[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

ALERT: GDP Only Half the Story (why trouble is ahead)

Panic In Israel As Hezbollah Expands Attack Strategy, Changes Targets: '2 Million Israelis At Risk'

Why Does Kamala Harris Keep Repeating This Quote? - (Karl Marx Origins)

Re-Visiting Deagel 2025 Population Forecast: An Accidental Warning?

NHS Whistleblower: We Were Instructed to Euthanize Patients to Inflate COVID Death Toll While Hospitals Sat Empty!

America Obliterates Half North Vietnam's MiG-21 Fleet In 13 Minutes - Operation Bolo

Fully Autistic at 3 but by age 6 he was symptom-free and back to being a normal kid

We Are at War, You Got An Enemy, Stop Depending on Your Enemy (Money Laundering)

A mass shooting in Birmingham, Alabama’s Five Points South left 4 dead, 25 injured,

Brilliant takedown of how lost the Democratic Party is from a former Democrat

KY Sheriff Shot Judge because Judge was R*ping his Daughter

Arrested by Kamala: A Black Mother's Story

Israeli Media Fear Houthis Have Arrived on Israel's Border as Militia Touts Readiness for 'Long War'

KAMALA’S AMERICA: Violent Squatters Take Over Massive Mansion in Wealthy Los Angeles Neighborhood

Walk/Don't-Walk - In Which States Do Citizens Stroll The Most?

U.S. Poverty Myth EXPOSED! New Census Report Is Shocking Capitol Hill

August layoffs soared to 15-year high, marking a 193% increase from July.

NYPD Faces Uncertain Future Amid New York's Growing Political Crisis

Whitney Webb: Foreign Intelligence Affiliated CTI League Poses Major National Security Risk

Paul Joseph Watson: What Fresh Hell Is This?

Watch: 50 Kids Loot 7-Eleven In Beverly Hills For Candy & Snacks

"No Americans": Insider Of Alleged Trafficking Network Reveals How Migrants Ended Up At Charleroi, PA Factory

Ford scraps its SUV electric vehicle; the US consumer decides what should be produced, not the Government

The Doctor is In the House [Two and a half hours early?]

Trump Walks Into Gun Store & The Owner Says This... His Reaction Gets Everyone Talking!

Here’s How Explosive—and Short-Lived—Silver Spikes Have Been

This Popeyes Fired All the Blacks And Hired ALL Latinos

‘He’s setting us up’: Jewish leaders express alarm at Trump’s blaming Jews if he loses

Asia Not Nearly Gay Enough Yet, CNN Laments

Undecided Black Voters In Georgia Deliver Brutal Responses on Harris (VIDEO)


Israel/Zionism
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: 657
Comments: 122

Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's idea'

Rory Carroll in Rome
Thursday November 11, 1999
Guardian

The 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."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
Poster Comment: I posted this in response to 2 insults questioning what I said to be true. That Einstein was a plagiarist and that the Jewish people control the press in America. Notice that this was published in England as was the paper on the Israeli lobby as the Jewish control on the press is very tight here. I am not starting a flame war. I just do not take insults well.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-8) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#9. To: christine (#6)

Incidentally, do you have any comments on the content of my posts, responding to the article?

freeedom  posted on  2006-04-07   8:36:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: christine, freeedom (#6)

I'm tired of the label and the accusation that we're anti-semites on this forum because we allow open and free discussion of THE topic.

You know that I agree with freeedom, and for the reasons he states. I would add that "open and free discussion" is an insufficient standard IMO. Truth should somewhere be featured.

Phaedrus  posted on  2006-04-07   9:34:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Neil McIver (#7)

Okay Neil as it is now .. I took me an HOUR to get it like it is now..so screw it LOL!

Zipporah  posted on  2006-04-07   9:36:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Zipporah, Neil McIver (#11)

lol!

I once read something about Einstein's wife, who was also a genius, perhaps being responsible for giving him his best ideas.

Also, according to other sources I've read, this type of genius is found in males between 14 and 28 years of age. Einstein spent his life trying to show/prove what he had done by age 28.

Many ideas in science are floated about and cross-germinated between scientists before it has legs; often about the same time. Then chance or the one with the most interest in self-promotion steps forward. So, this report doesn't surprise me.

”We have room but for one flag... We have room but for one language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is the loyality to the American people.” - Theodore Roosevelt

robin  posted on  2006-04-07   10:23:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: freeedom, christine (#8)

Incidentally, when you capitalize "the" in the statement "I'm tired of the label and the accusation that we're anti-semites on this forum because we allow open and free discussion of THE topic" it conveys the impression that of all the problems in the world, THE problem is Jooooos, and we can only solve it if we can discuss it. Is that really what you intend to convey, or am I hopefully misunderstanding you?

