XPost: alt.conspiracy, ba.general, la.general 
 XPost: soc.culture.jewish 
 From: reniggade@anglicam.org 
  
 On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:44:39 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman 
  wrote: 
  
 >The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe (reniggade@anglicam.org) wrote: 
 >: On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:56:24 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman 
 >:  wrote: 
 > 
 >... 
 > 
 >: >: >: >     And on what basis do you believe that Dickens's portrayal of 
 >: >: >: >Fagan indicates negative emotions towards all Jews? 
 >: >: > 
 >: >: >: You think this was a positive stereotype? 
 >: >: > 
 >: >: >     I don't think it was a stereotype.  Bill Sykes was a brutal 
 >: >: >bully.  Was that a stereotype for all Englishmen? 
 >: > 
 >: >: Well, duh, how many Englishmen did Dickens portray?  And how many 
 >: >: jews? 
 >: > 
 >: >     Seems to me that a great many of his portrayals of Englishmen 
 >: >were negative. 
 > 
 >: Not really.  His portrayals of Englishmen reflected the grim reality 
 >: of Victorian England.  Some were, most weren't. 
 > 
 >: > Was he anti-English? 
 > 
 >: Of course not.  Duh. 
 > 
 >: >: >     You see, Dickens, being a literary giant, was considerably 
 >: >: >wiser than you.  He knew that if one Jew was a thief, or one 
 >: >: >Englishman was a brutal bully, it didn't mean they all were. 
 >: > 
 >: >: Duh.  Tell me again how many jews Dickens portrayed?  Was even one 
 >: >: portrayed in a positive light? 
 >: > 
 >: >     I don't know.  You tell me. 
 > 
 >: There were several that I'm aware of, almost all (understandably) 
 >: portrayed negatively. 
 > 
 >     Cite? 
  
 Look it up yourself.  Do a google on Dickens + jews. 
  
 >     So, when "Englishmen" are portrayed negatively, it's just the 
 >grim reality of Victorian times; but when Jews (whom you can't name) 
 >are portryed negatively, it proves that Dickens was anti-Semitic. 
  
 You still don't understand.  Dickens' Englishmen were portrayed in a 
 wide range of characters (reflecting the wide range found in nature). 
 His jews were almost universally portrayed as unpleasant (that's 
 putting it mildly), again relecting what is found in nature. 
  
 >And the final step of illogic: since Dickens was a great writer, I 
 >(a mere "minion") am unqualified to challenge anything he said (I 
 >guess it is the "received wisdom"); but you, on the other hand, are 
 >qualified to correct Shakespeare. 
  
 There is no illogic.  Since English isn't your native language your 
 appreciation of English literature can only be rudimentary at best. 
 In order to be able to contradict Shakespeare, having the same native 
 language is a prerequisite. 
  
 >: >: >: >     But more important, if you don't challenge Shakespeare's 
 >: >: >: >conceptions, you must agree with him that when a Jew converts to 
 >: >: >: >Christianity he becomes ichiban #1 OK good guy. 
 >: >: > 
 >: >: >: Shakespeare correctly identified the problem but not, perhaps, the 
 >: >: >: solution. 
 >: >: > 
 >: >: >     What, are you disagreeing with the literary giant, you 
 >: >: >miserable minion? 
 >: > 
 >: >: Shakespeare was not infallible.  He was partly right.  If he was alive 
 >: >: today he would welcome my clarification. 
 >: > 
 >: >     What "clarification" is that?  That he was wrong to believe that 
 >: >Jews who converted to Christianity were OK? 
 > 
 >: Yes.  Jews' character deficiencies are genetic and have nothing to do 
 >: with religion.  A mere change of religion will achieve absolutely 
 >: nothing. 
 > 
 >     You dare to challenge Shakesepeare you miserable minion? 
  
 He was simply mistaken.  It happens.  And I'm not the minion.  You 
 are. 
  
 >: > What kind of a minion are you? 
 > 
 >: I'm not.  You are.  Find your own epithets. 
 > 
 >     Minion.  Minion.  Minion.  Nyah, nyah, nyah. 
  
 You see what I mean?  This is a sample of your 'contribution' to the 
 world of English literature. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)