You're concerned about this but not those those Harvard-Yale types who have singled out Israel for a divestment campaign? Aren't they a lot closer to home than some Egyptian TV show?

Do I have to step in again and remind you of the rules?

First, TK is Trip Kirkpatrick. In ascending order, he's my webmaster, an Ishbadiddle poster, and my friend. I'm surprised you haven't noticed, but he posts about 1/3 of the content here on Ishbadiddle. So saying that he "never constructively engages in discussions" is just plain false. If he takes exception to what you've said here, then that's his right. Calling him a "gnat", "unhinged", etc. for it -- well, that's what I'd call ad hominem, personal attack. If you can't stand the heat of the discussion, don't engage in it. If you (or anyone) persists in making personal attacks, it's a rather simple matter for me to ban you from the discussion. I'd hate to do it, but consider yourself warned.

Second: this is a semi-open forum. I, and half-a-dozen others, post here directly. Others send me items to post, such as this one on the Protocols. [If I don't get to everything that's sent in, it's because I only have so much time in the day. I have to get my Buffy research done sometime.] I have, on several occasions, posted items that you have sent me, M-----. If you feel strongly that our readership needs to be informed about the issues of Ivy League anti-Israeli activism -- and you're not the only person who's contacted me on the subject, btw -- then I'd be happy to post what you have to say on it. My email address is right here.

There's no point in saying that I shouldn't post about Egypt. The fact is, I have, and I will, and it's both my blog and my right. The great thing about the internet is that it's very big. I have plenty of server space to write posts on Yale, Egypt, and diamonds on the moon. So comments that in effect say "this post is stupid"? Also right out.

Thus endeth the lesson.

That Arabs and some American black activists (that "poet") are prone to anti-Semitism is not exactly news. That a vocal bloc of the American ivory tower elite has become, to varying degrees, anti-Semitic, well, that's news. That's why it's been in the news. If one is concerned about new and rising instances of anti-Semitism, and if one considers ones self a "liberal", then one must come to the conclusion one's own have turned against him. (Per a recent NYT article on Yale.) Your problem is not with some Eqyptian TV show, it's with the misguided brats and reality-deprived academics at Berkeley-Cambridge-New Haven where "leftist" and "jewish" are quickly parting paths. Conversely, if one is interested in the survival of Israel, your best friend in the world is the Bush Administration and the American Right.

The brats and academics, as usual, have their facts wrong. That they could side with the Palestinians, who started this current war, and target civilians in a strategically-stupid and self-destructive campaign, says it all.

And I don't know who "Tk" is, but he seems to hover about like some agitated gnat, never constructively engaging in discussions, but always reading non-existent motives into my comments. And there was that childish "YHBT" thing. His whacked non-sequiters, like here accusing me of "railroading", clearly do not adhere to the "play nice, kids" mantra. Is this guy unhinged or what? Whatever his problem is, the boy should talk to someone - just not me.

Point is, I don't think I'm under any obligation to blog about every instance of anti-semitism, so why I can't talk about the Protocols unless I also talk about the Ivy League, the resurgence of the Blood Libel, the poet laureate of New Jersey, state-sponsored anti-Israeli rants in the Saudi media, etc etc etc, is beyond me.

Yeah, Egypt is far away. So is Saudi Arabia. Guess where the 9/11 hijackers came from? Should I care that another generation of Arabs will grow up believing that there's a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to take over the world? As a Jew, I am profoundly concerned.

And you’re concerned about a bunch of college kids who usually go on to become stalwart members of the Establishment but not the people in the world who are more likely to become killers of red-blooded Americans? Aren’t they a lot more dangerous than (mostly) privileged late teens?

Why don’t you discuss the point at hand rather than trying to railroad discussion into an area where you can feel superior?

I'll point out that when "Tk " has responded to my comments, he has never once (except fleetingly above) "constructively engaged" in that discussion. Unless you call "for all except M-----: YHBT" constructive. Looks more like high school to me. He has, however, frequently hovered, ready with corrosive, ad hominem weirdness, wherein he ascribes non-existent motives to my comments. From thin air.

Above is your "for instance": I was trying to "railroad" a discussion to "feel superior"? "Railroad?" "Superior" to what? How? What's he even talking about? I'm sorry, but that is whacked. And certainly not "playing nice."

