Remember the no spam rule

We all have our favorite topics but don't take over multiple threads, every day, talking about, I don't know, say, Jews, Israel, the Holocaust, bagels, etc.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:We all have our favorite topics but don't take over multiple threads, every day, talking about, I don't know, say, Jews, Israel, the Holocaust, bagels, etc.

That is not spamming but threads diverging

Though I will continually report any thread that has Quill mention institutional racism and that America to him is a racist country

Fairs fair right?

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:We all have our favorite topics but don't take over multiple threads, every day, talking about, I don't know, say, Jews, Israel, the Holocaust, bagels, etc.

Just to second the sentiment...or Muslims, (alleged) crime by middle eastern gangs, or people of color.

TY.

Oh and for the recoerd, only the Burka thread diverged to talking about Israel and the holocaust

Topics posted about Corbyn and the problem of antisemitism, are thus not spamming.

Neither is talking about the problem of left wing extremist antisemitism on a threadt about left and right extremism

Hey ho, as usual things get blown out of proportion, as there is countless active threads that have not diverged what so ever.

I disagree. There are a few threads lately, and prior to that, that have gone that way.

The forum runs better when we at least try to keep the thread on topic.

eddie wrote:I disagree. There are a few threads lately, and prior to that, that have gone that way.

The forum runs better when we at least try to keep the thread on topic.

Present your evidence

I just checked and its one thread of recent late

There is actual threads on the problem of Corbyn and antisemitism, but that is bsically daily news

Unless you some how want to do as the BBC and down play this

This is no more than some pathetic dig.

If Ben had an issue he could have pulled up where other threads have constantly diverged as they often do onto different things

It’s not a “dig” it’s a fact.
Other posters have said it on the threads where it happens.
And it happens a lot.

Last comment.

eddie wrote:It’s not a “dig” it’s a fact.
Other posters have said it on the threads where it happens.
And it happens a lot.

Last comment.

So no evidence then

Yes andy and wolf have been making such a claim today, when as seen, they have exagerrated this and you bought this

Hey ho

When in reality its these two idiots trying to shut down debate

Just look at your thread on politics you started

Did they actually debate any of the points or actually make these stupid claims and attack posters?

Here is my evidence on Andy and wolf, being the ones themselves bringing this up and not actually debating the topic

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t24942-why-some-things-in-politics-are-less-scary-than-others#473082

I kept the debate on track, they tried to diverge it

You blithering dork.
In what way is posting 4 out of 5 posts engaging in debate? It's just a posting monologue from you.
And as I and Wolfie said, and seemingly reiterated by both Ben and Eddie, folk are sick to the back teeth of your obsessive smearing and hatred of nut 1 politician, when ther are plenty to choose from, and your diversions of threads into YOUR favouritee subjects..
And I had a cracking round of golf. Shot an 86. 4 under par on my 18 handicap and 38 Stapleford points.

eddie wrote:I disagree. There are a few threads lately, and prior to that, that have gone that way.

The forum runs better when we at least try to keep the thread on topic.

if a thread diverges why dont the administrators just hive it off into a separate thread, it's not hard to do and takes little time. And as an added bonus you get to choose the thread title. Or do you just prefer to shut down threads?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

eddie wrote:I disagree. There are a few threads lately, and prior to that, that have gone that way.

The forum runs better when we at least try to keep the thread on topic.

if a thread diverges why dont the administrators just hive it off into a separate thread, it's not hard to do and takes little time. And as an added bonus you get to choose the thread title. Or do you just prefer to shut down threads?

It’s not about threads diverging off necessarily, it’s about them being about the same topic.
And it isn’t hard to stick to a topic really, you manage it okay.

Good to see you back. Hope you’ve been well.

If you find that a thread leaves you with something you really want to talk about but it's not on topic, it's best to just start a new thread.

eddie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
if a thread diverges why dont the administrators just hive it off into a separate thread, it's not hard to do and takes little time. And as an added bonus you get to choose the thread title. Or do you just prefer to shut down threads?

