[from offlist] Re: Stormfap go bye-bye now...
Because I'd prefer to keep convos started on-list, onlist. On 08/28/2017 08:00 PM, Steven Schear wrote:
I am unconvinced this solution betters all our freedoms.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending *scoundrels*. For it is against *scoundrels* that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
H.L. Mencken
Fixing the "scoundrel problem" is an intractable problem I have ZERO time for. Allowing an ideology to be promulgated negating human existence due to some unalterable trait is simply suicide for a society, and as can be seen from history, any society nearby. Ps. I take issues with Snopes interpolation of the famous AH quote about 'destroying the nucleus' where Hitler also said the Nazi rise was assisted by the violent counter-elements. <http://www.snopes.com/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/> The way to resolve that is for Non-violent Anti-fascist elements to BUTT THE FUCK OUT and practice TACTIC-TOLERANCE. If the media wants to talk to them about it, JUST TELL THE MEDIA YOU ARE THERE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING, and desist from ANY discussion of other organizations OR THEIR TACTICS. There is a large Non-violent Anti-fascist element in the US that did NOT really exist to any degree in Germany (White Rose, etc, were microscopic), and UNLESS tactic tolerance is practiced by all US antifascist elements, no matter which side ascends, they will lose to Fascism. Rr
Warrant Canary creator
On Aug 28, 2017 7:51 PM, "Razer" <g2s@riseup.net <mailto:g2s@riseup.net>> wrote:
Oldest white supremacist site shut down after complaint
By JAY REEVES Associated Press
August 28, 2017 12:03 PM
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - The founder of the internet's oldest white supremacist site said he was trying to get back online Monday after a company revoked its domain name following complaints that it promotes hatred and is linked to dozens of murders.
Don Black, a former Ku Klux Klan leader who has operated stormfront.org <http://stormfront.org> since 1995, said he didn't receive any warning before Network Solutions blocked the use of the stormfront.org <http://stormfront.org> name on Friday.
Stormfront.org had more than 300,000 registered users, Black said, with traffic increasing since a violent white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Popular with the KKK and neo-Nazi groups, the site included forums where users sometimes promoted white power events.
"I'm talking to my lawyers, and that's about all I can do right now," Black, of West Palm Beach, Florida, said in a telephone interview. "I can switch to another domain, but it might wind up the same way."
Another major white supremacist website, The Daily Stormer, was previously shut down by the web-hosting company Go Daddy and then Google after the violence in Charlottesville.
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law said the stormfront.org <http://stormfront.org> shutdown followed complaints it filed with Network Solutions alleging the site promotes not only hate speech, but deadly violence.
A spokesman for Network Solutions didn't immediately return an email seeking comment.
Users of Black's website have been implicated in more than 100 killings, according to the complaint, including 77 people slain by neo-Nazi Anders Breivik at a camp in Norway in 2011.
"Especially in the wake of tragic events in Charlottesville and the spike in hate crimes across the country, Stormfront crossed the line of permissible speech and incited and promoted violence," said a statement by Kristen Clarke, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Black, speaking about the shutdown during an online radio show Monday, said his site had rules against promoting violence or any crime.
Black was a state KKK leader under former Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke, who appeared on the radio show following Black and expressed his "full support" for Black and the website.
"He was the first major site defending the rights of white people," said Duke.
Black has been involved in the white supremacy movement since the 1970s and was convicted in 1981 for his role in a right-wing plot to overthrow the government of Caribbean island nation of Dominica.
=30=
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/articl... <http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article169759307.html>
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:13:14AM -0700, Razer wrote:
Because I'd prefer to keep convos started on-list, onlist. On 08/28/2017 08:00 PM, Steven Schear wrote:
I am unconvinced this solution betters all our freedoms.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending *scoundrels*. For it is against *scoundrels* that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." H.L. Mencken
Fixing the "scoundrel problem" is an intractable problem I have ZERO time for.
Fair enough, no one's asking you to fix that problem. Some might say it can't be fixed, others might say there's no point trying to fix such an intractable problem - but in any case let's leave that for a separate thread.
