Anti-Neocons

I wonder how Andie knows this. If he can prove it, fair enough.


So in other words, it's not necessarily a promotion, but rather a database they are building of anti semites in the world. So which are you? Do they view your site the same way as they do say Brother Nathaniel's? Or are you one of the safe anti Zionist, but not anti Jewish ones, that doesn't hate all Jews?


I hope you only mean by bullshit the stuff you and Andie have talked about and not all those videos showing racist Jews and Israelis because those are dynamite.


I can be stupid enough to see Kerr made an apparent mistake here, but not to stupid to see that he is correct in that you are a coward for not confronting Lieblich. If you wanted to prove us wrong, you would. But your inaction is proving us right.

From Drew J:



My mistake. however, their interests do overlap at the very least.




I have read your article, and I stand by what I say. Example.


Doesn't matter if they are religious Jews. They still consider themselves Jews since they believe in the race bullcrap. And if it wasn't for the bullshit talmud and kaballah being created and all those Zionist bibles and new testaments out there, those who become secular despite being raised in a Jewish household, would have never been brought back into the Jewish fold with the myth that was deliberately perpetrated FOR THE SECULARISTS BY THE RABBIS, that Jews are also a race. If you don't think these allegedly secular, atheistic Jews aren't freemasons or at the very least kabbalists, then you are a fucking ignoramus as you have NO IDEA how deep freemasonry goes into politics. Especially in American and Israel. So once again, thanks to the Talmud-Kabbalah-Rabbis we have the myth of a Jewish race that was created in order to keep non religious Jews in the fold. Michael Hoffman is right where Ted PIke misses this. And you do to. Therefore to reiterate, you have no idea how deep that dialectic goes. I am Hoffman. You are Pike. If you think these guys didn't bond together as Jews as well as Zionists, you are the one who is ignorant.


I don't remember disagreeing with this. So this ad hominem seems irrelevant.




Passing the buck again so you don't have to prove how wrong we are when we say you are afraid to go after the really big fish.

[/quote]
Okay, so you're BOTH cowards? Suits me!

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

I forgot about the directions hearing. But a jury saying that O Connell is guilty of racial hatred, implies that Jews are a race. So I am right on that. However you made sure to remind me that they were already following what had been established at the directions hearing.



Brendon fired his lawyer because Brendon was incredibly paranoid and he was sick and tired of his lawyer not understanding the wider issues of Zionism and Judaism and their criminal networks. He may have thought him a potential ringer. I have some of the transcripts, and when I emailed Brendon before, I told him to watch his step and not be so rhetorical at times. For one instance, he started attacking Keyser's religion of Judaism as racist and making vague statements, BEFORE HE HAD SHOWN ANY REFERENCES. Funnily enough, he had a copy of Hoffman's JUDAISM DISCOVERED handy and was about to expose the Shulcan Aruch's racism, when the judge STOPPED THE TRIAL. Sounds like somebody didn't want Brendon to back up his posturing and his bravado in the courtroom. Sounds to me like this judge had a few jews whispering in his ear.


Why should they be afraid if you yourself and the pro palestinian group you have worked with in the past were determined by Stanley Keyser to be safe and not anti Jewish, in other words, not anti racist? All they have to do is tone it down like Brendon and they're good. Your continued existence as a free man proves my point here. So once again, quit trying to act like Jews want to cruficy you when they clearly don't.


Brendon could have toned down his rhetoric for sure. But don't get mouthy with me about whether or not the court was constitutional and established jurisdiction over Brendon of the Family O Connell. From what I've seen you and Posiedon know DICK ALL about the maritime law conspiracy.






Yes and I have been impressed with your crimes of zion site at what you have built up. However, how much of that do you distribute in public on dvd exposing Israel and 911 for example? What do you talk about in public? If just the occupation, then you're not going after the real big potatos as I already stated.

