncle Al? Bush plagiarizes Hitler; who says a word? Does it matter?
With Americans conducting War Crime invasions and occupations - threatening more; where is this "...relative state of peace we are in today?" Did I miss something?
Late to the thread - but that is certainly correct. Satan is having a ball with the whack-jobs that are ruling this world.
Hilbert's work was stolen by Einstein as well. And if you do some more checking, I think you will find it was Hilbert who had the connections to the Italia, De Pretto. The time frame fits with the 1905 date I've seen previously. Just some old information which pops into my head. ;0) Einstein was indeed a plagiarist, and also an unabashed Zionist. This in itself is damning from my point of view. One needs to see the devious and evil agenda of the Zionists to see just what is driving the insanity of the world today. And the money power is controlled by the Zionists and their shills, and has been for many centuries. The fact that Zionism has its roots in Marxism and the Talmud and other sects of reform Judaism is of great significance. Look up Lubavitchers on the web to see one of the kookier bunch of Jews floating around out there.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Sen. Barry Goldwater
Ok, so I've browsed the full paper. I would not characterize the paper as anti-semitic in any sense, nor do I think dissecting 'accusations of anti-semitism' as a political ploy necessarily makes one anti-semitic either. But nor would I characterize the paper as entirely balanced and truthful. It contains a fair degree of spin, and it largely ignores Israel has a legitimate ancient history and prior possession of its homeland; that the Balfour Declaration originally intended to turn over the British mandate of Palestine (won from the Turks in WWI), but was subsequently partitioned into "Palestine" west of the Jordan and the "Transjordan" (given to Arabs and Palestinians exclusively); and that the area west of the Jordan was further whittled down such that by the time the "zionists" moved in (1948), the Gaza strip and West Bank were not included. The paper argues that new, better research shows the Zionists were more at fault for whatever befell them than was heretofore acknowledged. I don't know how true the new research is, but I'm not impressed with it's one-sided presentation. The authors hypocritically ignore that the world seems to expect Israel to negotiate with a terrorist like Arafat (Munich? Entebbe? Achille Lauro?) who wouldn't be tolerated as dog-catcher anywhere else. To ignore the political repurcussions of forcing Israel to negotiate with such regardless of any legitimacy the underlying Palestinans may have, is assinine to put it charitably. But that is what the world expected of Israel, wasn't it. To the Palestinan's detriment, as if the world cared, but again hypocritically expecting Israel to pretend the world cared about the Palestinians. But that doesn't make it anti-semitic, IMO. Further, while the paper does footnote its claims with its sources (which I greatly appreciate), I disagree with some of the conclusions or motivation inferred. While Israel does have an effective lobby, that doesn't change the nature of the problems fomented by Soviets, Chinese, Europeans, Arabs, and the US. All have had a hand in manipulating events to the breaking point. Not one country or world body can claim innocence, nor the Israelis. They have been heavy-handed needlessly at times. Lastly, I think attributing the commonly stated motivations to the various actors is naive in the extreme. Ralph Reed for example doesn't care one wit about genuine biblical prophecy just as Abe Foxman doesn't care one wit about who is really defaming Jews. The neocon's couldn't care less if Israel is safer if they can actually subvert the middleeast governments before China and Russia do. It's about energy costs and the US Dollar, not protecting Israel from Saddam Hussein. They're all protecting their respective political power bases, truth be damned. But just because they're all grinding their own axes, doesn't mean they are rational or smart about it. Making mistakes or being heavyhanded doesn't mean the problems are simple or all of ones own making. I personally have no problem with exposing the influence of lobbies, AIPAC or other. I'd like to see them all exposed, all cards on the table. If anyone can make a case for Federal largesse on the merits, let's see it. Our elected officials can no longer be trusted to exercise judgement without our scrutiny, sadly. Yes, the charge of anti-semite is easy to raise and IMO, the ADL, AIPAC, etc have "cried wolf" way too often. The proof is in the preemptive innoculation by warning in advance of charges of "anti-semitism" for anything these days. But that doesn't mean that hatred of Jews for being Jews doesn't exist, and conspiracy theories blaming Jews for being complicit in something (based on the "proof" that they're Jews) abound. I'm frankly quite alarmed at the German prosecution of "holocaust deniers" because they choose to argue material evidence and wish to explore the facts and conduct research. If they're falsifying facts then scientific, forensic, or historic peer review is the appropriate venue to deal with that - not legal prosecution. That said, it also seems evident to me that some of the "revisionists" do in fact seem to have a hatred of, and obsession with, most things Jewish and seem to expect Jews as a race to permit their own extinction, and that is incredibly naive, and further exacerbates the hatred and fear all around. Extremist claims, whether Abe Foxman's fears of Christians savaging Jews after watching Mel Gibson's "Passion of The Christ" or accusations that Einstein was a plagerist, etc, all belong in the round file. There are extremeists on all sides. We ought not let them whipsaw us off-center.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I ONCE HAD A MULIE COW, MULIE WHEN SHE'S BORN Thanks for Prohibition and the war against drugs. Thanks for a country where nobody's allowed to mind their own business. Thanks for a nation of finks. Yes, thanks for all the memories-- all right let's see your arms!- William S Burroughs
So much here Starwind, where to begin? Lets go point by point. You state that “Israel has a legitimate ancient history and prior possession of its homeland.” It is my understanding that the state of Israel was created by the United Nations in the late 1940s. Prior to its creation, it was a Palestinian homeland. Are you using Bible scripture to put forward the idea of “prior possession?”
