Gateshead v Limmud


By Simon Rocker
October 20, 2013
Share

Will the Charedi attack on Chief Rabbi Mirvis’s decision to go to Limmud have any long-term repercussions?

United Synagogue president Steve Pack doubts whether it will have “great impact” and believes “it is not a massive issue for Rabbi Mirvis – I think it will fade into the ether relatively soon.”

But one rabbi I spoke felt that it will strain the new Chief Rabbi’s relations with the right at the very time he might have hoped to be building bridges.

The initiative for the anti-Limmud declaration, I understand, came from the head of the Gateshead Yeshivah, Rabbi Avrohom Gurwicz. The yeshivah has been the alma mater of many US rabbis down the years and wields considerable clout.

The Gateshead Rav, Rabbi Shraga Faivel Zimmerman – who was one of the seven signatories of the declaration – said that most of them were not people who made public statements. But Rabbi Gurwicz, he told me, felt “since this is an issue of emunah [faith], it was something that had to be clarified”.

Rabbi Zimmerman said the statement reflected “the commonly held principles of every Torah scholar in this country”.

He also cited a comment made by former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks in a book to the effect that for pluralism to succeed, Orthodoxy must fail.

“We are very concerned that Orthodoxy shouldn’t fail,” Rabbi Zimmerman said. “We are a people who have a great concern about the future of Anglo-Jewry. Although some of us live far away and some of us might dress differently than the average United Synagogue member, nevertheless we are involved in their lives and are very concerned about it.”

I doubt that the declaration will have much effect on the ordinary US congregant. But it clearly will exert pressure on some US rabbis who might have been wavering about whether to go to Limmud or not.

It certainly ups the ante. If United Synagogue rabbis want to demonstrate their support for Rabbi Mirvis, they will be expected to do so by following him to Limmud in respectable numbers.

COMMENTS

Chaim Pesach

Mon, 10/21/2013 - 09:49

Rate this:

0 points

I am willing to bet you any amount of shekels that more or less the same number of US rabbis will attend Limmud as in the past few years. The rest will run scared of the Gateshead Gang


Chaim Pesach

Tue, 10/22/2013 - 13:28

Rate this:

0 points

Suzanna, what, precisely, has this to do with the subject of the thread? Isn't bad enough that HG bounces his messages all over the place (he or she could post his new info at the top of the post if he/she is reluctant to create new posts)?


happygoldfish

Tue, 10/22/2013 - 15:20

Rate this:

0 points

Chaim Pesach: Suzanna, what, precisely, has this to do with the subject of the thread?

chaim, although you're new here (with your hoity-toity sandbanks ways!), you should have noticed that nobody here pays much attention to the off-topic rule that applies in normal internet forums

the simple fact is that this is not a forum, it does not have threads, it only has staff blogs (some misleadingly called "your blogs" ), and members' right to comment on a topical matter would be unexercisable if we had to wait until a member of staff decided to blog about it!

so everyone puts up with the fact that "new info" is pretty much bound to be off-topic, and a lesser netiquette applies, in which one tries to post in a blog that is vaguely relevant, and what is frowned on is attempting to hijack or derail a discussion that is still live (doesn't really apply here), or posting the same thing in more than one blog (which suzanna is doing)

(if you really want a thread, you can try http://www.thejc.com/forum)

Chaim Pesach: Isn't bad enough that HG bounces his messages all over the place (he or she could post his new info at the top of the post if he/she is reluctant to create new posts)?

(i don't know what "bounce" means, but whatever it is, i don't do it!)

i am reluctant to create new posts, and so i do sometimes "post … new info at the top of the post", see eg at the top of this post

i don't understand what difference you think it makes whether "new info" is at the bottom or at the top


Rich Armbach

Wed, 10/23/2013 - 09:33

Rate this:

0 points

Ben F

Wed, 10/23/2013 - 12:35

Rate this:

0 points

Nice spin...here's the other side:

http://stephensizer.blogspot.com/


Rich Armbach

Mon, 10/28/2013 - 11:29

Rate this:

0 points

Praise be the bogus,imaginary. alleged EU " working definition" now officially doesn't exist. Mercifully we will hear no more about it.