I've been around this issue for a few years now, starting with LP, and have learned a few things about it.

First, christine mentioned "THE topic" not "THE problem". That's an important distinction.

Second, as you pointed out, criticism of Israel is reasonable and and fair play. But many people that are pro-jew / act in defense of jews consider criticism of Israel to be a veiled slam on jews, and therefore shouldn't be permitted. Those people taking that stance are wrong and I believe it's reasonable and correct to point that out to them. I believe that false and excessive cries of anti-semitism, such as the prosecution of so-called holocaust deniers in Europe do the jews far more harm than letting people question the number of jewish dead in WWII Europe. Why isn't questioning the number of Ukrainian dead under Stalin also a crime?

Third, jewry is not really a race. It's a religion, or more of a religion than a race. At least that's what one jew told me, in spite of the idea that the original blood jews are decended from Abraham. Racially speaking, arabs are of the same blood line as jews, and in fact, "semite" refers equally to arabs and jews alike. But in terms of religion, anyone converting to judaism is considered a full blood jew, so they seem to consider the faith aspect as the primary defining factor. With that distiction, they really enjoy the same protection as islamic "ragheads", if you follow.

Fourth, one practice among jews which is very arguably discriminatory involves the matter of money. Again, I was told this from a jew and you can verify it anywhere, including the Old Testament. When a jew loans money to another jew, no interest in permitted to be charged. Interest is only permitted when loaned to a non-jew. This is a factual statement, not an anti-semite statement. What does it mean? It means that jews do treat people differently based on their religion, discriminating against non-jews, which runs contrary to modern day political correctness which seems to bind all other political & religious sectors within the USA.

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-04-07   11:24:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Zipporah (#11)

Okay Neil as it is now .. I took me an HOUR to get it like it is now..so screw it LOL!

I suggest deleting everything but the leading info.

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-04-07   11:25:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: freeedom, Phaedrus (#8)

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 (whatever that means, it seems to me that is nebulous and in many situations based on one's personal beliefs, perceptions, and experiences. I offer religion and the bible as an example). That being said, our purpose here is the provision of a venue in which the posting and sharing of information and opinions in an attempt to learn what is true is encouraged.

Based on your comments, I'm left to conclude that neither one of you believe in free speech. With free speech comes the good, the bad, and the ugly. If you don't like what an individual writes, you have one of three options, debate him/her on it, ignore it, or leave the forum if you're uncomfortable with our policy of non- censorship. I hope you'll choose one of the first two.

christine  posted on  2006-04-07   11:27:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Neil McIver (#13)

very well said.

christine  posted on  2006-04-07   11:29:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: christine (#15)

Based on your comments, I'm left to conclude that neither one of you believe in free speech. With free speech comes the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Then you should have no objection whatever to freeedom's posts. If you have no truth, you have absolutely nothing worth having. Things are not as simple as you suggest and "policy of non-censorship" is a cop-out IMO. You are in effect saying "there is no truth".

Phaedrus  posted on  2006-04-07   11:46:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: christine (#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 ...

Anyone shown, repeat shown, to post lies, innuendo, character assassination etc. on more than one, repeat one, occasion would be thrown out. Quality not just quantity, Christine, is important, especially if you want 4um to attract good people and endure. Both tolerance and judgement, repeat judgement, are required but you cannot be afraid to exercise it and you must expect to be wrong now and then, which would not be the end of the world. People don't die here. You would eliminate a lot of the onerous stuff, not that it's currently a major problem, by simply making these rules known. My opinion -- I just post here and I obviously don't make the rules.

Phaedrus  posted on  2006-04-07   12:06:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: freeedom (#8)

Saying that something "is the fault of the Jews" is like saying something is the fault of "the blacks" or "whitey" and is explicitly racist

How about this statement.

Our Iraqi foreign policy is the fault of some Jews.

No problem there, right?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-04-07   12:08:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Neil McIver (#13)

Third, jewry is not really a race. It's a religion, or more of a religion than a race. At least that's what one jew told me, in spite of the idea that the original blood jews are decended from Abraham. Racially speaking, arabs are of the same blood line as jews, and in fact, "semite" refers equally to arabs and jews alike. But in terms of religion, anyone converting to judaism is considered a full blood jew, so they seem to consider the faith aspect as the primary defining factor. With that distiction, they really enjoy the same protection as islamic "ragheads", if you follow.

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??

Zipporah  posted on  2006-04-07   12:31:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Jethro Tull (#19)

How about this statement.

Our Iraqi foreign policy is the fault of some Jews.

No problem there, right?

