jefferiah

Well, SIR , there are Arabs and there are Jews, and there are also people like me who are neither but still support Israel without personal interest in the matter. I am not a cop. But cops do not own the rights to the term "Sir". And neither do you, SIR

Who mocked him? The woman who allowed her "STUDENTS TO CHOOSE A NAME" for a stuffed animal. Seriously. I would never even have thought that was offensive. And neither did the kids. But apparently you think it reasonable to ask for her head.

Once again you are acting as if you own the place. So far you have been telling us what opinions we can post and now you are telling us not to use emoticons. I suppose using emoticons warrants another 9/11.

That was not a racist remark. It is a criticism of your spelling. And people do it all the time on here. You are taking it rather seriously Now look sir, first you come on here and demand that people stop expressing their pro-Israel opinons as if you own the place. Then you start blabbering about people taking away your right to post whatever you want, which has not happened. The fact that we respond in disagreement with you, Sir, does not mean that we are taking away from your right to express your opinion.

Of course you can criticize Israel. Lots of people do it on here. Lots of people disagree. What you cannot do is expect those who support Israel to stop making pro-Israel posts. Look, Sir, you join this forum and first thing you come in and start telling people not to post pro-Israel posts. No one has said you cannot criticize Israel. But you yourself said in the Mohammed the Pooh thread that we cannot criticize Islam, unless we want another 9/11. Interesting stance there! bulldoze your house? What are you talking about? No one is stopping you from saying what you want. By the same token we have an equal right to disagree with you. Works both ways, you know, Sir.

isnt the last one adieu?

Well, first off I am not a Jew. Secondly, you are demanding a non-Jewish poster reply to you? That's something else now. I see you have settled in and decided to take over. Nice!

Well, if it were true that Israel is the biggest terrorist state in the world, I would say it has a lot to do with the Palestinian terrorists there.

Ah...see it's because you say things like this that you get bashed. Stop criticizing Islam or we will blow you to bits. Nice! Ok lets summarize. A teacher allows her students to name a teddy bear. A nice thing to do. Pretty harmless. The "kids" name it Mohammed (a common name). Teacher is arrested, and people call for her "execution". Now we are here criticizing this, and you think that criticism deserves another 9/11? Well..... now

Grave vandalism is quite common. And yet we usually dont hear people holloering for executions over it. How do you know they named the toy after the prophet, Mohammed is a common name? And the most ridiculous part is the teacher did not even name the toy that, the children did. She was not disrespecting anything.

Well now! Lol What you don't understand is that many people support Israel. And I am sure there are many who don't as well. I am one of those who supports Israel. I know am not advertising. In case you didn't know this is a political forum where people can express their political opinions. If many of those opinions are pro-Israel what business is it of yours. More especially what authority do you have to come into a forum and tell people how they can or can't post. You are not the Mod here.

Though you may not agree with them, people who are pro-life (both male and female) usually have this position because they believe the fetus constitutes a living thing which ought to have a right to live, not because they want to punish mothers. The argument that M. Dancer is not adopting is weak. Apply that same logic to someone who is arguing about the death of children in an unjust nation. I am sure you do not support such things. But have you adopted any of those children.

I just googled the phrase "Jews not descended from Adam" and it seems that this is a belief among many Aryanist groups. I am not saying that Kengs is one of them. But it is strange that he would have this belief, since he claims to have read the Bible.

Yeah but I think Rue is right. Not because of this post alone. Kengs does seem to keep trying to get jabs in at Jews here and there. Here he makes the broad generalization that Jews have always been hostile to Christians. Granted, that in itself is not much. I also notice that he has been critical of Israel in other threads. Granted, that in itself is no indicator either, because even though I am pro-Israel I don't believe a person is necessarily anti-semitic if they don't support Israel. From my point of view it may be that a lot of people who don't support Israel don't understand the situation there. However, he made a post in a certain thread about Rue's ancestors. Sort of an unremarkable post. Probably not very noticeable. Yet there is something about that post where he refers to Rue being a descendant of these other "humaniods" (this was the term he chose I believe) who were alive at the time of Adam and Eve. Now to alot of you that may seem quite ridiculous and meaningless anyway. You may think well the Adam and Eve story is ridiculous. But it almost sounds as if....hmmm....he is implying some belief about lesser lineage. Either way it was a strange post and biblically incorrect.

Well there are probably some nuts who would care, but I don't think you'd see anyone arrested or any great demand for an execution.

I don't blame the teacher of course. But neither do I blame those children. I don't think they should have known better. I don't think I would have known better. Mohammed may be the name of a so-called prophet but its also a popular Islamic name and it would seem completely natural to me for the children to name the bear Mohammed. It's a very popular name in Britain. You don't usually see a great deal of outrage over people naming their children Mohammed. And although children are not teddy bears, I don't think anyone could say that a Teddy Bear has much of a negative connotation. Nope, this smacks of a people who are deliberately looking for any ridiculous reason to demand the execution of a westerner.

Well if you want to go by Genesis then Rue would be descended from Adam and Eve since Genesis traces the line from Adam and Eve to Abraham who begat Isaac who begat Jacob.

