Sue, I am aware that the Torah is only the first five books- I used the term “interchangeable” because of Ed’s previous reply where he said in response to my question about whether she was reading the Torah: “The books of Old Testament comprise the bulk of the Bible, so it’s quite possible.” He is the one that interchanged them and then accuses me of ignorance.

Ed, I’m not using anymore of Sue’s space. I’m sure you’ll want the last word, so I’ll let you have it. Suffice it to say you still haven’t answered why you think I would “Jew bait” unless I had an axe to grind against Jews.

We disagree on the interpretation of his article and we disagree that I was “Jew baiting”. The former is understandable, the latter inexcusable.

Have at it..

Narrator: And then there were my father and mother. Two people who could find an argument in any subject.
Father: Wait a minute. Are you telling me you think the Atlantic is a greater ocean than the Pacific?
Mother: No, have it your way. The Pacific is greater.
Narrator: I mean, how many people fight over oceans?

But I do love Joel’s photos.

“But it exhibits what you complained about, me thinks.”

Exactly. It’s a written record of exactly what I was decrying. Perhaps it’s a temporary veering from the course and hijacking commenters will change, evolve, go away and be replaced by others. Maybe we’ll get lucky and the new ones will be more conversational and less confrontational.

I guess, after all these comments, that it’s part of the process. I’m old enough to know that if I wait, hopefully, for change, it’ll come.

Also, Krugman did not say he was “concerned that [Paulose] was reading the Old Testament,” or any other part of the Bible; he cited a news report that said a US Attorney has “the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office.”

Quoting Bible verses in the office is different from “reading the Bible;” noting that Paulose is reported to quote Bible verses in a US Attorney’s office is what you labeled an “anti-Christian rant.”

I’ve explained a reason that you might have raised Krugman’s jewishness, and labeled his brief and straightforward citation of the news report on Paulose as “an anti-christian rant” — it’s an attempt to discredit him as a commentator on the conflation of religion and government, as is the repeated effort to pretend the whole thing is an attack on evangelical christianity and its adherents.

Finally, your biblical knowledge being now well established, perhaps it is your knowledge of evangelical practice that is lacking? The OT looms large in the scripture-quotation field: Today’s verse of the day at Pat Robertson’s site, to choose but the easiest example, is from the book of Psalms.

Whether you throw these things out from a position of ignornace, or as non sequiturs to distract and exhaust an interlocutor, I don’t claim to know.

I appreciate and agree with your initial sentiment and have read the whole thread. But it exhibits what you complained about, me thinks.

I jump in and out because of all this. People nice in person are nasty as hell, sarcastic, demeaning, and insulting in blogging. A lot of it I think is the medium itself. The reasons we are more courteous in person don’t exist so much in this writing thing. I know there have been times when I have been snide. I have tried to apologize. I do feel that despite some vocal and snappy conservatives that the cards are nevertheless stacked here against conservatives.

I don’t know how to make a contribution anymore. If I am not controversial nobody reads me. If I am I get dog piled and it takes a week to get out from under the pile. So, I have backed off the hot issues and now I am ignored more or less.

I had been pondering a post called “Top Ten Reasons Greensboro Sucks” and the blogging vitriole was in the top ten, right after the City Council, County Commisioners, School Board, and lack of a decent river. But I thought against it. I knew Ed would be all over me for dissing his city :)

Maybe we’ll figure it out.

Joel

Actually, that’s not accurate. The “Old Testament” is comprised of 39 books. The Torah contains the first five books. What you call Old Testament is really called Tanach, which is an acronym, and is comprised of Torah (the 5 books), Nevi’im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Judges).

So, back to my question- why would I engage in “jew baiting” unless I had an axe to grind with Jews?

The books of Old Testament comprise the bulk of the Bible, so it’s quite possible.

I did not call you an anti-Semite, although at this point I’ll call you a liar for repeating that allegation so many times.

I called your post an example of jew-baiting, and I believe it speaks for itself. Certainly you’ve offered no coherent argument to the contrary.

“Blah blah blah…”
“Boo hoo…”
“Waa waa…”

Cuz that’s exactly what it sounds like. There has been some pretty personal atacks from all ends, all angles, and people need to either get a grip, take it with the rest, or quit the whining.

I don’t know what the deal is, and realistically, I don’t really care anymore. Liberals an conservatives are both full of bunk. I’m forming a new political stance. The “Idungiveaflying…”. I know Fec is dying to join.

“How is it an “attack on evangelicalsâ€? for Krugman to write this: “Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota — three of whose deputies recently stepped down, reportedly in protest over her management style — is, according to a local news report, in the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office?â€? That’s the sole reference to Paulose…”

While ignoring the whole “sole reference” theme as it applies to my “sole reference” to Krugman being Jewish..How does that make it “Jew baiting”? Why did he feel it was necessary to to point out that she was quoting the bible in an article about evangelical Christians? Do you really think she was quoting the Torah, Ed? And is that really evidence of a theocracy, Ed? Why does Krugman mention it, Ed? Because he finds it contemptuous and worthy of ridicule because as evidence to support his thesis, it has no purpose or value.

Nobody is scrambling from point to point, and just because you say they are, that doesn’t make it so. I think you were caught in a moment where you thought you could malign me as an anti-Semite, and rather than spend a moment to think about how ridiculous that assertion was, you went with it anyhow and now you feel the need to justify it since nobody else joined your bandwagon. The smear didn’t work Ed, because smears have to have some basis in fact to be effective. That’s why my hypocrisy theme about you works so well and has a growing number of subscribers.