Yes, I employed ad hominem words, but did so only after Tk's repeated ad hominem whacks at me. Hey, if he can't take a return swing in the schoolyard, he should stay in class for recess.

It's not me who needs to be "warned" to "play nice". You'll recall the rule stemmed directly from somebody's decision to personally diss me in a headline post, or whatever those are called. And you'll recall there was absolutely no personalized provocation from me. So, you want to be fair? The "warning" should rightfully go to your "webmaster", not me.

No one can point to a single instance where I have made an ad hominem comment (before above) or not "played nice." I've been nothing but civil and on message, and it's easy for me because while Ish is fun, I don't take it very seriously. We're blabbing here, not changing the world.

I don't know why some of your guys can't "take the heat" and play nice, but I suspect that while they love "diversity", they don't love it when it's followed by "of opinion". They dig "tolerance", except when it's "of others' views".

I'm reminded of those who implored Bush the First to appoint a minority to the Supreme Court. When he gave them Clarence Thomas, they said, "Oh, wait... what we really meant was... someone who thinks just like us."

Ok, I'm back. I'm the one who posted this originally. Let's get away from the ad hominem nonsense and get back to the topic at hand. The topic at hand is why we should and need to care about "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" today.

M-----, you asked a question: "You're concerned about this but not those those Harvard-Yale types who have singled out Israel for a divestment campaign?"

There are two problems with your question:

1. If you actually took the time to click on the link and read the website in question, the answer to your question would have been obvious. It is obvious instead that you simply didn't bother to read it. If you took the time to click on the link your question would have been answered without bending a lot of people out of shape.

2. There is a faulty pre-supposition in your question. Where does it say that I am NOT interested in those Harvard-Yale types?

Further, where does it say that in order to express interest in THIS topic I FIRST had to mention the topic that you felt was more important?

It happens that I sent the original post to Mike because I thought that the origin and the discussion on the Protocols that is posted on the website in question might be interesting to some of you. The author does a great job in tracing the history of the "Protocols" and makes a very thorough case as to its original intent. I thought it worthy of sharing it with other people, and so I sent it to Mike. Mike had a choice of either posting it or deleting it. He chose to post it.

It also happens that I am, in fact, very concerned about the divestment campaign on campuses. I sent this post because the discussion on the website cited was an interesting one. Had I found an interesting website that jumped out at me about divestiture, I might have sent that one Mike's way as well.

I have only one question for you, M-----, in return, and it's not a rhetorical question. Please feel free to respond to it: In your original question are you telling me that I should NOT have sent Mike an interesting link about why we should and need to care about "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" today, simply because I didn't send something to him about divestiture instead?

Thank you Trip, and Mike, for attempting to keep this discussion on topic, even though it has never yet been on topic.

It is interesting that M----- was asking why those different topics weren't covered here. It's interesting to me because I never wonder why one topic is covered here rather than another. If there is a topic I think might be of interest, I email Mike, and ask him if he thinks he might want to post something. Usually he agrees with me that it's worthy of taking up space in his blog.

Rather than whine as a troll, if you have an interesting link on a topic that you think is worthwhile, why not simply email Mike and create a topic in and of itself, instead of making off-topic, irrelevant comments to unrelated posts?

Let me put it to you this way, M-----: did I comment on the Barbie topic, asking how come we are talking about Barbie instead of the "Protocols"? No. I did not. I let the Barbie post and comments be about Barbie, and asked Mike to create a NEW and DIFFERENT topic on the "Protocols."

Ya think that maybe you can learn something from that?????

To understand the "Protocols" as a document that was forged by the Czar's Secret Police as an effort to demean and subvert the ideal of democracy, and to see how Jews became scapegoats in this effort to actually attempt to prevent democracy from emerging in a post-czar Russia, is to have a better c0ncept of history, of anti-semitism, and of the parallels between then and now.

THAT is why I suggested to Mike that he post this, and that is why he did.

There. I have now brought this back to the topic. Now, I suggest that you, M-----, either read the article and comment on the article, or SHUT UP.

Thank you.