It’s not about threads diverging off necessarily, it’s about them being about the same topic.
And it isn’t hard to stick to a topic really, you manage it okay.

Good to see you back. Hope you’ve been well.

the same thing applies, if they diverge onto the same topics, merge the posts that have wandered off.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:If you find that a thread leaves you with something you really want to talk about but it's not on topic, it's best to just start a new thread.

but conversations often wander off at tangents.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:If you find that a thread leaves you with something you really want to talk about but it's not on topic, it's best to just start a new thread.

but conversations often wander off at tangents.

Hi Dean.  Pleasure to see you back.

I think you are making an excellent point.  I've not seen this as a problem in any other site.  They just, as you say, 'hive' it off and go onward...maybe they say something about what they are doing so you're forwarned, but it's quite common.  No arguments about censorship.  Nobody loses anything.

Vic ran a site, and he's familiar with the practice.

"One man's meat is another man's poison.."

And what Didge calls "diverging" those threads just happens to appear to nearly everyone else on here to be Didge derailing yet another topic, by c&p'ing, flooding and spamming yet more of his Zionist and corporatist propaganda puff pieces.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"One man's meat is another man's poison.."

And what Didge calls "diverging" those threads just happens to appear to nearly everyone else on here to be Didge derailing yet another topic, by c&p'ing, flooding and spamming yet more of his Zionist and corporatist propaganda puff pieces.

you are an antisemite.
Discuss

The Devil, You Know wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"One man's meat is another man's poison.."

And what Didge calls "diverging" those threads just happens to appear to nearly everyone else on here to be Didge derailing yet another topic, by c&p'ing, flooding and spamming yet more of his Zionist and corporatist propaganda puff pieces.

you are an antisemite.
Discuss

You are a liar and a troll...

Shove your lies back up where you dragged them from, sunshine..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
you are an antisemite.
Discuss

You are a liar and a troll...

Shove your lies back up where you dragged them from, sunshine..

I see, so eloquently put. You lie with the best of them

It doesn't bother me if a thread I start goes off topic, if someone else starts a thread and wants it to remain fixedly on that subject without meandering off up the road they have the right to ask for people to get back on topic.

If threads constantly get changed so they end up discussing someones favourite subject, be it Trump, Brexit. Jews, Palestinians etc....yeah, thats irritating and boring.

Syl wrote:It doesn't bother me if a thread I start goes off topic, if someone else starts a thread and wants it to remain fixedly on that subject without meandering off up the road they have the right to ask for people to get back on topic.

If threads constantly get changed so they end up discussing someones favourite subject, be it Trump, Brexit. Jews, Palestinians etc....yeah, thats irritating and boring.

Yes that’s then point. It’s becoming tedious when every thread turns into the same topics....Jews, Trump, Muslims, The War....

Syl wrote:It doesn't bother me if a thread I start goes off topic, if someone else starts a thread and wants it to remain fixedly on that subject without meandering off up the road they have the right to ask for people to get back on topic.

If threads constantly get changed so they end up discussing someones favourite subject, be it Trump, Brexit. Jews, Palestinians etc....yeah, thats irritating and boring.

I agree.  Who knows where a topic may lead?  To build fences to any thread is to exercise a form of censorship.  Whose interests are served?  The reality is that someone is trying to shut someone up; it certainly is not encouraging discussion.

Moreover, no such poster is stopping another poster from going on with the original subject.  Lots of threads have that kind of cross-talk, and no one is the worse for it.  I've seen threads with even three conversations going on.

Why initiate any program that keeps people from communicating?  It smells of authoritarianism...I mean, prohibiting people from talking???

You know what stops people from talking Quill?

When a topic that is interesting becomes yet another cock fight about Jews, again! or Muslims, again! when all you wanted to discuss was something utterly different.

Nobody is telling you what to say, you can see that by reading through this thread, but perhaps you didn’t read it properly?

eddie wrote:You know what stops people from talking Quill?