Allowing an ideology to be promulgated negating human existence
Your argument is factless - if even some particular individual has "promulgated negating human existence", and has so promulgated in a way which is criminal (e.g. incitement to murder another individual for example) then perhaps there would be grounds for you to report that particular individual to your local State authorities. But not only do such possible facts probably not exist in all but the rarest of situations, you "Razer" continue, repeatedly, to fail to present even ONE SINGLE fact in support of your position - other than your usual hand waving exercises such as "those nasty White Supremacists keep promulgating negating human existence". That's a f*king strawman and you know it! Put up a fact or you're an ongoing fraud and a bully. As an interesting aside "Razer", various of the sentences you have written to this list quite possibly WOULD be interpreted as incitement to violence/murder, by your local State authorities. Your hypocrisy on this point alone evidence that you "Razer" a real bully, and at the very least, really aggressive in your communication (and indeed offensive). Perhaps you want to take a look at the finger you keep pointing outwards...
due to some unalterable trait is simply suicide for a society, and as can be seen from history, any society nearby.
Put up a fact, Razer.
Ps. I take issues with Snopes interpolation of the famous AH quote about 'destroying the nucleus' where Hitler also said the Nazi rise was assisted by the violent counter-elements. <http://www.snopes.com/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/>
Come on, at least put the quote in so we can read it: In January 2017, white nationalist Richard Spencer was punched in the face, igniting a debate about when it is acceptable to punch someone who espouses beliefs widely regarded as reprehensible (generally taking the form of the question, “Is it ever acceptable to punch a Nazi?”). In the ensuing discussion, the following popular quote, often attributed to Adolf Hitler, reappeared and recirculated: "Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement." Attributed to Adolf Hitler. Daniel Guérin documented this quote in his 1939 book Fascism and Big Business. https://books.google.com/books?id=vUNYAAAAMAAJ&dq=fascism+and+big+business+daniel+guerin&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=nucleus However, Guérin may have paraphrased Hitler’s actual words as the quote was presented alongside another utterance from a National Socialist leader, Joseph Goebbels, and not with the full text of the speech itself: "If in the beginning, when the Hitler bands were still weak, the workers’ parties had answered them blow for blow, there is no doubt their development would have been hampered. On this point we have the testimony of the National Socialist leaders themselves. Hitler confessed in retrospect: Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement.” And goebbels: “If the enemy had known how weak we were, it would probably have reduced us to jelly…. It would have crushed in blood the very beginning of our work.”" Guérin cited a speech Hitler delivered at the Nuremberg Congress on 3 September 1933. A 1934 book containing Hitler’s speeches, titled “Die Reden Hitlers am Reichsparteitag 1933,” http://archive.org/stream/Die-Reden-Hitlers-am-Reichsparteitag-1933/DieReden... contained a German version of this speech. A translation from the web site Zuriz confirmed that the quote was largely accurate, although it was missing some vital context: "“And so, I established in 1919 a programme and tendency that was a conscious slap in the face of the democratic-pacifist world (…) [We knew] it might take five or ten or twenty years, yet gradually an authoritarian state arose within the democratic state, and a nucleus of fanatical devotion and ruthless determination formed in a wretched world that lacked basic convictions. Only one danger could have jeopardised this development – if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement. Neither was done. The times were such that our adversaries were no longer capable of accomplishing our annihilation, nor did they have the nerve. Arguably, they furthermore lacked the understanding to assume a wholly appropriate attitude. Instead, they began to tyrannise our young movement by bourgeois means, and, by doing so, they assisted the process of natural selection in a very fortunate manner. From there on, it was only a question of time until the leadership of the nation would fall to our hardened human material. (…) The more our adversaries believe they can obstruct our development by employing a degree of terror that is characteristic of their nature, the more they encourage it. Nietzsche said that a blow which does not kill a strong man only makes him stronger, and his words are confirmed a thousand times. Every blow strengthens our defiance, every persecution reinforces our single-minded determination, and the elements that do fall are good riddance to the movement.”" So the quote is accurate but incomplete. While Hitler said that the rise of the Nazi party could have been stopped by “smashing the nucleus” on day one, he also noted that resistance from the opposition helped strengthen his movement. So there you have it, a page which seems reasonably accurate.
The way to resolve that is for Non-violent Anti-fascist elements to BUTT THE FUCK OUT and practice TACTIC-TOLERANCE.
That's where you're wrong, kiddo! Now Rzer, instead of just fighting words back and forth, a sane approach would be where you now demonstrate enough insight to be able list two or three reasons why you "could be" wrong, or at least why your position "could possibly fail". If you do so, then we would be having a conversation, rather than just battling against one another's propaganda - which of course gets rather tiring. And "no, it's long past conversation, we've only got to smash the nucleus Right Now!" is not an appropriate response if you consider any utility to actually exploring the (very real) issues at stake. It's your call of course...
If the media wants to talk to them about it, JUST TELL THE MEDIA YOU ARE THERE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING, and desist from ANY discussion of other organizations OR THEIR TACTICS.
There is a large Non-violent Anti-fascist element in the US that did NOT really exist to any degree in Germany (White Rose, etc, were microscopic), and UNLESS tactic tolerance is practiced by all US antifascist elements, no matter which side ascends, they will lose to Fascism.
That's not a rational position. First it's a fact-less assertion. SEcond it fails to address -any- of the counter arguments. And see above where I'm now asking you to actually raise a counter argument or three (not straw men - the actual counter arguments from your alleged "opponents"), to demonstrate that you're ACTUALLY cognizing the other side (and not merely in emotional reaction). Zenaan
Rr
Warrant Canary creator
On Aug 28, 2017 7:51 PM, "Razer" <g2s@riseup.net <mailto:g2s@riseup.net>> wrote:
Oldest white supremacist site shut down after complaint
By JAY REEVES Associated Press
August 28, 2017 12:03 PM
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - The founder of the internet's oldest white supremacist site said he was trying to get back online Monday after a company revoked its domain name following complaints that it promotes hatred and is linked to dozens of murders.
Don Black, a former Ku Klux Klan leader who has operated stormfront.org <http://stormfront.org> since 1995, said he didn't receive any warning before Network Solutions blocked the use of the stormfront.org <http://stormfront.org> name on Friday.
Stormfront.org had more than 300,000 registered users, Black said, with traffic increasing since a violent white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Popular with the KKK and neo-Nazi groups, the site included forums where users sometimes promoted white power events.
"I'm talking to my lawyers, and that's about all I can do right now," Black, of West Palm Beach, Florida, said in a telephone interview. "I can switch to another domain, but it might wind up the same way."
Another major white supremacist website, The Daily Stormer, was previously shut down by the web-hosting company Go Daddy and then Google after the violence in Charlottesville.
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law said the stormfront.org <http://stormfront.org> shutdown followed complaints it filed with Network Solutions alleging the site promotes not only hate speech, but deadly violence.
A spokesman for Network Solutions didn't immediately return an email seeking comment.
Users of Black's website have been implicated in more than 100 killings, according to the complaint, including 77 people slain by neo-Nazi Anders Breivik at a camp in Norway in 2011.
"Especially in the wake of tragic events in Charlottesville and the spike in hate crimes across the country, Stormfront crossed the line of permissible speech and incited and promoted violence," said a statement by Kristen Clarke, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Black, speaking about the shutdown during an online radio show Monday, said his site had rules against promoting violence or any crime.
Black was a state KKK leader under former Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke, who appeared on the radio show following Black and expressed his "full support" for Black and the website.
"He was the first major site defending the rights of white people," said Duke.
Black has been involved in the white supremacy movement since the 1970s and was convicted in 1981 for his role in a right-wing plot to overthrow the government of Caribbean island nation of Dominica.
=30=
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/articl... <http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article169759307.html>
On 08/29/2017 07:46 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
As an interesting aside "Razer", various of the sentences you have written to this list quite possibly WOULD be interpreted as incitement to violence/murder, by your local State authorities.
The bar for incitement charges at a state or federal level is very high and suggesting Nazis, in general, be offed in self-defense, doesn't even get above crotch (where you kick them) level. It's all in the wording. As example, when dealing with <del>blackshirts</del> the police: Rr
Just as with Dailystormer and dozens to hundreds of other controversial sites past and present, whether HTML, IRC, filesharing, or simple p2p messaging, Stormfront will be back online as a .i2p or .onion, or on whatever other censorship resistant overlay networks exist. These cryptos and nets are mainstream now, where others fail, expect them.
On 08/30/2017 11:45 AM, grarpamp wrote:
Just as with Dailystormer and dozens to hundreds of other controversial sites past and present, whether HTML, IRC, filesharing, or simple p2p messaging, Stormfront will be back online as a .i2p or .onion, or on whatever other censorship resistant overlay networks exist.
These cryptos and nets are mainstream now, where others fail, expect them.
I expect Fascism is eternal... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ Ps. Promoting the extermination of anyone based on an unalterable trait is a little 'above the bar' that would generally be called "controversial" in ANY society. That's why these scumbag-operated domains get shut down. Rr
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 05:40:46PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 08/30/2017 11:45 AM, grarpamp wrote:
Just as with Dailystormer and dozens to hundreds of other controversial sites past and present, whether HTML, IRC, filesharing, or simple p2p messaging, Stormfront will be back online as a .i2p or .onion, or on whatever other censorship resistant overlay networks exist.
These cryptos and nets are mainstream now, where others fail, expect them.
I expect Fascism is eternal... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
Ps. Promoting the extermination of anyone based on an unalterable trait is a little 'above the bar' that would generally be called "controversial" in ANY society. That's why these scumbag-operated domains get shut down.
Do you admit satire, black humour, any humour for that matter? Are you able to distinguish humour as it arises from the internal causes of an individual human? And are you able to properly assess the nature of a human when you witness them type some words which can on their face, genuinely be interpreted as humorous by some other humans? Or is free humorous speech another one of these "less equal than other free speech" things just like you hold that some facts are less equeal than others?
On Aug 31, 2017, at 1:10 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 05:40:46PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 08/30/2017 11:45 AM, grarpamp wrote:
Just as with Dailystormer and dozens to hundreds of other controversial sites past and present, whether HTML, IRC, filesharing, or simple p2p messaging, Stormfront will be back online as a .i2p or .onion, or on whatever other censorship resistant overlay networks exist.
These cryptos and nets are mainstream now, where others fail, expect them.
I expect Fascism is eternal... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
Ps. Promoting the extermination of anyone based on an unalterable trait is a little 'above the bar' that would generally be called "controversial" in ANY society. That's why these scumbag-operated domains get shut down.
Do you admit satire, black humour, any humour for that matter?
So was it a “joke” when you repeatedly defended the Duterte death squads, and spoke of him from your default point of view - a fascist apologist? That was some pretty black humor, indeed ;)
Are you able to distinguish humour as it arises from the internal causes of an individual human?
And are you able to properly assess the nature of a human when you witness them type some words which can on their face, genuinely be interpreted as humorous by some other humans?
Or is free humorous speech another one of these "less equal than other free speech" things just like you hold that some facts are less equeal than others?
Do you actually think you’re funny? Do you really need the thin veil of “humor” for your noxious views? Just own that shit. I mean, you are a joke - a bad, stale, unfunny sort of joke - but not in the way you're trying to claim. P.S. I don’t support registrars and providers dropping sites for posting the type of shit Zzz likes to read.. I hope shit calms down and “silicon valley” realizes the mistakes they are making.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:29:49PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
On Aug 31, 2017, at 1:10 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 05:40:46PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 08/30/2017 11:45 AM, grarpamp wrote:
Just as with Dailystormer and dozens to hundreds of other controversial sites past and present, whether HTML, IRC, filesharing, or simple p2p messaging, Stormfront will be back online as a .i2p or .onion, or on whatever other censorship resistant overlay networks exist.
These cryptos and nets are mainstream now, where others fail, expect them.
I expect Fascism is eternal... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
Ps. Promoting the extermination of anyone based on an unalterable trait is a little 'above the bar' that would generally be called "controversial" in ANY society. That's why these scumbag-operated domains get shut down.
Do you admit satire, black humour, any humour for that matter?
So was it a “joke” when you repeatedly defended the Duterte death squads, and spoke of him from your default point of view - a fascist apologist?
That was some pretty black humor, indeed ;)
You failed to respond in material particular at the time, and now you proclaim to be the humorous authority on what I said? Carry on with your hogwash John ...
Are you able to distinguish humour as it arises from the internal causes of an individual human?
And are you able to properly assess the nature of a human when you witness them type some words which can on their face, genuinely be interpreted as humorous by some other humans?
Or is free humorous speech another one of these "less equal than other free speech" things just like you hold that some facts are less equeal than others?
Do you actually think you’re funny? Do you really need the thin veil of “humor” for your noxious views? Just own that shit. I mean, you are a joke - a bad, stale, unfunny sort of joke - but not in the way you're trying to claim.
P.S. I don’t support registrars and providers dropping sites for posting the type of shit Zzz likes to read.. I hope shit calms down and “silicon valley” realizes the mistakes they are making.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:40:46 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Ps. Promoting the extermination of anyone based on an unalterable trait is a little 'above the bar' that would generally be called "controversial" in ANY society. T
yet extermination of all inferior races is your quintessential jewish philosophy, isn't it?
On 08/31/2017 10:32 AM, The Scumbag-Without-A-Life wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:40:46 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Ps. Promoting the extermination of anyone based on an unalterable trait is a little 'above the bar' that would generally be called "controversial" in ANY society. T yet extermination of all inferior races is your quintessential jewish philosophy, isn't it?
I don't believe in "inferior races" and you can't show me any 'scripture' other than from the CHRISTIAN biblical texts that says so. And because I KNOW YOU'RE IGNORANT, I must mention the so-called "Old Testament" is a CHRISTIAN biblical text. But I'm not interested in arguing relative merits, if any, of Nation-State-dependent "religions". Bye.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:07:23PM +0000, \0xDynamite wrote:
And because I KNOW YOU'RE IGNORANT, I must mention the so-called "Old Testament" is a CHRISTIAN biblical text.
What makes you think that?
\0xd
Because Christianity was the forefather to Judaism - this might be called a "stretched fact", but it's still more equal that politically incorrect actual facts - you been warned by the Razer logician yo!
On 08/31/2017 11:07 AM, \0xDynamite wrote:
And because I KNOW YOU'RE IGNORANT, I must mention the so-called "Old Testament" is a CHRISTIAN biblical text. What makes you think that?
\0xd
ROTF! I "Think that" because I spent three years at an after-school Hebrew class until my Bar Mitzvah, and went with my parents and grandparents to various orthodox, conservative, and reform synagogues at least once a month from the time I was 7 or so until I was 14... There are no "Old Testaments" at Synagogues. Your turn. What makes you think the alleged 'old' testament is of Judaic origin, or is even correct regarding 'tales told about days of yore', when compared to the Talmud and affiliated passed-down teachings? Rr
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:41:51 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 08/31/2017 11:07 AM, \0xDynamite wrote:
And because I KNOW YOU'RE IGNORANT, I must mention the so-called "Old Testament" is a CHRISTIAN biblical text. What makes you think that?
\0xd
ROTF! I "Think that" because I spent three years at an after-school Hebrew class until my Bar Mitzvah, and went with my parents and grandparents to various orthodox, conservative,
rayzer, it's kinda clear that you are a piece of fascist jew shit- you don't need to drive the point any further... ...but since you keep throwing up...yes, fascism and judaism are both far right wing, conservative, 'ideologies'. Every time you rant against fascism and conservatism remember that jew 'culture' is the non plus ultra of lunatic, totalitarian 'traditions'.
and reform synagogues at least once a month from the time I was 7 or so until I was 14... There are no "Old Testaments" at Synagogues.