Well according to Phil Zelikow it was:

War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

Zipporah  posted on  2006-04-07   12:33:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: christine (#6)

Don't mean to intrude on this (well maybe I do) but when we had lots of posters here from another site temporarily some of them posted some over the top remarks about Jews, it was somewhat eye-opening. I am sensitive to white-bashing I see in the media and all over in general. It's no accident. At the same time in the past few years we have been bombarded with subtle messages about others. And I've considered the fact that Abe Foxman could be working against his own people, he has to know that the way he operates can only engender bad feelings on all sides.

I would not want to be Jewish in this day and age, it's not any better than being white (or Arab) with all the bashing, accusations, death wishes and such.

Both groups are being put down and made to appear dispicable.

This is probably a much safer time period for the Mexicans or Chinese.

Diana  posted on  2006-04-07   12:42:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Zipporah (#21)

I use High Beam library for research. When I typed in Iraqi war to benefit Israel I got 12,058 hits. The connection is denied by only those who wish to ignore the obvious.

Malaysian prime minister tells Al-Jazeera U.S. attacked Iraq to protect Israel

AP Worldstream; 4/6/2003

Dateline: DOHA, Qatar Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad told Al-Jazeera in an interview broadcast Sunday on the pan-Arab satellite station that he believed the main purpose of the war on Iraq was to protect Israel. Mahathir, speaking in English with an Arabic translation voice-over, also said Syria, Pakistan and Iran could be the next U.S. targets. It was not clear when the Qatar-based station conducted the interview.

The Malaysian leader has been a vocal opponent of the war. In the Al-Jazeera interview, he said the U.S. was trying to strip Iraq of the ability to defend itself and to control Iraqi oil.

"But I believe the prime goal is achieving the ambitions of Israel, which is finishing off any source which could threaten Israel in the Middle East region," he added.

He said if the United States succeeded in Iraq, "other countries will feel insecure."

"Syria could be targeted on accusations of helping the Iraqis. Today, there is talk of cooperation between Pakistan and other countries on nuclear technology and it is believed to possess weapons of mass destruction. We don't know whether those (next U.S.) targets will be Pakistan and Syria for the same reasons that they are countries threatening the United States. So any country will feel insecure, among them Iran."

Mahathir said hopes to restore an international order he said was shattered by the U.S. decision to attack Iraq despite opposition from other members of the United Nations are pinned on cooperation among countries opposed to war.

"But at the same time, in order to stop the United States from proceeding in its behavior, it is for the American people to bring down its government, " he said.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-04-07   12:46:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Jethro Tull (#23)

I dont understand why this is so hidden... if it's the truth then let the truth be known.. so stupid IMO.

Zipporah  posted on  2006-04-07   12:48:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Neil McIver (#13)

When a jew loans money to another jew, no interest in permitted to be charged. Interest is only permitted when loaned to a non-jew.

Neil, I need a grand. Can you help?

Thanks,
Abe

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-04-07   12:53:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: freeedom, christine (#8)

I don't think they say whitey much, I hear trailer trash, anglos, also Anglo-Saxons seems to be the new, popular buzzword for European peoples, no matter what area of Europe their ancestors were from.

We're just living in times where we are all being programmed to distrust and hate one another. Men are even being encouraged to hate women.

Diana  posted on  2006-04-07   12:58:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Zipporah, all (#24)

Yep, the truth is the truth. We're in Iraq for a few reasons, one chief reason is the safety and security of Israel. Shall we google the phrase the NEW MIDDLE EAST? WTF does that mean, except a foreign policy of nation building. I think it's important to be a truth seeker, and part of that quest is to ask the basic question, Who benefits?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-04-07   13:00:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Jethro Tull (#27)

Shall we google the phrase the NEW MIDDLE EAST? WTF does that mean, except a foreign policy of nation building. I think it's important to be a truth seeker, and part of that quest is to ask the basic question, Who benefits?

Exactly the objective truth no matter where it takes you.

Zipporah  posted on  2006-04-07   13:06:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Neil McIver (#13)

First, christine mentioned "THE topic" not "THE problem". That's an important distinction.

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?

But many people that are pro-jew / act in defense of jews consider criticism of Israel to be a veiled slam on jews, and therefore shouldn't be permitted. Those people taking that stance are wrong and I believe it's reasonable and correct to point that out to them.

I do not number among them.

I believe that false and excessive cries of anti-semitism, such as the prosecution of so-called holocaust deniers in Europe do the jews far more harm than letting people question the number of jewish dead in WWII Europe. Why isn't questioning the number of Ukrainian dead under Stalin also a crime?

I agree, censorship is dangerous, and particularly so when conducted by governments. I agree with you that prosecuting holocaust deniers is dangerous, and I would also object to criminalizing, say, questioning the number of Ukranian dead.

Third, jewry is not really a race. It's a religion, or more of a religion than a race.