When a topic that is interesting becomes yet another cock fight about Jews, again! or Muslims, again! when all you wanted to discuss was something utterly different.

I don't see anything about that which is preventing people from going on with their discussion.  If you want to be strict about it, there's the OP and any subsequent post is changing the subject.  I mean, if you're going to stick to the original topic, anything is straying from the subject.

eddie wrote:Nobody is telling you what to say, you can see that by reading through this thread, but perhaps you didn’t read it properly?

Censorship is a two-way street.  There is telling someone what to say, and there is telling someone what not to say.  Seems to me you are telling posters what not to say.

Jews, Trump, Muslims and War are the top subjects in the Media !
I'd rather talk about Cat's or Women !

nicko wrote:Jews, Trump, Muslims and War are the top subjects in the Media !
                  I'd rather talk about Cat's or Women !

Or even both together.

nicko wrote:Jews, Trump, Muslims and War are the top subjects in the Media !

So, no surprise they are hot topics on here.  The commercial media is one way; here, people get to express themselves on such topics.

nicko wrote:I'd rather talk about Cat's or Women !

Absolutely, there's plenty of room for all subjects, whether within a thread, or on a separate thread.  I particularly luv your Cat's thread down below, nicko.

eddie wrote:You know what stops people from talking Quill?

When a topic that is interesting becomes yet another cock fight about Jews, again! or Muslims, again! when all you wanted to discuss was something utterly different.

Nobody is telling you what to say, you can see that by reading through this thread, but perhaps you didn’t read it properly?

Oh for goodness sake

If a thread diverges to a new topic and it matters to you the original, then split the topic into two threads.

At least people are still engaging on that same thread.

Where in fact you are now trying to shut that down

You may not like that it happens, but how pathetic are you being here?

Seriously

It maybe because the two people engaged in the new direction of the debate, feels that it matters and want to debate this. No matter if you have zero interest

Stop being so pendantic

The Devil, You Know wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You are a liar and a troll...

Shove your lies back up where you dragged them from, sunshine..

I see, so eloquently put. You lie with the best of them

You really are full of shit, Deano --  as always...

You call me an  "antisemite"  ???

With zero evidence, but merely to stir up trouble..

1.   Where have I made a direct insult against Judaism  ?
2.    Where have I abused or insulted a Jewish person on the basis of their religion ?

I see people on here often abusing and insulting some people on the basis of their particular religion or ethnicity (some of your chorts and floowers especially, DYKnose..), but I don't see you worrying about them..

You yourself often target people on the colour of their skin alone;  yet you still fail to back up your racist and bigotted guff...      

So the above shows why people really do not understand anti-semitism

Its fine to be critical of Judaism. That is not Anti-Semitism

Its also fine to be critical of people for the beliefs that they follow. That is not Anti-Semitism

You have done this many times, by attacking Jews who are Zionists, whether they are religious Jews or ethnic Jews

You attack Jews for believing in nothing more than self determination for the Jewish people in Historical Israel. Which is what Zionism is.

The vast majority of Jews are Zionists

So to say you do not attack Jews, is emphatically a lie

Jews are also an ethnic people, where some are religious Jews and others are simple ethnically Jewish

Now you have every right to be critical of Zionism, even though, you have no rational reason to do so

Anti-semitism is hostility to or prejudice against Jews.

I do not accept the majority of Jews are Zionist (PROVE IT!!!) 
And if they are then it is Fine to be against majority of Jews(any that are Zionist) because it is Fine to be against Zionism.  

the truth is i have barely seen Jews as Zionist as Didge.

There is every rational reason to dispute a group that makes claim to the ownership of land based on a Magic fucking skygiant telling their ancestors some 80 to 100 generations ago it was theirs.. their is no LOGICAL or reasonable non-discriminatory reason to NOT be extremely critical of Zionism as it is literally every thing that SECULARISM is against. You cannot accept the principals of Zionism and secularism since they are contradictory.  