Oh wait a minute. You could be next for what? A jail cell like O Connell? Or horizontalization? If the latter, is that why you don't publicly push more dvd's about israeli ops and their hand in 9-11? If the former, how does talking about Israel, the political entity, and the Mossad, the intelligence agency of said political entity, possibly get you a charge of inciting racial hatred? That's stretching it I think.


Proving a negative is not impossible. It depends on the negative. Imagine someone demanding to prove there is NOT a cat sitting on your arm right now. That would be easy. I'm saying that because of how hard it can be to prove most negatives, you gotta watch how YOU state things yourself. O Connell had every reason to make that assumption about Leon Wende given how Mossad operates, what companies they use, and how they used them to pull off 9-11 and 7-7. Something you could push more in public with some DVD's when you stage protests, but apparently do not for some unknown reason as seen above.


In your own mind. You may have gotten a couple small victories there, but in the end, you have yet to confront Lieblich, and you have yet to explain why you don't put out more DVD's while you're in public that go after the bigger fish.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

Wait a minute. Just one thing:



Are you confusing the Final Order VRO hearing I took part in with O'Connell with his racial vilification trial? I've been in court with O'Connell, but I had nothing to do with the racial vilification case. As far as I know, Stanley Keyser doesn't even know who I am, so he hasn't "determined" me to be anything. Like I said, I am not FOPWA. If Keyser and his low-life "Friends of Israel" do know about me and my work, they will certainly have "determined" that I am anti-Jewish, or "anti-Semitic". Since they have almost certainly been keeping an eye on the O'Connell blog, and since Kerr has used it to write several stupid 'articles' about me there, they'd know who I am by now but they'd be laughing their arses off at what they would consider to be 'infighting' among the "anti-Semites".

Stanley Keyser did not utter my name at the O'Connell trial. Again, you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

While I'm here, I might as well address the rest of that paragraph.



Are you suggesting that since I'm currently a free man, I'll necessarily always be a free man? Or that since O'Connell is the only Australian currently in prison for these charges, that no such charges will be brought against other anti-Zionists in the future? That's just absurd.

Suppose, for example, I confronted Steve Lieblich on camera and posted the footage to YouTube, as Kerr and yourself keep "challenging" me to do. Do you seriously believe I'd have nothing to worry about? I'd be doing the very thing that O'Connell has just been sent to prison for. Do you not think the Jews would try to "crucify" me?

By the way:



"Both"? Does O'Connell only have one supporter in Perth? Apparently there's me, the guy who he stalked for three years, and one other person eligible for the job. Who's the other dude? Do you suppose he might be concerned that if he confronts Lieblich on camera he might end up in jail with O'Connell? Are you catching my drift here, Drew J?

_________________
http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/

http://crimes-of-zion.blogspot.com/

Even if I buy your claim that confronting Lieblich will land you in prison (now you're changing your tune because you once said you wouldn't do it PRECISELY because Kerr challenged you to do so), you can't push that back on O Connell because before he was mucking about, that legislation was in place and there was years of opportunity to put you in jail for your association with the Friends of Palestine, which is what Stanley Kesyer said at trial was not anti Jewish. Therefore, if you continue to associate with them and push pamphlets that bring up the same issues LIKE THEM, then you will have nothing to worry about based on what Keyser has stated in court about THOSE KINDS of protests.

Now as for changing your tune to saying you will not confront Lieblich because Kerr told you to, to now saying you won't do it because you will end up in jail, it makes me wonder if you're just bullshitting again to excuse your inaction that Kerr rightly busted you on. Now you've found a new excuse. Nice try, but I'm not forgetting your old one. Busted. Secondly, since you claim Judaism is not the problem, but rather a political movement is, then if you make THAT the issue if you confront him, then you will be safe again. Nobody can claim you are attacking his religion. YOU YOURSELF SAID THE RELIGION OF JUDAISM IS NOT THE PROBLEM LIKE ZIONISM IS. Those are you words and you would be able to defend yourself with those in court, so I don't see why you have to make like you will go to jail if you confront Lieblich when you clearly won't. Second of all, I don't know if you know this, but O Connell and Kerr made it known to me that there is a subsection on that whole racial vilification act which provides a legal excuse. If you thought what you were doing was in the public good and in good conscience and were not actually calling for any type of genocide. I'll dig up that reference to prove I'm right and that your paranoia (which to me is faked since you're changing excuses now of why you won't confront Lieblich) is unwarranted.