I know that if you ask most of those wonderful skilled skaters what they think about fighting, they usually tend to say it should be allowed. It is usually because of those skilled players that teams have enforcers. A dirty shot on a skilled guy here and there that the ref doesn't catch, and soon enough the team will send out an enforcer to send the message that you had better not hurt our boy. Brett Hull has said if not for enforcers he would never have played as many years as he did.

Actually Rue. I'd like to apologize fornot making my post clear enough. Rereading it it see it was not written very well, but I was in a hurry. The first paragraph of my post where I make reference to oral tradition I was addressing you personally. The second paragraph I was referring to and addressing Posit. Sorry for the misunderstanding, Rue. See if you re-read that post you will see where after that first small paragraph, I then turn over to Posit. I find it funny that he would assert these ridiculous Pangea theories and say that they are the most commonly accepted ones. And that all other historical theories of how natives got here are some attempt to ease white man's guilt. Even though I think his theory is ridiculous, I then go on to say, that generally most of us on this side of the argument do not look at things that way anyway. You know, as JBG has stated in similar topics, mankind and various tribes and groups within mankind have moved constantly throughout history. It was not so relatively long ago that there were no Turks in what we now call Turkey. And that Turkish invasion pretty much coincides with the same period in which the Normans invaded in Britain. Now no one is saying that all these invasions were just hunky dory. But after a few hundred years most of us tend to forget about it, when it comes to seeking some sort of reparation from the descendants of some offending tribe. So I was making the argument to Posit that most of us don't feel the need to rewrite history or tamper with archaelogy because we don't think in that way anyway. To me it doesn't matter a bit anymore that natives were here first. Because we have been here a long time. And as far as I am concerned, having been born in 1980 (I am pretty young still), this means I was here before any so-called natives born in 1981. But then I go on to point out (not referring to you though Rue but to Posit), that here he is tossing out some of the silliest theories on here, calling them commonplace and accepted and saying that anyone who disagrees is a racist trying to ease white man's guilt. But really Rue. You have seen what Posit is asserting. Who do you think is more likely stretching some truth for the sake of his own agenda? Anyways I apologize once again for the misunderstanding.

Rue, no one is saying that there is no use for oral history. Of course there is. And in some situationas it can be very useful as an aid to historical research as well. But it is hardly ever an example of concrete evidence. As for the assertion that any theory other than Posit's is being used for political reasons, becuz it eases the white man's guilt or something like that. I think that is nonsense. I think most of us here are of the attitude that we don't care what happened a few hundred years ago anyway. As an Irish descendant I harbor no ill will to the English or demand reparations for something that may have happened to one of my ancestors. So no one really cares if natives evolved into humans over here anyways Posit. Or how long Natives were here. You seem to labour under the assumption that people on the other side of the argument have the same hang ups with history. Even though I think you are going completely overboard here, if you could somehow prove (for the sake of argument) that Natives just appeared on the Americas out of nowhere, it would make no difference in our reasoning, because the thing is a large part of our argument is the fact that none of the whiteys alive today were alive when colonialism happened and neither were any of the natives today. But nonetheless it is a ridiculous idea. You keep saying that it is the commonly accepted idea nowadays. By whom exactly? I mean you throw this out and then accuse everyone else of accepting the theory which is convenient for them politically. I think with your last few posts it is obvious who is stretching science and archaeology for political reasons.

What exactly are you talking about? I said he doesn't speak French. No one said he speaks French. I said that Guy Carbonneau and the other players all use English in the dressing room. They have no problem with Koivu. Higgins can't speak French. Neither can Komisarek. They are both American, and they are both better than any Francophone player we currently have on the team. Kovalev cannot speak French. Koivu is there to play hockey not to be part of some petty language dispute. And the team (francophone and anglophone alike) all respect his Captainship. Why should you care? Not to mention the fact that you would think the complainers here could overlook this inability to parlez vous and show at least some shred of thankfulness over the fact that he raised money to help out a hospital in the city.

Are you serious? Carbonneau himself says he speaks English in the dressing room. And his francophone teammates have no problem with that either. The Habs are not property of the Quebec Government. There are no Francophones on the team right now worthy of taking the C from Koivu. There are a lot of great Quebec born players. How many of them want to be Habs? There is a big market out there. English is a much more pracitical language to learn if you are a foreigner coming to play hockey in the NHL. 30 teams. 29 of them are in English majority cities.

I dont know if this actually belongs on this thread, but I am a Habs fan and I wonder if anyone here has heard of the recent outrage in Quebec over team captain Saku Koivu's inability to parlez vous. This was apparently quite an issue. But coach Guy Carbonneau and fellow Hab Mathieu Dandenault rose in Koivu's defense. Carbonneau said that this is a hockey team not a political toy and that we speak English in the dressing room and everyone understands, and everyone is fine with that. The fact that some people in Quebec get outraged over Habs players not being able to parlez vous is beyond me. After a game on RDS last year a commentator they were interviewing after said that Kovalev needs to go and we need more French Canadians on the team. I love the Habs, but how ungrateful are some of these Franco-phone purists. Koivu afterall single handedly did a great deal of fund raising to bring a special scanning machine to a hospital in the city, and all some people can think about are what language he speaks.

Do you mean to say that even the writings of Kahentinetha Horn on Mohawk Nation News might not be true?

Now could you please provide me some links to the posts of this majority where they say that the white race is superior?