Didge Also SHOWS why we need the no spam Rule, because we have poster than Keeps Spamming lies to suit his racist propaganda, demonstrate his Hypocrisy and lack logical comprehension.

Didge wrote:So the above shows why people really do not understand anti-semitism

Its fine to be critical of Judaism. That is not Anti-Semitism

Its also fine to be critical of people for the beliefs that they follow. That is not Anti-Semitism

You have done this many times, by attacking Jews who are Zionists, whether they are religious Jews or ethnic Jews

You attack Jews for believing in nothing more than self determination for the Jewish people in Historical Israel. Which is what Zionism is.

The vast majority of Jews are Zionists

So to say you do not attack Jews, is emphatically a lie

Jews are also an ethnic people, where some are religious Jews and others are simple ethnically Jewish

Now you have every right to be critical of Zionism, even though, you have no rational reason to do so

Anti-semitism is hostility to or prejudice against Jews.

Here is one of the core problems that we see with Dodge's usual rants on here...

Making up his own fucking and outlandish bigoted, biased, and often racist bullshit definitions to back his frequent Zionist propaganda spamming..

The uneducated dolt is often seen to be using his own lying personal fake "definitions" to falsely accuse me, Ben, veya, Quill and others of being anti-semitic or racist or even "communists".

While at the same time, Dodge uses his own fake "definitions" to excuse racist or fascist outbursts by certain other posters on here, or his own bigotted spamming efforts..

veya_victaous wrote:I do not accept the majority of Jews are Zionist (PROVE IT!!!) 
And if they are then it is Fine to be against majority of Jews(any that are Zionist) because it is Fine to be against Zionism.  

the truth is i have barely seen Jews as Zionist as Didge.

There is every rational reason to dispute a group that makes claim to the ownership of land based on a Magic fucking skygiant telling their ancestors some 80 to 100 generations ago it was theirs.. their is no LOGICAL or reasonable non-discriminatory reason to NOT be extremely critical of Zionism as it is literally every thing that SECULARISM is against. You cannot accept the principals of Zionism and secularism since they are contradictory.  

Didge Also SHOWS why we need the no spam Rule, because we have poster than Keeps Spamming lies to suit his racist
propaganda, demonstrate his Hypocrisy and lack logical comprehension.

1) I have already proved this to you many times and what you believe on that is irrelevant

2) I am sure you do not, but that shows that you clearly do not know any

3) Its not based on a magic fucking sky giant, but the fact the very genesis of the Jews happened there

That makes them indegeneous



You then always end as you always do and proves why to me, its the hate we see more than comes from the left and not the right. They make suppercharged lies all the time

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:So the above shows why people really do not understand anti-semitism

Its fine to be critical of Judaism. That is not Anti-Semitism

Its also fine to be critical of people for the beliefs that they follow. That is not Anti-Semitism

You have done this many times, by attacking Jews who are Zionists, whether they are religious Jews or ethnic Jews

You attack Jews for believing in nothing more than self determination for the Jewish people in Historical Israel. Which is what Zionism is.

The vast majority of Jews are Zionists

So to say you do not attack Jews, is emphatically a lie

Jews are also an ethnic people, where some are religious Jews and others are simple ethnically Jewish

Now you have every right to be critical of Zionism, even though, you have no rational reason to do so

Anti-semitism is hostility to or prejudice against Jews.

Here is one of the core problems that we see with Dodge's usual rants on here...

Making up his own fucking and outlandish bigoted, biased, and often racist bullshit definitions to back his frequent Zionist propaganda spamming..

The uneducated dolt is often seen to be using his own lying personal fake "definitions" to falsely accuse me, Ben, veya, Quill and others of being anti-semitic or racist or even "communists".

While at the same time, Dodge uses his own fake "definitions" to excuse racist or fascist outbursts by certain other posters on here, or his own bigotted spamming efforts..

lol, so me pointing out facts and exposing you here, is some how a rant?