Edit:

I'd say that exposing the pentration of foreign intelligence agents into Australia and messing about with the security systems, when Verint has its dirty hands on 9-11, is in the public interest. So as I said before, nice try. It seems you have no more excuses left.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

I anticipated precisely this. You're predictable by virtue of the fact that you can be counted on to take the cheapest, most disingenuous position available to you at any given time.






Let's go back and look at what I wrote.



Very clearly, I have used myself as an example for the purposes of constructing a hypothetical scenario in order to illustrate a point. I could have outlined the same scenario by replacing "I" with "one of O'Connell's Perth supporters", or any other West Australian, for that matter.

My reasons for not accepting Kerr's "challenge" remain the same. I have not been "busted". Do I think I (or any other West Australian) would be risking a prison sentence by confronting Lieblich on camera and posting it to YouTube? Yes. But that has nothing to do with my decision to tell Kerr to shove it up his arse.

I'm not sure if you're so stupid that you need everything to be spelled out for you, or if you're doing this on purpose. As I wrote previously, it's unlikely that you're this dumb. Therefore, I can only conclude that you're deliberately engaging in sophistry for the purposes of confusing whoever may be reading this thread. In other words Drew, I believe you're a bullshit artist.

Kerr needs to send someone else here to take me on, because you've lost all credibility. I've consistently ripped you to shreds -- consider yourself "nuked".

I won't be responding to you again.

_________________
http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/

http://crimes-of-zion.blogspot.com/

Of course you did. Because you know that I know you're bullshitting.


Wrong. For reasons already stated, that you ignore just so you can simply repeat what you said last time instead of finding out any actual logical or legal problems with what I bothered to state and quote for you out of Australian law. I constructed a better hypothetical situation with a lot of qualifiers and caveats that would save your ass from jail and you are pretending it doesn't exist.


Excuse me while I continue to refuse to believe you since you only bothered to state that your fear of prison was only just recently since you have had AMPLE TIME since the challenge was issued quite a few days ago. It's a little too convenient for me to think you have not just been backed into a corner and are resorting to changing your tune. Coward.


1. How many times have I heard that before.
2. How lucky you can duck out now without bothering to prove your often repeated assertion that you would risk jail for accepting Kerr's challenge, without bothering to explain why my last post was wrong in any aspect of the new hypothetical I constructed which would save your ass. Nice how you don't actually have to attack my post directly in order to back up your claim that you would actually end up in jail. How nice you don't actually have to argue for your position. As for claiming you were always afraid of jail instead of merely whipping out this claim now because I HAVE gotten you cornered, I will let the reader decide if you refused to accept Kerr's challenge when he first issued it because you were afraid of jail. Let's see your own words.


Noting in there about being afraid of jail. Like I said, you were busted on your double standards and cowardice and so you switched tactics. And then you were busted on that. Sounds like you're the one who was just nuked! The fact that you're whining about jail while Brendon was never afraid of it, really shows you up. Oh that's right, you claim O Connell staged his conviction and wanted it. But you and Poseidon based that on his ANTAGONIZATION of the judge when he brought up jurisdiction and constitutional issues. But that devles into the British-Roman maritime law conspiracy which you two ignorami aren't fit to comment on.

Oh wait I can see it now. You'll say, but Drew didn't you quote me saying at other times that Brendon's charge would get other activists put in jail. That is true. But you were saying that long before the Lieblich challenge was issued to you by Kerr. So in other words, you were saying that your Pro Palestinian activism would get you in trouble. I shot that to shit of course. However, if that wouldn't stop you from pro palestinian activism, AND YOU NEVER STATED YOUR INTENTION TO STOP THAT, then why claim that jail would scare you out of confronting Lieblich? You can be logical and claim jail will scare you out of both or none. You can't just pick one or the other for that is illogical since according to your own previous statements, Brendon's past could get you in trouble for BOTH. And yet only jail scares you for one, the Lieblich thing. THE BIGGER FISH I have been talking about that you have refused to publicly nuke whether it be in person or at least with DVD's you put out on the side of the calibre I have already talked about.