Your turn. What makes you think the alleged 'old' testament is of Judaic origin, or is even correct regarding 'tales told about days of yore', when compared to the Talmud and affiliated passed-down teachings?
Rr
On 08/31/2017 06:49 PM, the scumbag wrote something totally irrelevant:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:41:51 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 08/31/2017 11:07 AM, \0xDynamite wrote:
And because I KNOW YOU'RE IGNORANT, I must mention the so-called "Old Testament" is a CHRISTIAN biblical text. What makes you think that?
\0xd ROTF! I "Think that" because I spent three years at an after-school Hebrew class until my Bar Mitzvah, and went with my parents and grandparents to various orthodox, conservative,
rayzer, it's kinda clear that you are a piece of fascist jew shit- you don't need to drive the point any further...
...but since you keep throwing up...yes, fascism and judaism are both far right wing, conservative, 'ideologies'. Every time you rant against fascism and conservatism remember that jew 'culture' is the non plus ultra of lunatic, totalitarian 'traditions'.
and reform synagogues at least once a month from the time I was 7 or so until I was 14... There are no "Old Testaments" at Synagogues.
Your turn. What makes you think the alleged 'old' testament is of Judaic origin, or is even correct regarding 'tales told about days of yore', when compared to the Talmud and affiliated passed-down teachings?
Rr
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:22:20 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 08/31/2017 06:49 PM, the scumbag wrote something totally irrelevant:
Why is it irrelevant? Au contraire, it's the proper response to your posturing as 'anti nazi' 'progressive'. In reality, you as a joo, are piece of conservative, fascist shit. So stop pretending.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:41:51 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 08/31/2017 11:07 AM, \0xDynamite wrote:
And because I KNOW YOU'RE IGNORANT, I must mention the so-called "Old Testament" is a CHRISTIAN biblical text. What makes you think that?
\0xd ROTF! I "Think that" because I spent three years at an after-school Hebrew class until my Bar Mitzvah, and went with my parents and grandparents to various orthodox, conservative,
rayzer, it's kinda clear that you are a piece of fascist jew shit- you don't need to drive the point any further...
...but since you keep throwing up...yes, fascism and judaism are both far right wing, conservative, 'ideologies'. Every time you rant against fascism and conservatism remember that jew 'culture' is the non plus ultra of lunatic, totalitarian 'traditions'.
and reform synagogues at least once a month from the time I was 7 or so until I was 14... There are no "Old Testaments" at Synagogues.
Your turn. What makes you think the alleged 'old' testament is of Judaic origin, or is even correct regarding 'tales told about days of yore', when compared to the Talmud and affiliated passed-down teachings?
Rr
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 07:22:20PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 08/31/2017 06:49 PM, the scumbag wrote something totally irrelevant:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:41:51 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote: ...
Finally had an insight into yourself?
On 09/01/2017 12:48 AM, the scumbag wrote something totally irrelevant:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 07:22:20PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 08/31/2017 06:49 PM, the scumbag wrote something totally irrelevant:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:41:51 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote: ...
Finally had an insight into yourself?
On 2017-09-01 09:41, Razer wrote:
Your turn. What makes you think the alleged 'old' testament is of Judaic origin, or is even correct regarding 'tales told about days of yore', when compared to the Talmud and affiliated passed-down teachings?
Old Testament based on the Septuagint, which we know from recorded history existed in its current form in 250BC, translated from Hebrew sources at the command of the Greek ruler of Egypt. Jewish texts cannot be reliably dated to earlier than about 600AD. For all we know some random bunch of people reinvented Judaism around six or seven hundred AD, except insofar as their texts have much in common with the Septuagint.
On 09/01/2017 05:36 AM, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2017-09-01 09:41, Razer wrote:
Your turn. What makes you think the alleged 'old' testament is of Judaic origin, or is even correct regarding 'tales told about days of yore', when compared to the Talmud and affiliated passed-down teachings?
Old Testament based on...
Stopped there.
participants (7)
-
\0xDynamite -
grarpamp -
James A. Donald -
John Newman -
juan -
Razer -
Zenaan Harkness