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.co.uk/

"A press officer at the FRA has explained that this was a discussion paper and was never adopted by the EU as a working definition, although it has been on the FRA website until recently when it was removed during a clear out of “non-official” documents. The link to the FRA site provided by the complainant in his appeal no longer works."


happygoldfish

Mon, 10/28/2013 - 13:25

Rate this:

0 points

Rich Armbach: "A press officer at the FRA has explained that this was a discussion paper and was never adopted by the EU as a working definition …"

rich, thanks for confirming what i have said many times

the interparliamentary coalition for combating antisemitism adopted that eu definition in november 2010 (http://www.antisem.org/archive/ottawa-protocol-on-combating-antisemitism...) …

… We reaffirm the EUMC – now Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) – working definition of antisemitism, which sets forth that:
“Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively – the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy, or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
Let it be clear: Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium – let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction – is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest.

and so it should now be referred to as the ottawa protocol of the interparliamentary coalition for combating antisemitism, and no longer as an eu document, nor belittled as a "working" document!
(see also its London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism (2009) at http://www.antisem.org/london-declaration/)


Chaim Pesach

Mon, 10/28/2013 - 14:00

Rate this:

0 points

There is only one definition of antisemitism that matters:
prejudice or hostility towards Jews.
Anything else is just rubbish.


Rich Armbach

Mon, 10/28/2013 - 14:34

Rate this:

0 points

Except that the ICCA are a bunch of self appointed nobodies ( including convicted felon McShane and Mann ffs.) who cares

If Galloway, Corbin, skinner, and a few similars from around the world got together and called themselves a coalition would any crapola they might come up with have authority ?
And exactly Chaim the meaning of an expression is the sum force of the uses of the expression by the speakers of the language. So the only place to look is a good dictionary.


Chaim Pesach

Mon, 10/28/2013 - 16:42

Rate this:

0 points

I'd add that the Equalities Act (2010) and sections 28-32 of the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) also cover antisemitism, so whatever the "working definition" was, it wasn't relevant.


happygoldfish

Mon, 10/28/2013 - 17:56

Rate this:

0 points

Chaim Pesach: There is only one definition of antisemitism that matters:
prejudice or hostility towards Jews.
Anything else is just rubbish.

the ottawa protocol sets out categories of antisemitism, rather than a definition

there are many racists who campaign against, or even lie about, israel, and claim that they can't be accused of racism, and particularly of antisemitism, because they are criticising israel

in reply to them, the ottawa protocol forcefully points out what is obvious to most people:

Let it be clear: Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium – let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction – is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest.

why does chaim pesach dispute this?

Rich Armbach: Except that the ICCA are a bunch of self appointed nobodies …

the icca are a bunch of members of parliament from all over the world, all of whom have been elected to their parliaments

Chaim Pesach

Mon, 10/28/2013 - 18:48

Rate this:

0 points

Hg, Reference to israel just obfuscates the matter.

The working definition/protocol are therefore unnecessary politically motivated additions.

And i see you are again reposting something youve already posted. If you have anything new to add, why not add it at the top of the post instead of making people wade through a long posting?


happygoldfish

Mon, 10/28/2013 - 19:28

Rate this:

0 points
Chaim Pesach: And i see you are again reposting something youve already posted. If you have anything new to add, why not add it at the top of the post instead of making people wade through a long posting?

you're talking about my tv and radio listings

i'm sure readers can see from the consecutive memo-numbers that the most recent notices will be at the obvious place, at the bottom of the post! …

and they needn't "wade through" all the old notices, they can just "page down" quickly to the end

Chaim Pesach: Reference to israel just obfuscates the matter.

no, opposition to the principles of the ottawa protocol comes almost exclusively from those who defend people who "single Israel out for selective condemnation"

such condemnation not only stirs up hatred against israel but also (and this is what concerns the ottawa protocol) stirs up hatred against jews in other countries

Chaim Pesach: The working definition/protocol are therefore unnecessary politically motivated additions.

no, the ottawa protocol (which is a list of categories of antisemtism, rather than a definition) is motivated by the racism that inspires selective criticism of (and even lies against) israel

it should be unnecessary, since it merely points out what is obvious to most people:

Let it be clear: Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium – let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction – is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest.

why does chaim pesach dispute this?


Chaim Pesach

Tue, 10/29/2013 - 10:04

Rate this:

0 points

Antisemitism is simply hostility towards and prejudice against Jews, and Jews in the UK are protected under at least two Acts of Parliament that do not need things like the working definition/protocol or reference to Israel. That is where this begins and ends.