Clearly you have double standards. And someone with double standards and weak excuses is going to be exposed. DEAL WITH IT YOU TWO FACED COWARD!

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

Two great posts there Drew. You tore Linton a new arsehole.

Consider yourself blessed that the chicken of Zion won't be responding to you again. This means that you won't have to waste any more of your time debunking the piffle that he posts over here.

I've used your posts over on the Brendon O'Connell blog.....

James "Infensus Mentis" Linton: Chicken Of Zion

Kerr, that's an embarrassingly weak little piece. I like the the Photoshop job you did on that image, though.



ROTFLOL. We're about to see that I still only have one arsehole, but evidently Drew J's posts are better than anything Kerr can come up with. Since Kerr's new 'article' at the O'Connell blog uses Drew J's sophistic drivel to give it a spine (Kerr doesn't seem to have one), I'll post my response to Drew's pissweak "arguments". I don't have the time right now to deal directly with Kerr.



Have you calmed down yet, Drew? It looks like you may have been a bit upset when you wrote that. We'll get to the "double standards" and "weak excuses" in a minute, but for now let's just settle down and look at this rationally. Unraveling your convoluted ranting and raving will take some doing, but we'll get there.

Let's take a second to review the situation and look at how we got here. O'Connell spectacularly lost his court case and was sent to prison after being convicted on a number of charges. Basically, he was imprisoned for calling a whiny little Jewish kid a "racist, homicidal maniac". As I've written already, it doesn't take a genius to predict the effect that will have on Australian anti-Zionism (and "anti-Judaic activism"). It's basic human psychology and a very simple case of cause and effect: One goes to prison for calling a Jew names, and others, reluctant to face the same charges and risk a prison sentence, are scared into silence. Some, obviously not all. The logic behind this is unassailable and the truth of it self-evident, regardless of Drew J's disingenuous, alchemical attempts to spin it otherwise. So that's that.

On Feb 10, 2011, Kerr issues an "open challenge" to Steve Johnson, suggesting that he "go after the big fish" (a phrase that Drew J. has co-opted like a fawning little fanboy and repeated ad nauseum on this forum) and call Steve Lieblich:



Later in the same article, he implies that it should be an impromptu visit with a video camera rather than a simple phone call, something Johnson (and the rest of the world) is not in the habit of doing:



Now this was quite a statement to make, coming from someone who has done nothing, nil, nada, nol (I'm learning Indonesian at the moment) for the anti-Zionist movement in terms of real life activism. So I wrote a comment for the article, suggesting that fair and equal terms be set on Kerr's "challenge" to Johnson. I suggested, without writing or talking to Johnson, that perhaps Johnson would take up Kerr's "challenge" if Kerr would commit himself to something of equal (or even lesser) effort. Something, anything, whatever. Just something. I thought that was fair enough, don't you?

But since Kerr's idea of 'proving oneself' seemed to be confronting people on camera as O'Connell had done with whiny little Jewish "enemy" Stanley Keyser ("Brendon O'Connell wasn't afraid to get in the enemy's face with his camera. He didn't hide behind a telephone like you do. Brendon has proven himself. You haven't."), I intimated that perhaps Kerr himself should pick up a camera and hassle a Jew or two:



And he won't, of course. But it's worth pausing here for a moment to reflect on Kerr's idea of heroism. Let's take a minute to recall what O'Connell did to "prove himself" in Kerr's eyes. Well, he got into an argument with little yid-kid Keyser and posted it to YouTube. Okay, I don't see much bravery in that, but that's not all he did. He put out the video "Israel did 9/11 - some street activism for you" in which he walks up to a couple of people on the street and misquotes Dr. Alan Sabrosky by telling them that Sabrosky "wants Israel wiped off the map". By the end of it he has achieved not a single thing. No one in the video is impressed, inspired, or left better educated by his "street activism". In fact, they've been fed a line of bullshit about Sabrosky, reminiscent of the Western media's anti-Ahmadinejad propaganda, which is clearly doing more harm than good. Anyone who has seen the video knows as well as I do that it's not "activism"; it's just walking around aimlessly like a bored idiot and approaching people with absolutely no intention of actually connecting with them or communicating with them. Their reactions and facial expressions tell you all you need to know about the efficacy of O'Connell's "activism". But according to Kerr, this is how O'Connell "proved himself".

On Feb 12, 2011 -- 2 days after the publication of the "open challenge" to Steve Johnson -- two things happened. My comment on the Steve Johnson article was published by Kerr, and a new, disinformational "open challenge" was issued, this time to me. So Kerr had seen the comment I'd submitted on Feb 10 but delayed its publication until he'd responded to it with an entire, inane 'article'. He would later do exactly the same thing with the comments I submitted to that article, by holding off on publishing them until he'd written and posted his ridiculous "Response To James "Infensus Mentis"/"Crimes Of Zion" Linton" piece. Obviously he didn't want people reading them until he had plastered the front page of the O'Connell blog with his misleading, disinformational response. That is, of course, his right, but it's pussy-shit if you ask me.

So now that I'd piped up with a comment suggesting that Kerr be willing to engage in the same kind of 'activism' that he'd challenged Johnson with (or any activism at all), it was my turn to be "challenged" by Kerr the inactivist. His "open challenge" to myself was not as ambiguous as the one he'd put to Johnson. This time there was no mention of a phone call; he was clearly asking for a video-taped interview:



Not taking Kerr's laughable "challenge" seriously (I still don't), I responded the next day (Feb 13) with a comment pointing out his idiocy (more likely, it turns out, a deliberate attempt to mislead), which as I said, wasn't published there until 8 days later when he posted his response to it on the O'Connell blog on Feb 21.

I responded to that article the next day with this one (first published here on Feb 22) wherein I told him to shove his "challenge" up his arse, and I've been accused by you of being a "COWARD" ever since. So now that we're pretty much up-to-date, let's now look at that charge, because you've been raving on about it incessantly.







First of all, who are you to call me a coward? What have you done for the anti-Zionist cause, Drew J? I want this question answered in your next post. Don't get back to me without it. Are you a member of any local activist groups? Are you an activist in any way, shape or form, outside of posting to this forum? Do you distribute DVDs or help organise film screenings? Do you organise or even take part in events designed to raise awareness of that which matters to you? Have you put yourself and your home on video and posted it to YouTube? As far as I'm aware, you haven't released a single photo of yourself. What are you afraid of? Are you fat, skinny, ugly, pimply, what? Show yourself. Let's see you, Mr. Braveheart.

I've done all of the above and plenty more. So again, who the fuck are you to be calling me a coward? Like most people, you've never confronted anyone with a video camera but when I ignore this arbitrary "challenge" you call me "TWO FACED" and a "coward". You're the coward, Drew J. It's you that presents us with two faces, not me. One is the invisible, hidden face of someone who does nothing in the way of real life activism, and the other is the very loud, mouthy face of someone who calls others "COWARDS" as if he does.

I refer to myself as an activist in the Jim Kerr 'Nuked' piece because I am one. I'm not a hero, a "messiah" or a "saviour", but I fit the profile of an activist quite neatly and sufficiently. I don't brag about it out of context or try to exaggerate what I do. I could always do more, and to be perfectly honest, I'm not happy with what I've achieved. I won't be happy until I see real change, which is the main reason I keep doing this shit. But at least I'm trying, I really am, and I've spent good money in the process. Have you? Are you trying? How, what have you done? What are you doing and how much have you spent? Since you're calling me a coward in caps and punctuating it with exclamation marks, I think I deserve the answer to that question.