David

Part 2:

The reason why everyone is shouting you down in this thread is not because your political views differ. It's because you're Trying to Change The Subject. (Cf. my comments above). It's the equivalent of being at a party and walking into a conversation about x and saying that everyone should be talking about y instead. It does, in effect, devalue whatever the original person wrote. It's not respectful, and I'm sure if other people made similar comments on your posts ["Why are you so concerned about the NYT's liberal bias when you should be concerned with Fox News' conservative bias?" is a completely hypothetical example], you'd rightly think that they were not constructively engaging in the discussion at hand. If you want to bring up new subjects, please send me something to post, instead of making comments on someone else's subject that are off-topic. We of course welcome your opinions.

So: New subjects go into posts. Posts may be emailed to me. On-topic comments go into comments. I hope that clarifies things.

M-----:

I'm sorry things have gotten to this point. Either you're joking, or you don't quite get what this website is about. I'm hoping the former, but in case you're serious:

It's a blog. A collection of writing and links in chronological order. It's not:

1) A news organization, with responsibility to cover every issue.
2) A comprehensive statement of my political (and other) beliefs, or those of anyone else.
3) Something I spend 24 hours a day on, to the exclusion of my work, family, sanity, etc.

So: if Ishbadiddle doesn't cover Eminem, or the NYT's sports coverage, or the anti-Israel divestment movement, or Al Gore's beard, well, it's not necessarily because of a Liberal Bias, a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, an Attempt to Suppress the Truth, or any other non-existent motives you may wish to project. It's because I don't cover everything. I don't have the time, I don't have the obligation. Let me repeat what I wrote above:

This is a semi-open forum. I, and half-a-dozen others, post here directly. Others send me items to post, such as this one on the Protocols. I have, on several occasions, posted items that you have sent me, M-----. If you feel strongly that our readership needs to be informed about the issues of Ivy League anti-Israeli activism -- and you're not the only person who's contacted me on the subject, btw -- then I'd be happy to post what you have to say on it. My email address is right here: ishbadiddle@triptronix.net.

A generous offer, I think. If you feel that our readers should know more about any of the many topics you've brought up, I would be happy to post what you write on the subject. That's what makes this blog interesting -- people send me interesting stuff.

This is why you are a troll.
Because you virulently bring up entirely unrelated matters.
Because you insist on posting inflammatory comments without sourcing (with hyperlinks, as we do here on the Web).
Because you concoct straw men based on sins of omission.
All in order to get a rise out of people (mission clearly accomplished) rather than to discuss the issue at hand, which in this case is a television show based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Henceforth, I will, and I encourage everyone else to, utterly ignore your comments of this nature. Beginning right now.

See, M-----, that’s the thing.

I bring up the Ivy-Berkeley divestment campaign (and the violence that's come with it) in this context . . .

The context is very narrow here. It is the promulgation of a hundred-year-old anti-Semitic piece of dreck, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
It is not:
- anti-Semitism or lack thereof at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Berkeley, or UC Santa Cruz.
- Eminem’s latest movie
- The New York Times and its reputation
- the recent Louisiana senatorial election
- the wreck of an oil tanker off the coast of Spain
- the possibility of a strike by transit workers in New York City
- the prevalence of methamphetamines in rural America
- the next processor from Intel
- the next processor from AMD
- the 1919 World Series
- the 9th-place finish of the United States field hockey team at the field hockey World Cup
- or the innate and curious capacity of the Yanomamo to resist athlete’s foot.

It is a television show based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.



Finally, I want to make clear to you I was invited a while back to receive Ish by email and, implicitly, to respond now and then.
But you’re not responding. You’re talking about something entirely different, and you’ve succeeded. Here we are talking about talking about things instead of talking about the thing. Which, in this case, is a television show based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Did I happen to mention that the issue posted about is a television show based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Now, if we happen to search your comments above, your references to the subject of the post (a television show based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion), totals 1. Yes, you have discussed anti-Semitism, but you have not referred to the subject at hand (if you needed reminding, it is a television show based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) except to dismiss it as some Egyptian TV show.

& my last installment to David...

I also wonder why in discussing movies so much here, no one has brought up the hugely-successful Eminem movie. Many (me included) think it's one of the best of the year. I hope it hasn't been ignored here because Eminem was branded anti-gay and un-P.C. and therefore liberals are uncomfortable with it. I have a couple of liberal Hollywood friends who are quite queasy on the matter, and I find their queasiness rather comical. They're only in their 30s, but they fear "modern" audiences have left their politically-correct sensibilities behind.