Israel is a political entity that stands or falls on its policies, not its ethnic or religious make up.

Criticism of Israel would be antisemitic if it is along the lines of Israel does this or that because it is a Jewish state. If someone were to say that Israel treats the Palestinians abysmally because it is in the Jewish nature to do so, that's antisemitic. But if someone were to say that Israel treats the Palestinians abysmally because its founding ethos (Zionism) is a relic of 19th-century European nationalism, I might argue that it is wrong, but I have no problem with that line.

Equally, questioning its right to exist is not antisemitic if one does not accept that the Jews are a separate people entitled to self-determination.


joemillis1959

Tue, 10/29/2013 - 10:08

Rate this:

0 points

Dunno why you bother, Chaim. The person in question has been removed so many times under different aliases because of what you call bouncing posts (it's called leapfrogging, and all he does is click on edit and then reposts so that his stuff gets shown on the comment page).

Maybe now the JC has a new chairman and Board it will start to look seriously at its website.


happygoldfish

Tue, 10/29/2013 - 11:20

Rate this:

0 points
joe millis persists in lying that i am the same person as someone (with several pseudonyms) who has been banned from thejc.com (i am not)

joemillis1959: Dunno why you bother, Chaim. The person in question has been removed so many times under different aliases …

chaim, you're new here, so let me explain …

joe millis, elected deputy for bromley reform synagogue, and author of an illustrated history of jerusalem, wants to accuse me of racism
he knows that he can't quote anything i've written to support this

so instead he quotes what someone else has written – under a pseudonym – and accuses me of being that person

he tells this lie not once but repeatedly (over 50 times now), in a cyberbullying campaign to try to chase me off this website

he has decided what he wants to be true, and then says it anyway, in the absence of any evidence other than his own prejudice, and contrary to the actual evidence

he knows that he has no grounds for his lie, but he also knows that it is impossible for me to disprove it (because of the other person's pseudonym)

this is how the elected deputy for bromley reform synagogue pursues his baseless hatred


Rich Armbach

Tue, 10/29/2013 - 11:42

Rate this:

0 points

"Maybe now the JC has a new chairman and Board it will start to look seriously at its website."

And maybe it might look at the JC's penchant for misleading, defamatory headlines and give Dysch just one more month to get something right.


Chaim Pesach

Tue, 10/29/2013 - 11:51

Rate this:

0 points

To be honest with you, HG, I don't know who he is, care even less, and I don't necessarily believe what he says. However, you could easily remove all doubt about your identity by removing the cloak of anonymity. It's your choice, obviously, but until you reveal yourself, as quite a sensible person, you must understand that questions will remain.

The JC, presuming they care that their website is being used for a personal slanging match, could also go some way towards clarifying the situation by telling us whether you and this other, previously banned, person post from the same IP address. Unless it's a proxy, of course.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that you are hiding behind anonymity because you are a former employee of this paper (disgruntled or otherwise), or work for someone who frowns on personal web work during office hours.

In the meantime, why don't you and the Millis fellow get a room?


Chaim Pesach

Tue, 10/29/2013 - 18:27

Rate this:

0 points

HG, I see you have declined to remove the cloak of anonymity. If you aren't who others say you are, wouldn't it be to your advantage to reveal who you really are? Otherwise, those questions will remain.

What has baseless hatred got to do with it?

I still think you and Millis should get a room.


Chaim Pesach

Tue, 10/29/2013 - 19:05

Rate this:

0 points

Theres no evidence to suggest otherwise either. And as you are reluctant to stop being anonumous, I'm afraid those questions will remain.
Time to come out of the fish bowl to clear your good name?


Chaim Pesach

Tue, 10/29/2013 - 19:05

Rate this:

0 points

Theres no evidence to suggest otherwise either. And as you are reluctant to stop being anonumous, I'm afraid those questions will remain.
Time to come out of the fish bowl to clear your good name?