Another good question is, why on Earth should I do what Kerr "challenges" me to? When one of the biggest dickheads you know tells you to do something, chances are you're not going to do it. But you've proffered several other reasons why I should accept this "challenge" in your posts on this forum. One is that I'm the "ablest" and "the best man for the job". Another is that I'm the closest (God forbid one of O'Connell's friends actually drive to Mount Lawley or take a short bus trip from another suburb). But the main argument you've made repeatedly here is that I should want to "prove" you wrong.



Here's something that will no doubt come as quite a shock to you, Drew. I don't give a shit what you think. I've already made it pretty clear that I don't have much respect for you, and when I went a bit overboard with the nastiness earlier on you even admitted you were a nobody.



And since I have about as much respect for Kerr as I do for you, I don't care what he thinks either. I just don't give-a-shit.

None of O'Connell's Perth supporters have confronted Lieblich with a camera, and let's face it: none of them ever will. Why don't they hassle people with cameras? Because it's not their thing. It's not what they do. It's not Mark Glenn's thing, either. It's not Mike Piper's thing, or Daryl Smith's thing. It's not Kerr's thing, and evidently it's not your thing, Drew. It's not my thing either. Does that make any of us, any of the above people, "cowards"? No. It just simply means that fucking around with video cameras isn't our style, it's not what we do. I don't even own a video camera for fuck's sake, do you? I've never owned one.

Not long ago, this is what you wrote:



So what you're basically saying is that anyone who doesn't "expose" Lieblich on camera is a "coward". Right? I'm going by your words here, not mine. Do you know all of O'Connell's Perth supporters, Drew? Apparently there were a dozen of them in court with him. I know one of them, actually (I'll leave Kerr to try and figure out which one). According to your logic, Drew, since none of them have taken up the "challenge" and in all likelihood never will, they're all cowards. Does that really make sense to you? I didn't think so.



I guess you're right, Drew: You can prove a negative. I just proved with logic alone that I'm not a "coward" for not "exposing" Steve Lieblich with a video camera, as you so hypocritically, stupidly claim. I can't prove that I don't have a cat sitting on my arm right now, though. I could be up to my elbow in pussy right now and I'd be helpless to prove otherwise.

So you can call me a "COWARD" as much as you like, Drew, but it's been blown to bits. It simply doesn't make any sense. It's meaningless, and in any event, I couldn't care less. Being called a coward by someone sitting behind a computer doing fuck all for the world outside of posting to forums doesn't pack much punch for me. I'd like to see you say it to my face, though. That'd be interesting. But you know you'll never have to do that, don't you. So does the limp-ankled foot-waggler.

Now to the claim that I've "changed [my] tune":





I've already explained above that there has been so such 'change of tune' and even in the absence of that explanation it's clear to readers of this thread that there hasn't been one, but you continue to seize on my hypothetical as a means to push the angle that I'm "afraid" of ending up in prison:









There's "Noting [sic] in there about being afraid of jail" because not once since Kerr issued his silly "challenge" have I considered taking him up on it. Now here's a challenge for you, Drew J: Show me where I "claimed" I was "always afraid of jail".







It's been written that you're an administrator on this forum. Are you? At the very least, you're a long-time contributor. You joined in 2007, only a few months before I did, but your posts make up 1.39% of all the entries ever submitted to this forum -- an average of 1.1 posts per day, or 1676 posts. That's a lot of experience. Surely as an avid poster and debater you're aware of the rules, unwritten as some of them may be. You don't misquote people, or attribute "claims" to those who have not made them. So why have you done so? Are you stupid, or are you deliberately trying to mislead readers? Don't get back to me without answering this question, Drew.



There you go again, putting words in my mouth. You're a bullshit artist, Drew. You can't respond to my arguments without pushing bullshit. And now you're fantasizing about having "shot to shit" arguments that I never made.