A belated "HELLO!" to them.

In fact, David, between the '02 elections and "8 Mile" and Harvard-based divestment campaigns, ya wonder if political correctness has become mercifully obsolete.

Finally, I want to make clear to you I was invited a while back to receive Ish by email and, implicitly, to respond now and then. I'm obviously the odd man out in many respects, but that only makes my experience here more spicey, and I like spice. Should they ever inform me they'd like me outta here due to my being the fifth wheel, I'd take leave with regret, but with blinding alacrity.

(Now if I've overlooked Ishbadiddle posts about the divestment stuff, the NYT censorship scandal and/or the Eminem movie, then, okay, I look dumb.)

Dude, of course I'm not telling anyone not to or to send anything. I'm much too do-what-you-wanna for that. Nor was my question "a faulty pre-supposition". I bring up the Ivy-Berkeley divestment campaign (and the violence that's come with it) in this context because no one else has. There has a been a conspicuous failure by anyone in this blog to bring it up - even while they discuss other fronts of anti-Semitism. I wonder (not rhetorically) if there's a head-in-sand thing going on, because this nascent anti-Semitism comes from the Left, and hence makes liberals on the blog uncomfortable. I wonder if because it's not the usual Republican bogeymen - who get lots of face time here - people just don't want to field it.

The omission here is even more glaring because there's been coverage in the New York Times, and it seems a lot of people on this blog read that paper. And, of course, if the NYT is onto some social trend before you are, then you've been vacationing in Greenland. .

On another note, David, I similarly wonder why there's been zero posts here about the much-and-nationally-discussed New York Times' censorship of two of its own sportswriters. To refresh anyone not reading ESPN.com, the The Daily News, the Post or any number of other media around the country, the Times has run 33 articles and a frenzied editorial about the feminist attack on Augusta National Golf Club, all heavily slanted toward the "feminist cause". Then, last week the Times blatantly suppressed columns by two of its writers who took issue with the Times' slant. It was an outrageous case of censorship by a paper some think is the nation's best. (But it's far from their only recent suppression.) Ultimately, after a week of humiliating exposure and constant evasions, the Times was shamed into finally running the columns yesterday, Sunday. Perhaps believers in the NYT's reputation for integrity (yes, I'm chuckling) don't want to discuss the episode because it reveals the Times as the 2rd-rate ideologically-warped and content-thin rag it has devolved into in the last decade. There are now several much more trustworthy and substantial dailies elsewhere in the country. And they don't charge no 75 cents.

I started writing the above before Mike posted "Part 2" above (yes, it took me a while before I was satisfied with it). It kinda looks like I'm piling on, repeating what Mike said, but I wrote it before I saw that Mike said it.

I apologize if it seems to be redundant.

David

Quotes from the preceding: "Shut up! (in caps)" "Whining troll" "you are a troll" "virulent" "I will encourage everyone to utterly ignore you"...

"you" "you" "you" - heck, I lost count of the yous.

Lost count of the caps and exclamation points, too.

Nice composure, guys. And I thought the subject was anti-Semitism, not me.

So much for the ad hom ban. But I'll stay civil, even while others are purple in the face.

Mike, I appreciate the apology, but I do not understand their reactions at all. I added an element to the Protocols post, but I stayed within the topic of anti-Semitism. Yes, I expanded the original topic a little, but in my view it was within context. I think I've seen it done here before.

The reason for all the rancor does not appear to me to be the alleged subject-changing, but - just as before - there is a demonstrated lack of tolerance and civility in some quarters. Regretful, but a "cost of doing business", I guess.

And of course they could have ignored my initial comment if they'd chosen to. But now that they're under an "encouragement" from Webmaster to "utterly ignore" me, I guess there'll be no choice in the matter. Is this his idea of democracy?

Here's my idea of democracy: Anytime I posit something about the liberal media and you want to bring up Fox News, I'll say, "Sure - fair game and in context." And I'll repond. Civil like - without caps, exclamations, and ad hominems. Who knows? Maybe it'll set an example.