Come again

The definition is very clear on Zionism, the fact is you are anti-Zionist, which agains has no rational reason, when the Jews are indegeneous to Israel

If you are against Jews having self-determination, then you are against the very principle of self-determination for all people

D....ean is right, in that you hate many Jews

Zionist Jews, which is the vast majority of Jews

So continue to have your little hissy fits, to me, you are a complete anti-semite. Anyone who dies the jews the right to self determination, which is what Zionism basically is, then they are antisemitic

Suck it up buttercup

you have never proved anything at all.

Jews are not Indigenous to Israel, their OWN holy book tells of them coming from Egypt and Stealing the land from the Indigenous 
this is why you are a fucking Joke, DO you EVEN think ???? do you think people are so stupid they have never heard of Moses?


pretty fucking Stupid and Racist to even pretend to claim 'Indigenous' after 2 and a bit thousand years and the majority of that time NOT being there. that is Offensive to the real Indigenous peoples that have 10,000's of years unbroken connection to their lands. This is why Zionism Needs to be Fought against as it is just Lies and deceit to cause injury to those that REALLY deserve compassion.  


AND genesis of What? A group that defines them selves as begin Chosen by a magic fucking sky giant there is NOTHING ZERO else that differentiates them from any one else... SO Even the concept of Jew 100% comes down to make believe fairytale BULLSHIT....

lol, so now he uses the bible and based on the Israelites

Not the actual Jews, where they had their genesis in the land of Israel

This is backed by historical evidence

There is no history of the Jews being in Eygpt, before the creation of Isreal

You see how the left lie badly

The only poster on this forum, so badly lies all the time and has proven they are antisemitic is you

That is a fact

The Jews as seen are indegeneous, as they had their genesis in the land of Israel. Its where their culture, language, religion and identity were formed

That makes them indegeneous

laters dummy

Given the point of this thread...it's funny how it's ended up.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You are a liar and a troll...

Shove your lies back up where you dragged them from, sunshine..

I see, so eloquently put. You lie with the best of them

You really are full of shit, Deano --  as always...

You call me an  "antisemite"  ???

With zero evidence, but merely to stir up trouble..

1.   Where have I made a direct insult against Judaism  ?
2.    Where have I abused or insulted a Jewish person on the basis of their religion ?

I see people on here often abusing and insulting some people on the basis of their particular religion or ethnicity (some of your chorts and floowers especially, DYKnose..),  but I don't see you worrying about them..

You yourself often target people on the colour of their skin alone;  yet you still fail to back up your racist and bigotted guff...      

Perhaps now that you have been called names that you feel are grossly unfair, you’ll shut your own flapping lips when you feel the need to attack posters on here - calling them unfair names - simply for disagreeing with you.

Right?

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You really are full of shit, Deano --  as always...

You call me an  "antisemite"  ???

With zero evidence, but merely to stir up trouble..

1.   Where have I made a direct insult against Judaism  ?
2.    Where have I abused or insulted a Jewish person on the basis of their religion ?

I see people on here often abusing and insulting some people on the basis of their particular religion or ethnicity (some of your chorts and floowers especially, DYKnose..),  but I don't see you worrying about them..

You yourself often target people on the colour of their skin alone;  yet you still fail to back up your racist and bigotted guff...      

Perhaps now that you have been called names that you feel are grossly unfair, you’ll shut your own flapping lips when you feel the need to attack posters on here - calling them unfair names - simply for disagreeing with you.

Right?

"Comparing apples with oranges"...

There is nothing "unfair" about me calling certain people out over racist/xenophobic/colonialist bullshit, or when they slander me or my heritage..

When have I unfairly attacked posters on here, anyway -- they were insulting me, knowing quite well I would retaliate, on past experience. They only get what they asked for..

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You really are full of shit, Deano --  as always...

You call me an  "antisemite"  ???

With zero evidence, but merely to stir up trouble..

1.   Where have I made a direct insult against Judaism  ?
2.    Where have I abused or insulted a Jewish person on the basis of their religion ?

I see people on here often abusing and insulting some people on the basis of their particular religion or ethnicity (some of your chorts and floowers especially, DYKnose..),  but I don't see you worrying about them..

You yourself often target people on the colour of their skin alone;  yet you still fail to back up your racist and bigotted guff...      

Perhaps now that you have been called names that you feel are grossly unfair, you’ll shut your own flapping lips when you feel the need to attack posters on here - calling them unfair names - simply for disagreeing with you.

Right?

I would have given you a green for that but for the fact that someone beat me to it.

Personally, in the past, I have felt that being attacked by the wolf is a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep, as that great Labour parliamentarian Denis Healey once famously described a contretemps with Tory Chancellor Geoffrey Howe.

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You really are full of shit, Deano --  as always...

You call me an  "antisemite"  ???

With zero evidence, but merely to stir up trouble..

1.   Where have I made a direct insult against Judaism  ?
2.    Where have I abused or insulted a Jewish person on the basis of their religion ?

I see people on here often abusing and insulting some people on the basis of their particular religion or ethnicity (some of your chorts and floowers especially, DYKnose..),  but I don't see you worrying about them..

You yourself often target people on the colour of their skin alone;  yet you still fail to back up your racist and bigotted guff...      

Perhaps now that you have been called names that you feel are grossly unfair, you’ll shut your own flapping lips when you feel the need to attack posters on here - calling them unfair names - simply for disagreeing with you.

Right?

I have added another to the three this post already has.
I would add that he calls certain people names even when they haven't disagreed with him...out of the blue, totally unprovoked.
I would ask Wolfie why he does this, but I know he wont answer because he hits and runs.

It would be nice to have a civilized exchange with him and listen to his reasons for branding people as he does and why his opinion is so biased against some of us.....I am always open for settling disputes, but it takes two to be open minded.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You really are full of shit, Deano --  as always...

You call me an  "antisemite"  ???

With zero evidence, but merely to stir up trouble..

1.   Where have I made a direct insult against Judaism  ?
2.    Where have I abused or insulted a Jewish person on the basis of their religion ?

I see people on here often abusing and insulting some people on the basis of their particular religion or ethnicity (some of your chorts and floowers especially, DYKnose..),  but I don't see you worrying about them..

You yourself often target people on the colour of their skin alone;  yet you still fail to back up your racist and bigotted guff...      

Perhaps now that you have been called names that you feel are grossly unfair, you’ll shut your own flapping lips when you feel the need to attack posters on here - calling them unfair names - simply for disagreeing with you.

Right?

"Comparing apples with oranges"...

There is nothing "unfair" about me calling certain people out over racist/xenophobic/colonialist bullshit, or when they slander me or my heritage..

When have I unfairly attacked posters on here, anyway --  they were insulting me,  knowing quite well I would retaliate, on past experience.   They only get what they asked for..

No, I’m not comparing apples with oranges honey, it’s pointing it out when you meet your match, get called out over your hypocrisy of the way you speak to people and then your indignation when someone treats you exactly how you treat others.

That’s not apples and oranges, it’s more like sour grapes.

Didge wrote:lol, so now he uses the bible and based on the Israelites

Not the actual Jews, where they had their genesis in the land of Israel

I believe the Bible is an historical text.  It is recognized as a work of history, along with Herodotus' on the Persian Wars, and Thucydides on the Peloponnesian Wars.

The Bible, Torah, and Qu'ranare are collections of writings by many different people trying to put down things that they felt God was telling them - the oldest manuscripts date from anywhere from 1446 BC to 537 BC.  The earliest chapter of the Bible, Exodus, was written by Moses.

The so-called (because they were not a separate and distinct population at the time) Israelites, branched out of the indigenous Canaanite peoples that long inhabited the Southern Levant, Syria, ancient Israel, and the Transjordan region.  They became recognized as the twelve tribes of Israel through the development of a distinct monotheistic religion centered on Yahweh, one of the Ancient Canaanite deities.

Israel ("to prevail over") is the the renaming of Jacob, because according to the Bible, he had "striven with God and with men, and have prevailed".

It became the name of a population first in Egypt.  The name Israel first appears in non-biblical sources (c. 1209 BCE) in an inscription of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah. The inscription is very brief and says simply: "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not". The inscription refers to a population, not to an individual or a nation-state.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:lol, so now he uses the bible and based on the Israelites

Not the actual Jews, where they had their genesis in the land of Israel

I believe the Bible is an historical text.  It is recognized as a work of history, along with Herodotus' on the Persian Wars, and Thucydides on the Peloponnesian Wars.

The Bible, Torah, and Qu'ranare are collections of writings by many different people trying to put down things that they felt God was telling them - the oldest manuscripts date from anywhere from 1446 BC to 537 BC.  The earliest chapter of the Bible, Exodus, was written by Moses.

The so-called (because they were not a separate and distinct population at the time) Israelites, branched out of the indigenous Canaanite peoples that long inhabited the Southern Levant, Syria, ancient Israel, and the Transjordan region.  They became recognized as the twelve tribes of Israel through the development of a distinct monotheistic religion centered on Yahweh, one of the Ancient Canaanite deities.

Israel ("to prevail over") is the the renaming of Jacob, because according to the Bible, he had "striven with God and with men, and have prevailed".

It became the name of a population first in Egypt.  The name Israel first appears in non-biblical sources (c. 1209 BCE) in an inscription of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah. The inscription is very brief and says simply: "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not". The inscription refers to a population, not to an individual or a nation-state.

Is it recognised as a reliable work of history?

Even Hererdotus, is not seen as being that reliable also

You will not find any corroborating evidence of actually named Israeli's and the state of israel until the reign of Omri, as the King of israel. This comes from The Mesha Stele.

Actually the bible the Torah was not written down until the captivity in babylon. So to claim Moses wrote some of the works, has no bases in evidence. We know actually that there is also a number of authors within the Old Testament, as stories can and do conflict. The reality is the bible only starts to have historical evidence with the King Omri, though there is also evidence to the Tunnel that David used to Capture Jerusalem.  

What you are forgetting is that where the twelve tribes of Israel come from Canaan, according to the bible. Which again is not when the genesis of the Jews formed. This happened, during the split of the two kingdoms. One Isreal the other Judea, but that is when we see the real formation of the Jewish people. 10 tribes were ethnically cleansed by the Assyrians with enslavement. Here they formed, their culture, religion, language etc. Before this time, the Israelites were often worshiping a duel diety and were a confederation of tribes. We see many references to the practice of baal worship

So you are conflated the creation of israel to that of the genesis of the Jews

Two seperate issues here all together and as seen they derive back to Canaan anyway

So the Jews are indegeneous to the land of what was formely Judea, a large part of what is now modern Isreal

Didge wrote:What you are forgetting is that where the twelve tribes of Israel come from Canaan, according to the bible.

Yes, they came out of the mixed soup of Canannites. As I said: "They became recognized as the twelve tribes of Israel through the development of a distinct monotheistic religion centered on Yahweh, one of the Ancient Canaanite deities."

Apparently, that occurred in Egypt. The earliest mention of them was Egyptian.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:What you are forgetting is that where the twelve tribes of Israel come from Canaan, according to the bible.

Yes, they came out of the mixed soup of Canannites.  As I said: "They became recognized as the twelve tribes of Israel through the development of a distinct monotheistic religion centered on Yahweh, one of the Ancient Canaanite deities."

Apparently, that occurred in Egypt.  The earliest mention of them was Egyptian.

Mixed group?

Again we are talking about one tribe here. We have a mention of the isralites as a people. In Egypt, but as a nation, this first happens with the The Mesha Stela.

12 tribes and then not a united people. Even when united, it lasted ffor only the reign of two kings, according to the bible. We then see the state split into two states. One Israel, the other Judea. Where the name Jew derives from.

I mean the English peoples genesis was through the Anglo Saxons and we get the name English from the Angles. Its where the genesis of the English people formed.

The Scots originally came from Ireland, but their genesis as a people formed in Scotland

Again none of your views fails to counter the reality that Jews are indegeneous to the area

Its where their genesis formed.

The Arabs happened in the Arabian penisular

The Arabs are the colonialists here, through Arabization, when they conquered the Middle east

Didge wrote:Again we are talking about one tribe here. We have a mention of them as a people. 12 tribes and then not a united people. Even when united, it lasted ffor only the reighn of two kings, according to the bible. We then see the state split into two states. One Israel, the other Judea

It became the name of a population first in Egypt. The name Israel first appears in non-biblical sources (c. 1209 BCE) in an inscription of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah. The inscription is very brief and says simply: "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not".

The inscription refers to a group, not to an individual or a nation-state. It is a specific reference to the "seed" of Israel.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Again we are talking about one tribe here. We have a mention of them as a people. 12 tribes and then not a united people. Even when united, it lasted ffor only the reighn of two kings, according to the bible. We then see the state split into two states. One Israel, the other Judea

It became the name of a population first in Egypt.  The name Israel first appears in non-biblical sources (c. 1209 BCE) in an inscription of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah. The inscription is very brief and says simply: "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not".

The inscription refers to a group, not to an individual or a nation-state.  It is a specific reference to the "seed" of Israel.

You are again conflating two issues

The Israelites, of which one of those Tribes was called Judah and the fact these tribes all originate from Cannan

It became the name that the Eygptians reffered to this coalition of tribes

So you are clutching at straws, as we are not talking about the Isralites, but the genesis of the Jews. That formed later from the tribe of Judah. Within the Kingdom of Judea

veya_victaous wrote:you have never proved anything at all.

Jews are not Indigenous to Israel, their OWN holy book tells of them coming from Egypt and Stealing the land from the Indigenous 
this is why you are a fucking Joke, DO you EVEN think ???? do you think people are so stupid they have never heard of Moses?


pretty fucking Stupid and Racist to even pretend to claim 'Indigenous' after 2 and a bit thousand years and the majority of that time NOT being there. that is Offensive to the real Indigenous peoples that have 10,000's of years unbroken connection to their lands. This is why Zionism Needs to be Fought against as it is just Lies and deceit to cause injury to those that REALLY deserve compassion.  


AND genesis of What? A group that defines them selves as begin Chosen by a magic fucking sky giant there is NOTHING ZERO else that differentiates them from any one else... SO Even the concept of Jew 100% comes down to make believe fairytale BULLSHIT....

So you don't believe in a "magic fucking sky giant"...but untold millions of people, including me in my small way (being baptised into and educated by the Anglican church and now a very irregular Methodist communicant because I don't like robes, vestments and chalices), do so.

OK, WE can't prove that "God", in some form or another, exists. But can YOU prove that He (or SHE, or IT) doesn't?  

The short answer is that no, you can't...because the concept of a "Creator", which is central to most theocracies, might even refer to a chemical reaction or a pretty awesome manifestation of the laws of physics without which the Universe - and you and I - would not exist.

So the Jews are not "chosen"? But they have just as much claim to the Holy Land as have the Arabs if we are to use history as a precedent. Only a fool would believe, in a literal sense, some of the stories in the Books of Genesis (though in recent years some pretty convincing scientific "explanations" have been formulated as to how events such as the parting of the Red Sea, the burning bush on Mount Horeb, the plagues of Egypt, etc. could actually have occurred) but those events are contained in Jewish tribal folklore, handed down through the generations, which even given the embelishments of story tellers and inaccuracies of subsequent translations, could well have some credence.