Chaim Pesach

Tue, 10/29/2013 - 19:32

Rate this:

0 points

Why do you feel the need to repost this?


happygoldfish

Tue, 10/29/2013 - 19:44

Rate this:

0 points

Chaim Pesach: … those questions will remain.

no, no question even arises

there is no evidence to support joe millis's accusation, it is purely his own prejudice

here's the history

joemillis1959 : I too will continue to ignore him.

joe, do you actually read what you write?

ooh, wait … you're ignoring me some more!

joemillis1959 : …may I remind one and all to ignore his stuff.

it's a good job you're here to help them!

joemillis1959 : Another good tell that this Goldfish is none other the previously barred aforementioned is the fact that he will call everyone that disagrees with him a racist.

that's another lie (and a very obvious one)
joe millis, please stop ignoring my reply to your lie about me, and deleting it and reposting it later as if it was new
you have now repeated your lie over 50 times
here's my reply again

joemillis1959 : The JC used to have a policy of banning Anthony Posner and his various aliases: Blacklisted Dictator/Jose/Mitnachel et al. Let's reinstate that policy for his current alias, Happy Goldfish.

joemillis1959: (Mon 22nd April, 15:29) aka Anthony Posner/Jose/Blacklisted Dicktator/etc … Then he's like the Goldfish. And even less talented.

joemillis1959: (Thu 25th April, 16:52) Jose/Anthony Posner/Blacklisted Dicktator/etc is the Goldfish …

joemillis1959 (Fri 26h April, 17:39 & 18:28; Tue 30th April, 09:41 & 10:00): Jose/Anthony Posner/Blacklisted Dicktator/etc - aka the Happy Goldfish …

joemillis1959 (Mon 29th April, 18:06; Mon 29th April, 18:34): Why can't the JC deal with "Happy Goldfish" who also goes by the names off Lbnaz/Jose/blacklisted d/Anthony p/ etc? They were banned, why not he?

joemillis1959 (Thu 13th June, 18:59): I see that crappy goldfish/Jose/blacklisted Posner/ Anthony dick-tator etc is still posting and reposting despite being barred here several times.

joemillis1959 (Fri 19th July, 15:58 & 17:39): The only anti-arab racist I see here is Jose the Goldfish/Anthony Posner the Blacklisted Dictator

joemillis1959 (Fri 19th July, 17:54): Jose the Goldfish/Anthony Posner the Blacklisted Dictator… All Jose the Goldfish/Anthony Posner the Blacklisted Dictator ever does is re-post inanities, just like those whom you previously banned did. That's because he is one and the same as them.

joemillis1959 (Fri 19th July, 18:12 & 18:49): … Jose the Goldfish/Anthony Posner the Blacklisted Dictator … always claimed that all who disagreed with his view of Israel was a "racist". …All Jose the Goldfish/Anthony Posner the Blacklisted Dictator ever does is …because he is one and the same as them.

joemillis1959 (Fri 19th July, 18:51): As usual Jose the Goldfish/Anthony Posner the Blacklisted Dictator …

joemillis1959 (Mon 22nd July, 09:21 & 12:04 & 12:14 & 13:28): … Jose the goldfish/Posner the blacklisted dictator.

joemillis1959 (Mon 22nd July, 10:04 & 11:24 & 13:26): … Jose the goldfish/Posner the blacklisted dictator again …

joemillis1959 (Mon 22nd July,13:25): … Jose the Goldfish/Anthony Posner the Blacklisted Dictator … Jose the Goldfish/Anthony Posner the Blacklisted Dictator …

joemillis1959 (Mon 22nd July, 13:29): … Jose the goldfish/Anthony he blacklisted dictator …

joemillis1959 (Mon 22nd July, 14:23): Jose the blacklisted dictatorial goldfish …

joemillis1959 (Mon 22nd July, 15:28): … Jose the goldfish - blacklisted on so many websites … hiding behind many pseudonyms.

joemillis1959 (Mon 22nd July, 17:45 & 18:03 & 18:39 & 18:54): Jose the blacklisted cowardly dictatorial Goldfish …

joemillis1959 (Mon 22nd July, 17:46 & 18:06 & 18:39 & 18:59): I'm surprised that the JC allows a banned blogger like Jose the blacklisted dictatorial Goldfish-Posner …

joemillis1959 (Tue 23rd July, 13:15 & 14:29 & 15:44): … Jose Anthony Posner the blacklisted dictator Goldfish.