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.

But in terms of religion, anyone converting to judaism is considered a full blood jew, so they seem to consider the faith aspect as the primary defining factor. With that distiction, they really enjoy the same protection as islamic "ragheads", if you follow.

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.

Fourth, one practice among jews which is very arguably discriminatory involves the matter of money. Again, I was told this from a jew and you can verify it anywhere, including the Old Testament. When a jew loans money to another jew, no interest in permitted to be charged. Interest is only permitted when loaned to a non-jew. This is a factual statement, not an anti-semite statement.

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.)

What does it mean? It means that jews do treat people differently based on their religion, discriminating against non-jews, which runs contrary to modern day political correctness which seems to bind all other political & religious sectors within the USA.

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.

freeedom  posted on  2006-04-07   13:29:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: christine (#15)

Not at all. I wrote "I don't think it should be censored, but I don't think it should be ignored, either." on the other Einstein thread. Perhaps you missed it, so I'm including the link for your convenience.

freeedom  posted on  2006-04-07   13:33:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Zipporah, Jethro Tull, christine, Neil McIver, Horse, freedom, phaedrus (#28)

Shall we google the phrase the NEW MIDDLE EAST? WTF does that mean, except a foreign policy of nation building. I think it's important to be a truth seeker, and part of that quest is to ask the basic question, Who benefits?

That Einstein was a plagiarist and that the Jewish people control the press in America. (from the poster's comment)

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)?

Were Einstein merely included in a larger heterogenous group of alleged plagerists, there might be a point, but it does seem he was singled out for accusation based on a Jewish connection, not on a scientific peer review.

Do we not advocate freedom and the rule of law for all, regardless of race?

We should be questioning/discussing what specific people or organizations have done, not for what racial or religious heiritage we impute to them.

It's one thing to note that terrorists praise Allah and then wrap themselves in bombs and blow up people, and make the connection that those Muslim or Islamic terrorists kill people.

But it's quite another (and wrong) to imply that Muslims or Islamists as an ethnic group are terrorists.

The same applies to Jews. Castigate (or accuse) specific individuals (or organizations) for what they have done, not for what ethnic background they belong.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-04-07   13:35:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: freeedom (#29)

I agree, censorship is dangerous, and particularly so when conducted by governments. I agree with you that prosecuting holocaust deniers is dangerous, and I would also object to criminalizing, say, questioning the number of Ukranian dead.

Well then, we live in a dangerous world. In many nations the discussion of what you mention above is a crime. IMHO, that thought is coming to America. Why do you believe that the topic of the holocaust has been made illegal?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-04-07   13:39:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Zipporah  posted on  2006-04-07   13:39:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Starwind (#31)

The same applies to Jews. Castigate (or accuse) specific individuals

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.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-04-07   13:48:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Jethro Tull (#32)

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, 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.

freeedom  posted on  2006-04-07   13:50:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Agreed. I'm advocating the 'ideal'.

As a Catholic, why is it I don't become hypersensitive when my religion is discussed? No one I know does.

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?

Plug in Jew for Catholic, and some take offense. That's their problem.

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)

Starwind  posted on  2006-04-07   13:59:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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

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.

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-04-07   14:06:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: freeedom (#35)

"The Jooooos "

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.

Zipporah  posted on  2006-04-07   14:07:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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??

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.

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-04-07   14:11:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Zipporah (#38)

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.

freeedom  posted on  2006-04-07   14:17:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Neil McIver, Christine (#37)

I don't like such paranoia and the best way to dispel it is to permit candid discussion.

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?

Phaedrus  posted on  2006-04-07   14:20:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

I'd say yes, you're wrong, as "presuming" on a discussion forum doesn't work very well.

You're being excessively pedantic. I doubt that when Horse posts, "The Jews are in control of the press" he means, practicing religious Jews.

Well, maybe not but if "jew" means differet things to different people then that needs to be clarified.

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.

Sure, the term anti-semite has come to mean "anti-jew" in todays language.

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.

Again, then we have confusion over what "jew" actually means.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-04-07   14:29:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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)?

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.

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-04-07   14:44:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Starwind (#31)

But it's quite another (and wrong) to imply that Muslims or Islamists as an ethnic group are terrorists.

Not on its face, it's not.


I use antlers in all of my decorating.

Tauzero  posted on  2006-04-07   14:48:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Neil McIver (#42)

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.

freeedom  posted on  2006-04-07   14:48:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Diana  posted on  2006-04-07   14:49:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Well said.

Diana  posted on  2006-04-07   14:53:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: freeedom, Jethro Tull (#35)

To: Jethro Tull

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.

Diana  posted on  2006-04-07   15:04:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (49 - 122) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]