Yes, using land ceded by the British, won from the Ottoman Turks in WWI Not entirely, no. The Ottoman Turks were occupiers. They lost in WWI. The British became the new "occupiers". The British, the "zionists", the Arabs, and ultimately he UN agreed a much smaller portion (west of the Jordan) would be "Israel" and Transjordan would be for the Arabs and "palestinians". The palestinians didn't want to leave. So they didn't. Israel squeezed in except for the Gaza and West Bank. Egypt and Syria escalated conflict leading upto the 1967 war, Israel preempted, won the war and kept Gaza and the West Bank. At which point they were occupying roughly the land they had prior to the succesive conquests of Babylonians, Alexander, Seleucids, Ptolemys, and then the Romans followed by the Arabs (around 700 AD).
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Comments (74 - 122) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#34. To: Starwind (#31)
The same applies to Jews. Castigate (or accuse) specific individuals
#35. To: Jethro Tull (#32)
Why do you believe that the topic of the holocaust has been made illegal?
#36. To: Jethro Tull (#34)
That's a nice thought, but that isn't the real world Starwind. We tend to generalize. Blame it on the human condition. I see nothing nefarious here.
As a Catholic, why is it I don't become hypersensitive when my religion is discussed? No one I know does.
Plug in Jew for Catholic, and some take offense. That's their problem.
#37. To: christine, freeedom, Phaedrus (#15)
So basically if you owned this forum, you'd censor the posts of those you deem are racist or anti-semite or posts that, in your opinion, are not the truth
#38. To: freeedom (#35)
"The Jooooos "
#39. To: Zipporah (#20)
Well.. it is both Neil. Judaism is a religion true.. but THEY see themselves as a race.. Jewish atheists see themselves as Jews.. so if it were religion then how would that apply??
#40. To: Zipporah (#38)
#41. To: Neil McIver, Christine (#37)
I don't like such paranoia and the best way to dispel it is to permit candid discussion.
#42. To: freeedom (#29)
You're right, but I made a logical step from there. This is a political discussion forum, and if Jews are THE topic, and we're not happy about the way things are, I think we can presume that they are THE problem. Am I wrong?
You're being excessively pedantic. I doubt that when Horse posts, "The Jews are in control of the press" he means, practicing religious Jews.
Racially speaking, arabs are of the same blood line as jews, and in fact, "semite" refers equally to arabs and jews alike.
I confess to using the term colloquially. But tell me, when Horse posts "The Jews control the press" - does his use of the term "Jew" have any more subtlety or complexity than my informal use of the term "anti-Semitic" does? I don't think so.
Sort of. But once again, I don't think those who own the media outlets are practicing, devout Jews, so I believe you and Horse disagree, even though you are apparently coming to his defense.
There are a lot of things that are objectively in the Bible, e.g. stoning adulterers, that are (fortunately) long gone (except in radical Islam). I highly doubt that Jews don't pay margin interest or mortgage interest, even though some brokers and loan officers are undoutedly Jewish. (Or, ~all of them if you actually believed that Jews "control" banks and brokerage houses.)
I have no evidence that Jews, today, actually do this. Do you? The fact it's in their holy book doesn't mean it's still practiced.
One difference, though, is that another certain holy book says it's ok to kill infidels, and there's plenty of evidence right now that they still want to, plan to, and do so in great numbers. If you want to talk about political correctness.
#43. To: Starwind (#31)
Can you not see the difference between
legitimately questioning the Israeli government (and its agents, or even its citizens) for what they have done
vs
Accusing Einstein of plagerism because he's Jewish and the press for hiding it because they're controlled by Jews (ie accusations based on who they are, rather than the actions they actually committed)?
#44. To: Starwind (#31)
But it's quite another (and wrong) to imply that Muslims or Islamists as an ethnic group are terrorists.
I use antlers in all of my decorating.
#45. To: Neil McIver (#42)
#46. To: freeedom, Neil McIver (#29)
One difference, though, is that another certain holy book says it's ok to kill infidels, and there's plenty of evidence right now that they still want to, plan to, and do so in great numbers.
#47. To: Starwind (#31)
We should be questioning/discussing what specific people or organizations have done, not for what racial or religious heiritage we impute to them.
#48. To: freeedom, Jethro Tull (#35)
To: Jethro Tull
#49. To: Phaedrus (#41)
I presume you would not permit someone advocating the killing of blacks, or Jews, or whomever, on this forum were it your decision (or Christine's, for that matter).
So you DO have lines that are not to be crossed. We're talking about the best place to draw the line, which is always somewhat subjective. And someone has to do it. They will not necessarily be popular but they can be respected. Is this forum about popularity or something more worthy?
#50. To: Horse, christine, Zipporah (#0)
#51. To: Diana (#47)
I use antlers in all of my decorating.
#52. To: Phaedrus, christine, Neil McIver, ALL (#41)
This is pretty weak, Neil. I presume you would not permit someone
advocating the killing of blacks, or Jews, or whomever, on this forum were it
your decision (or Christine's, for that matter). So you DO have lines that are
not to be crossed. We're talking about the best place to draw the line, which is
always somewhat subjective. And someone has to do it. They will not necessarily
be popular but they can be respected. Is this forum about popularity or
something more worthy?
#53. To: Neil McIver (#50)
Is it okay if I just delete the bulk of the article? The book excerpts could be reposted, but it's messing up the thread and the bulk of the article is not readable in it's present form anyway. May I?
#54. To: freeedom, Starwind (#35)
Have you read this? Please do if you haven’t. Its been ripped
as anti-Semitic by all the usual suspects. I agree with every word. Neither
the scholarship nor the authors can be impeached, so the attack has come from
the pro censorship mob. The actual paper from which this critique was taken is
some 50 odd pages. Read that also, if you have the time. I believe every word
of this paper. Do you? If not, why not?
#55. To: Tauzero (#51)
#56. To: Jethro Tull (#54)
Neither the scholarship
I use antlers in all of my decorating.
#57. To: freeedom (#45)
For the sake of argument: Jews don't charge each other interest. So what? Family members sometimes don't charge each other interest either, maybe that means Jews just think of each other as family members. Does this somehow justify the discrimination and persecution that has resulted?
Would this fact have any bearing on whether "the Jews control the press" or whatnot? No and no.
Careful there!! You're one millimeter away from justifying the invasion of Iraq, and the ongoing War On Terror.
#58. To: Diana (#46)
The majority of muslims just want to live their lives and live right, and yes, peacefully. There are indeed the fanatics who want to kill infidels, but those types are found in all major religions.
#59. To: Diana (#55)
Comparing people with apples is like comparing oranges with apples (something like that).
I use antlers in all of my decorating.
#60. To: Tauzero (#56)
There are some bits that are questionable
#61. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#60)
The Delphi method and consensus building
Role of the facilitator
#62. To: Zipporah (#52)
... *I* DO NOT appreciate YOU making it sound as if discussion and/or criticism can be equated to as YOU put it "advocating the killing of blacks, or Jew, or whomever ...
#63. To: Phaedrus (#62)
#64. To: Neil McIver (#58)
then we would not be at nearly the relative state of peace we are in today
#65. To: freeedom (#64)
Relative state of peace, indeed!
#66. To: Horse, All (#0)
Albert Einstein A Plagiarist?
#67. To: Neil McIver, Christine, Diana, Zipporah, robin, Zoroaster, BTP Holdings, Arator, Brian S, A K A Stone, Steppenwolf, Bub, mugwort, bluegrass, Bill D Berger, FormerLurker, Uncle Bill, Dakmar, Flintlock, Neil McIver, tom007, aristeides, Burkeman1, Diana, (#58)
then we would not be at nearly the relative state of peace we are in today
#68. To: freeedom (#35)
One thing I'll stand by: there are a lot of foolish, dangerous, or outright insane people in positions of political power everywhere across the globe, and one shouldn't look to the duly enacted laws of any country as paragons of reason, rationality, beneficence, or virtue.
#69. To: Horse, freedom (#0)
The influence of work by other physicists on Einstein's theory is also controversial. A German, David Hilbert, is thought by some to have been decisive.
#70. To: Jethro Tull (#54)
#71. To: Starwind (#70)
TOOK A JAY BIRD FORTY YEARS TO FLY FROM HORN TO HORN
#72. To: Starwind (#70)
#73. To: Jethro Tull (#72)
It is my understanding that the state of Israel was created by the United Nations in the late 1940s.
Prior to its creation, it was a Palestinian homeland. Are you using Bible scripture to put forward the idea of "prior possession?"
.
.
.