joemillis1959 (Tue 23rd July, 16:27): Jose the Goldfish/Anthony Posner the blacklisted dictator (quite properly blacklisted, in fact) …

joemillis1959 (Tue 23rd July, 16:59): Obviously, Jose the blacklisted dictator Goldfish …

joemillis1959 (Tue 23rd July, 17:48): Jose the dictatorial happy goldfish …

joemillis1959 (Tue 23rd July, 18:09): Meanhile, Jose the dictatorial blacklisted Goldfish-Posner …

joemillis1959 Wed 24th July, 18:57): Looks like Jose the blacklisted dictator Goldfish …

joemillis1959 Thu 25th July, 12:16): Maybe if the JC blocks Jose the Happy dictatorial blacklisted dictator …

joemillis1959 (Thu 25th July, 13:00 & 18:59; Fri 26th July, 16:55 & 17:04): The blogger who goes by the name of Happy Goldfish is a cyber-reincarnation of a person who has already been twice barred here - under the names of Jose, Blacklisted Dictator and Anthony Posner, as well as perhaps others.

joemillis1959 (Thu 25th July, 15:55): Not even jose the racist blaclisted goldfish dictator.

joemillis1959 (Thu 25th July, 16:58 & 18:59): "Bringing along Anthony 'Jose the blacklisted happygoldfish dictator' Posner …

joemillis1959 (Thu 25th July, 16:58 & 18:59; Fri 26th July, 16:39): "Bringing along Anthony 'Jose the blacklisted happygoldfish dictator' Posner …

joemillis1959 (Mon 29th July, 18:56 & Tue 13th Aug, 18:57): … Jose the blacklisted dictatore goldfish …

joemillis1959 (Tue 30th July, 13:37): … happygoldfish, a pseudonym for the banned Jose and blacklisted dictator …

joemillis1959 (Tue 30th July, 15:06): Me thinks the multi-pseudonym happygoldfish blacklisted dictator Jose doth protesteth too mucheth

joemillis1959 (Fri 9th Aug, 17:52 & 18:27): That's why they allow Jose the blacklisted dictator goldfish …

joemillis1959 (Tue 29th Oct, 09:08): The person in question has been removed so many times under different aliases …

i have no connection with those, or with any other present or former bloggers on this site

joemillis1959: (Mon 25th March, 18:29) He may claim he's not, but his modus operandi is far too similar for it to be a coincidence.

uhh??

did any of the others know how to produce background colours, or red or blue type?

did any of the others preface every quote with a clickable link so that it could be checked?

did any of the others repeatedly link to their own outside blog about oranges ducks and arch-rabbis?

were any of the others goldfish? (you haven't even got the right species! )

oh … and did any of the others use smilies?

joe millis, please stop harrassing me, and propagating the lie that my behaviour has previously caused me to be banned

there are racists on this website who think there is nothing wrong with lying, so long as they are criticising israel, or criticising people who defend israel

they decide what they want to be true, and then say it anyway, in the absence of any evidence other than their own prejudice, and often contrary to the actual evidence

one reason why so few people defend israel on thejc.com … compared with other sites such as the guardian's "comment is free" … is the unchecked lying or bullying that they'll sooner or later be subjected to

joemillis1959: (Mon 25th March, 10:53) He may claim he's not, he may introduce all sorts of snazzy colourful backgrounds and daft graphics - any one with a modicum of HTML coding knowledge can do that (and Jose claimed to be a computer whizz kid) - but his modus operandi is far too similar for it to be a coincidence. Just ignore him.

some historians are motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with their own beliefs even if that involves distortion and manipulation of evidence

joe millis is the author of an illustrated history of jerusalem

if his approach to evidence as a historian is as reliable as in his accusation against me, then his book may be an excellent buy as a work of fiction, or as a children's picture book, but cannot seriously be considered as a reliable research resource

joe millis, elected deputy for bromley reform synagogue, wants to accuse me of racism
he knows that he can't quote anything i've written to support this

so instead he quotes what someone else has written – under a pseudonym – and accuses me of being that person

he tells this lie not once but repeatedly, in a cyberbullying campaign to try to chase me off this website

he has decided what he wants to be true, and then says it anyway, in the absence of any evidence other than his own prejudice, and contrary to the actual evidence

he knows that he has no grounds for his lie, but he also knows that it is impossible for me to disprove it (because of the other person's pseudonym)

this is how the elected deputy for bromley reform synagogue pursues his baseless hatred


happygoldfish

Wed, 10/30/2013 - 10:24

Rate this:

0 points

Chaim Pesach: Why do you feel the need to repost this?

because chaim pesach feels the need to propagate this lie about me in 5 separate posts on this page alone

because chaim pesach feels the need to pursue this cyberbullying campaign against me in 2 posts on a page that was supposed to be a tribute to a deceased jc blogger: http://www.thejc.com/blogs/berovozveshalom/a-personal-message-readers-be...


