On the roots of Anti-Semitism

Reply

Miklos Hollender Posted: Thu, Apr 17 2008 5:34 PM

rated by 0 users

I while ago I debated with some friends on the roots of Anti-Semitism - on what are the origins of this sentiment. Now the problem is that most Anti-Semites are so dumb that it's really hard to figure out what are they talking about. Luckily, some of them aren't. Perhaps the most intelligent Anti-Semite ever was Werner Sombart (PDF) and his writings make it so clear where does Anti-Semitism come from that I don't even need to comment it, just to insert some quotations (emphasis is mine):

"Look closely
into the specific accusations hurled against Jewish traders, examine their
innermost nature, and you shall find that the conflict between Jewish
and Christian merchants was a struggle between two outlooks, between
two radically differing — nay, opposite — views on economic life."

"And so, producer and trader should receive as much as was demanded
by the standard of comfort in their station in life. That was the
mediaeval view; it was also the view current in the early capitalistic age,
even where business was carried on along more or less modern lines.
We find its expression in the industrial codes of the day, and its justification
in the commercial literature."

Hence, to make profit was looked upon by most people throughout
the period as improper, as "unchristian"; the old economic teaching of
Thomas Aquinas was observed, at least officially. The religious or
ethical rule was still supreme; there was as yet no sign of the liberation
of economic life from its religious and ethical bonds. Every action, no
matter in what sphere, was done with a view to the Highest Tribunal —
the will of God. Need it be pointed out that the attitude of Mammon was
as opposed to this as pole is to pole?"

"Producer and trader should receive sufficient for their need. One
outstanding result of this principle was strictly to circumscribe each
man's activity in his locality. Competition was therefore quite out of the
question. In his own sphere a man might work as he willed — when,
how, where — in accordance with tradition and custom. But to cast a
look at his neighbour's sphere — that he was forbidden to do. Just as
the peasant received his holding — so much field, with pasture and
woodland, as would keep him and his family, just as he never even
dreamt of adding to his possessions, so, too, the craftsman and the merchant
were to rest content with their portions and never covet their
neighbour's. The peasant had his land, the town-dweller his customers:
in either case they were the source whence sprang his livelihood; in
either case they were of a size sufficient for the purpose."

"Hence, the
trader had to be assured of his custom, and many were the ordinances
which guarded him against competition. Besides, it was commercial
etiquette. You did not run after customers. You waited until they came,
"and then" (in the words of De Foe's sermon), "with God's blessing and
his own care, he may expect his share of trade with his neighbours."
The merchant who attended fairs did not do otherwise; "day and night
he waits at his stall."

"To take away your neighbour's customers was contemptible, unchristian,
and immoral. A rule for "Merchants who trade in commodities"
was: "Turn no man's customers awayfrom him, either by word of
mouth or by letter, and do not to another what you would not have
another do to you." It was, however, more than a rule; it became an
ordinance, and is met with over and over again. In Mayence its wording
was as follows: "No one shall prevent another from buying, or by
offering a higher price make a commodity dearer, on pain of losing his
purchase; no one shall interfere in another's business undertaking, or
carry on his own on so large a scale as to ruin other traders." In Saxony
it was much. the same. "No shopkeeper shall call away the customers
from another's shop, nor shall he by signs or motions keep them from
buying."

"But to attract customers even without interfering with your
neighbour's business was regarded as unworthy. As late as the early
18th century in London itself it was not considered proper for a shopkeeper
to dress his window tastefully, and so lure purchasers. De Foe,
no less than his later editors, did not mince words in expressing his
contempt for such a course, of which, as he mentions apparently with
some satisfaction, only a few bakers and toymen were guilty.
To the things that were not permitted belonged also advertising your
business and praising your wares. The gentle art of advertising first
appeared in Holland sometime about the middle of the 17th century, in
England towards its end, in France much later. The Ghentsche Post-
Tijdingen, founded in 1667, contained the first business advertisement
in its issue of October 3rd of that year. At this time none of the London
news-sheets published advertisements; even after the Great Fire not one
business thought of advertising its new address. It was not until 1682,
when John Houghton established The Collection for the Improvement
of Husbandry and Trade, that the merchant community of London became
accustomed to utilizing the Press as a medium for advertising.
This had been preceded by the practice, in a small way, of distributing
bills in the streets to passers-by."

"In a world of economic ideas such as these, the theory of "just price"
was an organic element Price was not something in the formation of
which the individual had a say. Price was determined for him; it was a
subject to religious and ethical principles as everything else in economic
life. It was to be such as would make for the common good, as well of
the consumer as of the producer. Different ages had their own standard
for determining it; in Luther's day, for example, the cost of production
was the deciding factor. "

"But be that as it may, the point to accentuate
is that price was based on ethical and not (as was held to be the case
later) on natural principles. Then people said that the individual must
not determine price at his own will; whereas later the view was that he
could not so determine it."

"The point I am emphasizing must be remembered in considering the
accusations hurled against the Jews in the early capitalistic age, accusations
which, on the whole, were not unfounded. Universally accepted
offences, such as stealing or receiving stolen property, must not be included
under this heading. Jews equally with Christians abhorred such
crimes. "

"The practices, however, common to all Jews, which overstepped
law and custom, but which Jews did not feel as being wrong, the practices
which may be looked upon as being the result of a specifically
Jewish outlook, these must come within our ken. And what do we find
on examining them?"

"We find that the Jew rises before us unmistakably as more of a
business-man than his neighbour; he follows business for its own sake;
he recognizes, in the true capitalistic spirit, the supremacy of gain over
all other aims."

"How the Jews were ever on the look-out for new customers is described
by a well-informed writer of the early 19th century. It was a
practice with them, he says, "to pay frequent visits to all and sundry
places of public resort where, by reading the many news-sheets, they
sought to obtain knowledge of possibilities for doing business, and especially
of noting what strangers were expected to arrive; and by listening
to every conversation, to find out whose houses were in danger in
order to make bargains or contracts with them."

"We hear the same tale from a traveller who journeyed in Western
Germany about that time. "To walk in the streets of those places where
there are many Jews has become a nuisance. You are badgered by them
every minute and at every turn. You are constantly being asked. Can I
sell youanything? Won't you buy this, that or the other?""

"The first known advertisement in the text of the paper dates from
1753, and hails from Holland. The advertiser was an eye-specialist of
the name of Laazer. A very old advertisement in the United States —
whether the oldest I cannot say — appeared on August 17, 1761, in the
New York Mercury, as follows: — "To be sold by Hayman Levy, in
Bayard Street, Camp Equipages of all sorts, best soldiers' English shoes
. . . and everything that goes to make up the pomp and circumstance of
glorious war."

"But to obtain likely addresses, to intercept travellers on their way,
to sing the praises of your wares — that was only one side of the game
of catching customers. It was supplemented by another, which consisted
in so decking-out the goods for sale as to attract people. In this art the
Jews were great adepts. Nay more, there is sufficient evidence that they
were the first to stand up for the general principle, that it is the right
(and the duty) of every trader to carry on his business in such a way as
will obtain for him as much of the available custom as possible, or by
creating new demands, will increase the circle of buyers.

Now in a community where quality was regulated, the only effective
means of achieving this end was price-cutting. We shall therefore
not be surprised to find the Jews availing themselves of this weapon,
and we shall see that it was just this that made them so disliked among
Christian traders, whose economic outlook was all for maintaining prices.
The Jew undersells; the Jew spoils prices; the Jew tries to attract customers
by low prices — that was the burden of the complaints heard in
the 17th and 18th centuries wherever Jews did business.

And this a guy who later on wrote handbooks for the SS, and was generally the brightest guy in the circle of the . Basically what I conclude from it that National Socialists - and most likely other Anti-Semites as well - were first and foremost Socialists and strongly opposed to Capitalism and were Nationalists only as byproduct, and their Anti-Semitism was rooted in Anti-Capitalism.

Reply

JCFolsom replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 2:34 AM

rated by 0 users

Hmm... yeah... um... in case you hadn't noticed, anti-semitism goes back a LONG WAY. Literally thousands of years.

Let me say first off that Jews do not deserve the abuses they've suffered. No group ever deserves abuses. Treating people as groups is collectivism, which is bad. No individual should be judged solely by statistics for anything important.

That being said, being a nation within a nation, as the diaspora were and some among their own community say they still are, pretty much anywhere will get people hating on you. Banking (I know that back in medieval times they didn't have much of a choice), an industry where Jews are quite prominent, can become very unpopular. No one likes their creditors. And that whole "chosen people" bit is just asking for trouble. Really.

Nor has the situation improved through the UN-fiat- and ethnic-cleansing-based (somehow they went from minority to majority; how do you think that is?) creation of modern Israel, a state basically based on ethnocentrism, with their continuing abuses of the native Arab population. It really isn't putting a nice gloss on their reputation. Is that the fault of Jews in general? Of course not, but most people are predisposed to intellectual laziness and the resulting bigotries.

The ethnocentrism of Jews historically and presently are not excuses for the crimes against them, but they are explanations. No one hates Jews just because they have long noses and curly hair. Frankly, most of the time I can't tell someone is a Jew until they tell me. People hate Jews because of the stereotypes against them, and alas, stereotypes generally arise because statistically, they are true. Not the ridiculous stuff about needing Christian blood for their Passover Matzos and stuff, of course. That's just BS. Still, there are some just fascinating parts of the Talmud. Look up Sanhedrin 57 sometime. NOT saying other established religions are better. That's why I made my own.

Reply

Inquisitor replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 6:43 AM

rated by 0 users

The stereotypes of Jews as ugly individuals with hooked noses and thick lower lips have always amused me. In reality, they come in a variety of phenotypes, most of them looking quite European. I guess it's easy to see things that aren't there, though, when one is fixated. I suppose the Jews were hated for being successful. I don't know enough of their history to ascertain this, but it certainly sounds like anti-semitism runs closely along with the hatred of those better off than oneself.

Thanks for the source Miklos, it looks to be an interesting piece of sociology.

Reply

maxpot46 replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 6:53 AM

rated by 0 users

Charging interest has historically been viewed as evil, so the huge Jewish involvement with banking is probably the source of a lot of bad feelings.  Jude Wanniski asserted that around the turn of the 1st millennium, a lot of Christians took out huge loans with the expectation of not having to pay it back.  When Christ didn't reappear as scheduled, it became easier to launch a persecution than to repay the loans.  Not sure of the veracity of this, but it's plausible.

Reply

JCFolsom replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 10:05 AM

rated by 0 users

Inquisitor:

The stereotypes of Jews as ugly individuals with hooked noses and thick lower lips have always amused me. In reality, they come in a variety of phenotypes, most of them looking quite European. I guess it's easy to see things that aren't there, though, when one is fixated. I suppose the Jews were hated for being successful. I don't know enough of their history to ascertain this, but it certainly sounds like anti-semitism runs closely along with the hatred of those better off than oneself.

Is a thick lower lip a stereotypical Jewish feature? I was not aware of that, and it wasn't something I ever saw on Jews I know. A slightly accentuated nose (which I never thought was at all ugly) does seem to be a common feature, but this simply comes along with a degree of Semitic (including hebrews, arabs, etc.) ancestry.

I think you're being a little silly, and indeed, dareIsay predjudiced, in believing that a group of people can be utterly blameless in their general ill-treatment, and that people hate them for only positive features. Rather like the quote that started this, where Miklos apparently was trying to demonstrate that anti-semitism exists because anti-capitalism exists. It would be nice if things were so black and white, but it is rather rarely so.

Reply

Ego replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 10:08 AM

rated by 0 users

Problems will arise whenever individuals are viewed as a collective group.

Reply

Inquisitor replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 10:12 AM

rated by 0 users

The stereotype is a hooked nose and a thick lower lip. Long slightly convex noses are typical amongst Europeans - the stereotypical Jewish nose is one which is hooked downwards. My history teacher brought us some slides of it in class when I was still at high school.

I don't know where I said they're completely blameless. What I did say is that a lot of hatred towards Jews is likely to be unjustified and nothing too different from Marxist hatred of capitalists.

Reply

JCFolsom replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 10:49 AM

rated by 0 users

Ego:

Problems will arise whenever individuals are viewed as a collective group.

That is certainly true. Collectivism is indeed the root cause and evil in all this. However, it is up to each individual who wants to make this a better world to stop viewing and presenting themselves as part of a collective group first, before they can expect others to do so. The wise might be able to view you as an individual, but most people will view you largely as you present yourself.

Reply

JCFolsom replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 11:33 AM

rated by 0 users

Inquisitor:

I don't know where I said they're completely blameless. What I did say is that a lot of hatred towards Jews is likely to be unjustified and nothing too different from Marxist hatred of capitalists.

You never said they were completely blameless... perhaps I read too much into your post, as these are rather delicate matters to write about, and I am perhaps a bit paranoid that I will be vilified for my stance.

Of course the hatred is unjustified. Bigotry, particularly on the basis of ancestry, is always unjustified. However, you can know that an orthodox Jew is religiously, and thus BY CHOICE, a misogynist and racist (...shelo asani isha, ...shelo asani goy), though the misogyny bit can certainly be said for many other religions as well. The racist content of traditional Jewish faith (and orthodox Judaism is the official religion of Israel) is fairly unique, however, at least in the Occident. Thus, one of the problems comes in where the religion and the ethnicity get confused with each other, and where ethnic Jews retain any of their ethnocentric attitudes despite no longer explicitly having the beliefs on which they're based.

Why am I harping on these points so much? The truth is that, these days, despite a few ragged little bands of Neo-Natsis, anti-Semitism is largely dead in this country. Do I only think that because I'm in California? Maybe. Still, it seems to me that these days, racism in general is rather gauche. Thus, I think and hope that we can start to have a bit more of an authentic and objective look at such phenomena as anti-Semitism, not a one-sided PC pity-fest. I think that, if you want to look at why a group is hated, you need to be able to speak to what the actual negative traits that typify that group are, while realizing that, for all that these are remarkable statistics, that they do not justify the judgment or abuse of any individual.

I honestly hope that one day, with the advent and spread of a truly individualist philosophy, ethnic identities will become, at most, an irrelevant curiosity in anyone's life. Once upon a time, I envied those who seemed to have a strong ethnic identity and traditional culture. These days, I see that being a generalized American mutt is a blessing. I can claim no one ancestral culture as my own, and thus none can claim me.

Reply

Inquisitor replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 11:45 AM

rated by 0 users

I'm not one of the one world, one race PC types, so I'm not going to deliberately misinterpret your arguments. Anyway, your point is well taken.

Reply

Halevy replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 1:23 PM

rated by 0 users

 Hi Austrian folks,

One of the most obvious explanations for the fact that Jews have acquired throughout history an important role in banking and money-lending is simply the fact that these activities were regarded as improper by the Christian-majority nations *and* that Jews were forbidden to earn their living by means of "decent" professions such as farmers, artisans, merchants etc. (refer, for example, to "History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson). This prohibition lasted for many centuries, being only cancelled in some countries during the 18th. or even 19th. centuries.

Jews were actually forced to work in "dirty" and unpopular businesses, such as the previously mentioned, in order to serve as escape-goats and keep them vulnerable to the popular hate and disdain, while conveniently providing these services which were indeed essential for the economy to run.

Quoting maxpot46: "Charging interest has historically been viewed as evil, so the huge Jewish involvement with banking is probably the source of a lot of bad feelings." ---> Jewish law doesn't permit charging interest. Please check also the previous clarification on the prohibition of "normal" jobs.

Quoting JCFolson - "People hate Jews because of the stereotypes against them, and alas, stereotypes generally arise because statistically, they are true." ---> I'm not sure if I understood correctly your statement; do you mean that, statistically speaking, most Jews conform to the stereotypes - i.e., ugly, hook-nosed guys and ladies??? Sounds a bit primary to me; perhaps you should re-evaluate your reference sources.

Quoting Inquisitor - "I suppose the Jews were hated for being successful." ---> As you know, Jews living in the diaspora - that means anywhere, as they were expelled from original land, devastated and conquered by successive empires throughout history - established themselves as immigrants. You may ascertain, based on the observation of the development of all former colonies in the New World etc., that immigrants, upon their arrival to their new countries, don't just have the goal of "having fun" or "taking a break from work". Most of them arrive without a single penny, then work very hard, save, reinvest, and in most cases, some years or decades later, the family does reach a prosperous economic status, even higher than their land-born neighbors. This always tends to generate a reaction of envy and disdain from those who don't progress in life - mainly as a consequence of poor initiative, plain laziness or other personal failures.

Quoting JCFolson once again - "...However, you can know that an orthodox Jew is religiously, and thus BY CHOICE, a misogynist and racist..." This statement itself, apart from being anything but true, is a perfect piece of irrational prejudice.
Folson, mysoginist - as you may know from any dictionary - is defined as someone who hates women, which I'm sure it's not the Jewish case. In the orthodox belief, women play a vital role, among other, by transmitting education, religious and moral values to their children, keeping the dietary laws of "kashrut" and ultimately being recognized as the foundation of the whole family and having privileges with respect to their obligations and rights - I don't expect from you to understand the deep philosophical and ethical basis of Judaism, but I'd suggest you to read more and be sure you interpret things according to their original intention, not based on biased perceptions.
As for "racist", for once I just wonder why is it globally accepted as OK for a Moslem to want his daughter married to a Moslem guy, or a Lutheran who prefers that his daughter get married to a nice guy from his own congregation, or even an atheist who'd prefer to have an atheist son-in-law instead of a pious Catholic, *but* it's a "racist manifestation", that a Jew gets disappointed when her daughter marries a "goy" (as you say). That's plain PC rubbish, every ethnic or religiuos group which keeps their identity through voluntary association should be left free to prefer their children choose someone from their own group, as long as no aggression is involved. Check also what happens when a Jew leaves his faith or marries a "goyah" - do you recall many tragedies on that in the media? - and when people from other beliefs leave their faith (or try to do this, or marry an outsider) - remember honor killings, decrees and curses, prosecution, exile anywhere?

Additional historical "reasons" for Jew-haters: recall the deadly epidemies during the Medieval Age? By virtue of certain bizarre habits such as washing hands before the meals ("netilat yadayim"), not eating some kinds of food ("kashrut"), and regularly washing their bodies with running water for spiritual purification ("Mikvah"), Jews were less affected by the diseases than their neighbors, thus leading to the brilliant idea that Jews should have poisoned the water or food of Gentiles, and/ or had an agreement with Satan to preserve their lifes etc....

Hmmm, this debate could go much further, but I would summarize by stating that Anti-Semitism is not a race issue, as Jews are not a race; also it's not a religious issue, as the Jew-haters keep on expressing their hatred even on non-religious Jews - remember the N_a_z_i_s (than-you filter, grrrr...), who chased, rounded-up and killed the totally assimilated German Jewry, most of which were fully alienated from their religious roots, up to those who were considered "1/4th." or even "1/8th." "jewish-blood", and also atheists, converted and intermarried Jews.

From the psychological viewpont, I believe that Anti-Semitism was based on a primitive reaction of the pagan nations which first discovered, in shock, that there was a small group that believed in the existence of a single God with absolute power over the Universe, and praying/ teaching subversive things such as "thou shallt not kill", "thou shallt not steal", "thou shallt not covet your neighbor's wife" and some other concepts that still today seem to be shockingly crude and distasteful to many groups.

I suggest the Spanish-speaking readers (if any in this Forum) to check the book "Las Raíces del Odio" (Roots of Hate) by the Argentinian writer Marcos Aguinis - I wonder if there's an English translation of this enlightening work.

To Miklos Hollender, many thanks for the opportunity of this discussion.

To others who drive dangerously near the Anti-Semitism line: if you really like to think of yourselves as "libertarians", just live your lives and let others who think or pray differently from you, keep on doing so.

Regards from Rio!!

Reply

JCFolsom replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 2:18 PM

rated by 0 users

Halevy,

Your rather overlong rant is too boorish to quote extensively, but I'll respond to what I see as your main points.

If you will read through, rather than scanning and picking at my posts, you will see that I acknowledge that Jews were left few choices in medieval times but to be moneylenders and the like. Of course, the fact that Jews today are still prominent in these fairly odious professions (along with the entertainment industry; I haven't quite figured that one out yet) can only partially be explained by this history. The world of finance today, I think most here will agree, is a corrupt and avaricious place.

When you quote me saying that stereotypes are often true, and used as a justification for hatred, you leave out the fact that elsewhere I said that physical traits of the Jewish ethnicity are not the reasons for hatred against them. The stereotypes I refer to are insularity and nepotism, distrust and untrustworthiness, avarice and callousness towards other groups. The Talmud, which is at least as important to the Jewish faith as the Torah, is replete with permissions to treat Gentiles (AKA Heathens or Cutheans) in a way different than your fellow Jew, and explanations as to why the rules of the Pentateuch apply only to relations to other members of "G-d's chosen people".

As for Orthodox Judaism, the prayers I cite in parenthesis are thanks to God for not making them Gentiles and not Making them women. If you wish to claim that their separated functions and temples are not misogynistic, I suggest you ask the blacks in this country how equal "separate but equal" ended up being. There is no part of Judeo-Christian-Islamic literature which isn't replete with misogyny; any traditional or fundamentalist interpretation will automatically carry that ugly stain.

I actually agree with you that Jews are not a race; they are a religious construct. Nonetheless, I know many atheist Jews who still consider themselves Jews on the basis of ancestry alone. They may not be a race, but they think of themselves as such. As for the Muslim who wants his children to marry Muslims, or the Lutheran who wants her children to marry Lutherans (though, let's be honest, in the US of A, anyway, if the kid marries a Methodist she probably won't get too upset), they are selecting by expressed values and beliefs, not ethnicity. This is a perfectly legitimate and logical form of discrimination, even if what they favor is not actually logical. Being upset because your kid marries someone of a different ethnicity, however, is something rather different, and quite sick.

And if you want to talk about the "wisdom" of Jewish medical procedures, let me refer you to a certain tradition they have of mutilating boys' genitalia as some sort of covenant with god. That's brutal and evil, in my opinion. And that whole sucking the blood out thing is just really gross.

In short, I'll not leave unanswered any ethnocentric back-patting here. Everyone's done bad things to everyone. Racists come from all races, whether they're real races or not. The thing that really galls me is the almost traditional role, now, of Jews as the ultimate victims. They are not. Their own very long history has records of genocides they've committed. One of their sacred symbols is a star named for an imperious a-hole who murdered a man because he wanted his woman. They used their ancient and outdated traditions to justify ethnically cleansing Palestine, a process that continues to this day.

Jews are no worse than anyone else but they are also NO BETTER. No one can look back through their ancestry and not find many a villain. I have to hear from "progressives" how my own white race destroyed and enslaved people to conquer this continent, and you know what, they're absolutely right, some white people (who are dead) did. I don't say what they did was right, I don't base my identity on my genetic connections with them, and I don't feel guilty for what they did. I didn't do it. "White" is just a description of my skin color and some other phenotypes. When you attach yourself, however, to some ancient misogynist ethnocentric religion or its artificial ethnic identity, you intentionally and voluntarily associate yourselves with that, even if you don't fully realize the implications. I am positive that there are some Jews that realize that they have no special rights to the land they call Israel and look at David for the rapist murdering *** he was, but for those that don't, I have to call them part of the problem, and part of what will continue anti-semitism going strong for years to come.

In general, if you want to stop being viewed primarily as your race or ethnicity, or to stop viewing others that way, stop viewing yourself that way. Basing your identity on your ethnicity is sad and limiting, and one of the more pernicious examples of collectivism. In a world where people truly viewed themselves and others as individuals, this conversation would be impossible. I am trying to point out the way that such ethnic consciousness has poisoned the lives and souls of entire family trees, and those around them. To do that, we need to stop celebrating the toxin.

Reply

Halevy replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 3:29 PM

rated by 0 users

Quoting Folsom - "Your rather overlong rant is too boorish..." 

Thanks for you kind words, the same applies to your post.

Although I may not be right in part of my reasoning, I tried to express my viewpoint in a way as much civilized and clear as I could, quite on the contrary to your undisguised prejudice-filled diatribic discourse, saturated with destructive quotations, taken out of context - I suppose you're not Jewish, you may not have a genuine interest in learning about the subject, and from your interpretations I may also conclude that your interest in Judaism is distorted - you seem to find some sort of satisfaction in looking for "the dark side" of it...

Anyway, as a "trainee-austro-libertarian", I find it's an interesting excercise to follow this debate.

@Folsom, I sincerely wish you may dedicate your efforts to constructing something real and succeed.

Reply

JCFolsom replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 3:41 PM

rated by 0 users

I will agree with you on one point: the "boorish" comment was snide. I apologize for the breakdown in maturity there.

As for the rest, I need provide no context for that which no context can justify. Who is more likely to be objective here, someone on the outside looking in, or someone who is more personally involved with the question?

Reply

Halevy replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 5:29 PM

rated by 0 users

 Quoting JCFolsom - "As for the rest, I need provide no context for that which no context can justify."

I suppose that's your personal view, and I respect it, however it looks we're kind of "stuck" on this matter, thus I'll call the ads.

As for the second item - "Who is more likely to be objective here, someone on the outside looking in, or someone who is more personally involved with the question?", my best answer would be: likeliest to be objective, as on most issues, would be the one who posseses the deepest knowledge on the matter. If it is true that personal involvement has an influence on the objective evaluation, someone on the outside, having an "a priori" negative view and/ or prejudice, is not best fitted to glimpse the truth.

See'ya on new threads !!!

Have a nice weekend y'all !!

P/S: for the primitive souls who still follow the guidelines sketched on the Holy Stone BIOS Chips: Happy Passover !!