The notion that pro-Palestinian activism will get one sent to prison is ridiculous. I've never made that claim, and unless you're totally fucked in the head, you know I haven't. This is all part of your agenda to mislead casual, unwary readers into believing that I'm "afraid" of going to jail. Part of what I do is simple Palestine solidarity activism, and I'll continue to do it without fear of a prison sentence. Some of my other activities in the field of anti-Zionism go further than simple pro-Palestinian activism, and I will carry on with that too, without fear of going to jail. The only point I've made that has anything to do with fear and/or prison is that the O'Connell case will scare some people into silence with regard to Judaism and its inherent racism and bigotry. In one case, I used myself as an example for a hypothetical, which Drew has seized upon to push his misleading, disinformational bullshit about me "changing [my] tune". Dickhead.

Now let's look at my alleged "double standards".





It should be clear by now how Drew J. operates. He sets up strawmen by falsely claiming that I've made certain statements and adopted certain positions, so that he can then proceed to knock them down. This is his art, the art of bullshit and disinformation. As a not-so-skillful bullshit artist, he makes for a perfect friend and ally of Jim Kerr, who operates in much the same way. So too does Drew J's hero, Brendon "I Was Poisoned By Jews" O'Connell.

Drew claims that I have "double standards", based on non-existent claims ostensibly made my myself. I've already made it clear that Perth Palestine solidarity activists have nothing to fear as far as prison goes, provided they don't break the law. They never have and hopefully they never will. I don't fear a prison sentence for being a pro-Palestinian activist, so that's one "standard" dealt with. The other "standard" (presumably) is my alleged fear of confronting Steve Lieblich with a video camera. Since I've never considered doing that, I have no fear of it. What I have stated on this forum is my belief that a person would be risking charges (and therefore a prison sentence) if they were to confront Lieblich on camera. But of course, there are ways one could go about it that would preclude any risk of charges being laid. For example, if you rocked up to Lieblich's offices screaming at the top of your lungs like O'Connell does when he visits my place (or if you behaved in the same way that O'Connell did with Keyser), you'd be risking charges. But if you walked in and politely asked for an interview, there would be no such risk. In the alternate reality wherein I would actually take Kerr's "challenge" seriously and confront Lieblich on camera, I would choose the latter approach or something similar, so I would have nothing to fear regarding racial vilification charges and a prison sentence. So that deals with "standard" number two, set out ambiguously by Drew J. in the post above. It also deals with this needless, pointless crap:



There were never any "double standards" to begin with. Not much of what you write makes any sense, Drew. It's all based on and constructed out of bullshit -- logical fallacies, made up statements, strawmen, sophistry, and general good old fashioned nonsense. Look at the lengths I've had to go to in order to unravel it and make sense of it all. And you wonder why I can't be bothered responding to you.

Now to the "weak excuses" claim.



Here's another challenge for you, Drew. Show me where I've made "excuses" for not confronting Lieblich with a video camera. You'll have a hard time because I haven't made any. You can try using this:



And of course, you will. But it's not gonna fly, not for me and not for other readers. That’s not an “excuse”, it's a hypothetical scenario illustrating a point. I don't need an "excuse" not to confront Lieblich with a video camera anymore than anyone else does. I've told Kerr to shove it up his arse and that's that. Full stop, end of story. Now I'm going to tell you to shove it up your arse, too. Shove it up your arse, Drew.



So now you're telling me I'm wrong about what I think. You're a mind-reader now. No, you're a dickhead now, at least that's what my spider senses are telling me about how you're feeling at the moment.



Only once, Drew. I've written stuff like this --









-- but that's the first and only time you've heard me say that I'll no longer be responding to your idiocy-slash-sophistry. Now I've changed my mind. Whenever I have the time, and as long as you continue to dribble shit, I'll continue to tear it apart and put it neatly back together again, into something that actually makes sense.

Please don't forget what I've asked of you, Drew. It's all there, just scroll up. And Jim "The Inactivist" Kerr: don't forget to get back to me about my offer. I'd jump at the chance if I were you.

_________________
http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/

http://crimes-of-zion.blogspot.com/