Chaim Pesach

Wed, 10/30/2013 - 14:01

Rate this:

0 points

What utter codswallop, HG. How can I be lying if you've done just what I said you had done (repost the berovoz veshalom thing)?

Again, if you come out from behind the anonymity, you can prove you aren't who Millis says you are. If you won't do that, why should you be believed on that or any other issue? It's a simple question.


happygoldfish

Wed, 10/30/2013 - 16:08

Rate this:

0 points

Chaim Pesach: How can I be lying …

i was talking about joe millis's lie, that i have posted here under other names and been banned, to which you had given your support "5 times on this page alone"

Chaim Pesach: … if you've done just what I said you had done (repost the berovoz veshalom thing)?

no, that's not what you were referring to, you didn't even mention it

that "thing" is on a completely different page

you were referring to my reposting of my defence to joe millis's totally unsupported lie about me

finally, chaim pesach, why do you hate people so much that you object to the posting of a tribute by the family of a deceased blogger?


Chaim Pesach

Wed, 10/30/2013 - 16:35

Rate this:

0 points

HG, you are being evasive. If you will not come out from behind your anonymity, why should anyone believe you? I'm not propagating any lie. If it's a lie, it's you who are contributing to its dissemination.

As for your other claims, I'll say it again: they're codswallop. And a piss-poor attempt to divert attention from the fact that you reposted from berov ozveshalom, when you said you don't repost, or bounce, or whatever it's called.

I don't care that you wrote what you wrote about the deceased blogger, alav hashalom. I have no problem with it. But you reposted it, after claiming that you don't repost. Your claim was therefore false, and so, probably, are all your other claims.


StevenKalka

Wed, 10/30/2013 - 16:42

Rate this:

0 points

Anyone who is content to keep reposting over and over must have a lack of useful outlets, for whatever reason.


happygoldfish

Wed, 10/30/2013 - 17:52

Rate this:

0 points

Steven Kalka: Anyone who is content to keep reposting over and over …

i only repost very few posts
all i do often is to post new material at the end of existing posts, for the good reasons i have already explained (here and here)

Chaim Pesach: … attempt to divert attention from the fact that you reposted from berov ozveshalom, when you said you don't repost, or bounce, or whatever it's called.

i] i drew attention to it!
ii]you are the one who is trying to draw attention , away from the above discussion on antisemitism
iii]you keep changing this accusation against me
the closest i have got is saying that i didn't repost a particular post (which you had lied about), and that i don't repost my own posts, except in certain circumstances
you know full well that i have never said that i don't repost other people's posts!
(though, in fact, this is the first time)

Chaim Pesach

Wed, 10/30/2013 - 18:22

Rate this:

0 points

HG, there's another poor attempt at evasion. You said you don't repost your own posts, but you do, and now you admit it. That's all. You won't reveal who you are, so why should anyone believe you about anything? If anyone is lying here, it's you.

As for antisemitism, I gave you a full answer in my 9:04 from yesterday. That you chose to ignore it and go into evasion mode over reposting your crap instead is your problem.

What Steven said.


Chaim Pesach

Wed, 10/30/2013 - 19:02

Rate this:

0 points

b


Chaim Pesach

Wed, 10/30/2013 - 19:04

Rate this:

0 points

Are you purposely ignoring the answer on antisemitism, instead of opening another post with the letter "a" to add to later and repost?
Why don't you reveal yourself? People might believe you then.


happygoldfish

Wed, 10/30/2013 - 19:10

Rate this:

0 points

Chaim Pesach: You said you don't repost your own posts …

no i didn't!

where do you claim i said that??

Chaim Pesach: As for antisemitism, I gave you a full answer in my 9:04 from yesterday. That you chose to ignore it and go into evasion mode over reposting your crap instead is your problem.

i didn't answer your 9:04 (here) because at 9:08 bromley reform synagogue's elected deputy, joe millis (here), diverted attention away from it by repeating a lie (for the 50-somethingth time) which i felt i had to give priority to dealing with

you then, at 10:51 17:27 18:05 and 18:05, joined in the diversion by supporting that lie

and you at 18:32 widened the diversion by making an accusation against me of "reposting" – which you have since supported by misquoting me – and again i felt i had to give priority to dealing with it


Chaim Pesach

Wed, 10/30/2013 - 19:59

Rate this:

0 points

HG, you said I didn't deal with the antisemitism issue. I did. Your excuse, a "the dog ate my homework" excuse, was that you were diverted by naughty people. Codswallop, plain and simple.

