
Then you haven't been paying attention to the arguments levelled against
them. They have been, over and over again.  They will be again.


Hey, what do you think dictionaries are for?  You quite obviously need
one.  A good dictionary gives both, and you well know it.


I don't think that data exist on this directly.


That is no problem.  But once again you are defining Zionism as *ONE*
movement.  You are implying that it is monolithic.  You *KNOW* this is
not and has never been the case.


You don't say it directly.  You implied it, and I showed explicitly
where and how you implied it.  Now you're trying to wriggle out of it.
Won't wash, and you know it.


It's you, not me, who is running out of arguments.  


What you said is that "Judaism is defined according to religious
standards."  Now this can have several different meanings, and you know
it.  One of the meanings that it can have is to say that "Only those who
are religious are defined as Jews".  Another is to say that "Only those
who meet the religious definition of a Jew is one."  And there are
others.  I'm not twisting your words.  I'm trying to make you aware that
your words don't mean what you think they do.


Actually, it doesn't.  And the citizens' rights are exactly THE SAME in
both cases, anyway.


Jewish


Jewish


It'll depend on what religion is practiced in the house.  The original
law of return would still admit such a person if they were Jewish, if
memory serves.


Not Jewish.



That's valid, as far as I can see.


More than once.  As have others.


The very one you give above.  It is absolutely inconsistent with the
twist you put on it.  


No you didn't.  You had to twist the definition of the word 180 degrees
in order to do so, and everyone else knows it.  I'm not being touchy.


Because what you gave *WAS NOT* an example.  IT WAS an example of how
the definition of a word can be twisted around 180 degrees.  


Oh, so now what are dictionaries for?


Duh.  As a scientist, whose technical terms are very often not found in
common dictionaries, I know this.  But when a term is common, like
hypocrisy, a good dictionary can be regarded as an authoritative source.


It's not nonsense.  When people read what you write, they have to try to
associate a meaning to those words.  Dictionaries give the meanings of
words, don't they?  Now, I assume that you'd like to have the words you
use mean what you'd like them to.  But the fact is, you're using very
different meanings than are in the dictionary, or you would like the
reader to assign them new meanings, which they never had.  


Not at all.  What I cannot abide is utter bombast when you've been
proven completely wrong.


I never put even one syllable in your mouth.  You have tried to prove
this and you failed.  


Poppycock.


I read what you said.  I did not add anything.  You simply either don't
know that the words don't mean what you'd like them to - which cannot be
the case now since you've been proven wrong and you quite obviously
don't have a defense against the arguments presented, or you're twisting
the meanings.  Which is it?


Ha!  There's nothing resembling fact in what you've said.  I NEVER added
*ANYTHING* to what you said.


