Dear CHRIS
Thank you for asking for clarification instead of passing a quick judgment.
-
> > Too bad you cannot see the connection between the attack and history and
> > causality that led to it.
>
> This only seems like one step away from saying "well, with your history,
> you deserve it". To put my mind at rest, why don't you fully explain what
> you *mean*, rather than leaving something contentious like that hanging
> around. It may spare you an awful lot of invective.
>
Not at all. Just meant there is an obvious connection between middle east
history and this attack.
In other words I'm not using UNRELATED events to "further my cause", which
would be insensitive.
> > Can't a Jew make a commentary without being called names?
>
> I don't think *anyone* should, with any degree of sensitivity, really
> be making a statement like you just did - regardless of their own
> religion. And the fact that you're using yesterday's events to try
> and wrest the conversation back to your own agenda is pretty low.
I'm sorry if my commentary was offensive but thousands of years of
persecution have gotten me "accustomed" to tragic events. What appears to
be insensitivity is necessary to survive in this brutal world.
Didn't mean to offend the victims' relatives, just made a commentary on a
related topic.
PLEASE see my reply to MACK in today's digest for a more detailed answer.
My timing was perhaps wrong, which I personally disclaimed from the start by
saying this was a cheap shot. It's insensitive but do you think it's
unrelated?
> I could almost think that your statement above is an accusation of
> anti-semitism. That'd be novel...
>
I don't know Clark, as soon as I open my mouth hell comes down. Ain't
accusing anyone, though.
I'll keep my opinions to myself, for once.
Laurent