Pretty much like your claim that you do not repost. Look at your post from 9:24:

Chaim Pesach: Why do you feel the need to repost this?
because chaim pesach feels the need to propagate this lie about me in 5 separate posts on this page alone

The "because" is a dead give away.

You've been found out twice. It is you who is disseminating the "lie" (which it patently and evidently isn't).

Now answer the question. Why don't you reveal yourself? Do that, and all suspicion will either be confirmed or removed. As it stands, anything you write must be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

I am beginning to suspect that whoever others claim you are might be true. Their evidence, kindly and colourfully supplied by you, seems quite compelling.


happygoldfish

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 11:34

Rate this:

0 points

Chaim Pesach: HG, you said I didn't deal with the antisemitism issue.

no i didn't!

i only said that bromley reform synagogue elected deputy joe millis, and you, diverted attention away from the antisemitism issue by lying about who i am, by lying that i had reposted something, and by lying about what i had said

here is all i said …

happygoldfish:

i] i drew attention to it!
ii]you are the one who is trying to draw attention , away from the above discussion on antisemitism
iii]you keep changing this accusation against me
the closest i have got is saying that i didn't repost a particular post (which you had lied about), and that i don't repost my own posts, except in certain circumstances
you know full well that i have never said that i don't repost other people's posts!
(though, in fact, this is the first time)

Chaim Pesach: … Pretty much like your claim that you do not repost …

again, you are lying

(and you've just changed the meaning of "repost" – and the meaning of your lie – again)

where do you claim i said that??

you know full well that i have never claimed that i don't repost other people's posts!

you know full well that i have never claimed that i don't repost my own posts! (different meaning of "repost")

you are one of those people who see nothing wrong with lying so long as it is about people who defend israel, or about people who complain of antisemitism


Chaim Pesach

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 12:23

Rate this:

0 points

HG, more evasion by playing the person concerned about Israel and antisemitism. You know what Samuel Johnson said about patriotism, don't you?

You won't reveal who you are, so why should anyone believe a word you write? You probably, in all your repostings/bouncings/whatever, edited out your claim that you do not repost/bounce/whatever.

You simply dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. And you keep getting found out. You are quite pathetic really.

Perhaps it's for the best from now on that any sensible person not bother with these pages. Just leave them as the Happy Goldfish Show and be done with it. It seems to be inhabited by unhinged loons, Happy Goldfish, Richard Armbach, Suzanna et al, as it is.


happygoldfish

Thu, 10/31/2013 - 13:22

Rate this:

0 points
there are racists on this website who think there is nothing wrong with lying, so long as they are criticising israel, or criticising people who defend israel

they decide what they want to be true, and then say it anyway, in the absence of any evidence other than their own prejudice, and often contrary to the actual evidence

one reason why so few people defend israel on thejc.com … compared with other sites such as the guardian's "comment is free" … is the unchecked lying or bullying that they'll sooner or later be subjected to

Chaim Pesach: You probably, in all your repostings/bouncings/whatever, edited out your claim that you do not repost/bounce/whatever.

you know that i didn't (at least, not after your reply to it)

you know because the time of a post is unavoidably re-set whenever the post is edited (to the time of the edit), and because the post unavoidably "leapfrogs" any reply

(and a post cannot be deleted completely)

and you know because you deliberately lied in the first place

you have persisted in accusing me of saying something, and, despite my denials and repeated question "where did i say that?", you have refused to say where i said it

and now you claim i "probably" edited it out, even though you know that any edit would be detectable, and there have been no edits!

Chaim Pesach: And you keep getting found out.

no, you keep accusing me of saying something which you know i didn't and which you now pretend i have "probably" deleted

Chaim Pesach: It seems to be inhabited by unhinged loons, Happy Goldfish, Richard Armbach, Suzanna et al, as it is.

chaim pesach, you came to this website to make trouble and to lie

and now you trash everyone (except, i think, repeated liar joe millis) who has posted since you came here!


happygoldfish

Tue, 12/24/2013 - 10:02

Rate this:

0 points
may everyone be visited this season by the

three wise fish



bearing their traditional gifts of …

goldfishsense

frankness

and

m i r t h


a merry fishmas to everyone!

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS