Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ps.com...

brique wrote:
Sancho Panza wrote in message
...

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
"brique"
It is an interesting notion that james seems to
hold... that non-christians celebrating christmas are
being 'american' whilst those who have no interest in
celebrating a different religions festival are fearful
that to do so will make them 'american'. How this fear
of being 'american' affects those who are not even
resident in the USA, such as the Shintoist in Japan,
the Jews in Europe, the Muslims in Indonesia or the
Bhuddists in Australia who do not celebrate christmas

But Buddhists in Australia, like Buddhists in America,
*do* celebrate Christmas.

And? Is that bhuddist policy ? Or the personal choice of _some_
bhuddists?
And just how do they 'celebrate' christmas? They take the day off work,
visit family and friends, have a party..well, so what..... or are you
suggesting they only do that on Christmas day and not any other day-off
they
might have, like at a weekend or whenever? Really, James, you are
clutching
at straws, next you will contend that the mere fact of waking up and
getting
out of bed on 25th december constitutes 'celebration'......

They put up decorations, exchange gifts, send Christmas cards, kids go
see Santa at the mall, etc.

It's a personal choice of some Buddhists, just like it's a personal
choice of some Jews, some Muslims, some Atheists, and (yes!) some
Christians.

It figures that this simple question wouldn't be answered:

But Buddhists in Australia, like Buddhists in America,
*do* celebrate Christmas.

Got the citation?

Constantinople wrote in message
oups.com...

brique wrote:
Constantinople wrote in message
oups.com...

Speculation is cheap and easy but means little. It is not enough to
speculate that Standard Oil *might have* in some way been a monopoly
or
might have soon *become* a monopoly.

What post are you replying to Constance?

Yours.

It is quite possible for Standard to have increased its
profitability
whilst
decreasing its prices as it's cost base fell.

Mere speculation.

Really? Pretty basic stuff, the economic justification for mass
production,
standardisation of parts, etc.

I know it's standard stuff. When I say you are speculating about what
might have happened in this particular case, I am not saying that it's
not standard stuff. I am saying that any number of stories are equally
standard stuff, and you are just speculating that this particular one
is what might have occurred. That's speculation.

And it was written in repsons eto other speculation, except you dont seem
that intereste din disputing that speculation... of course, it is james'
speculation... so obviously you dont wnat to **** of your guru....

I'm reduced to teaching you English.

Oh you poor soul...and you cant even charge me.... that must hurt....


Making, for example, products
aimed at agriculture, cheaper would increase its market in that
area,
thus
feeding through into increase economies of scale. It would also
'lock'
that
market into the sytem. Once farmers switched from horse-power to
petrol
power and the structure which had so long supplied those horses and
the
skills and knowledge of how to use them was lost, then the farmers
had
little choice but to go with petrol power at whatever cost. Standard
now
had
a bigger market, could enlarge its production capability and
maximise
its
distribution network, all feeding into lower costs per unit sold.

That Standard and it subsequent 'competitors' were successful at
creating
and 'locking in' these markets is plainly obvious today.

But today is *after* government introduced new regulations.

Right, so, the question 'why, if standard had a monopoly did prices
fall' is
of no interest to you....., can't think why you bother to join the
conversation.....

And yet again, you seem to be oblivious to the point I made, to the
point that the only answer would be to teach you some more English,
which seems rather a waste of my time.

Indeed, but nevermind, you and james can start a self-help group...

David Harmon wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:11:33 -0000 in alt.anarchism, "brique"
wrote,
David Harmon wrote in message
.. .
On 27 Dec 2006 06:42:21 GMT in alt.anarchism, (Ray
Fischer) wrote,
And which religion, race, and nation would I belong to?

The point of his remark was to evade the fact of his bigotry by
dragging in a red herring.

If James was actually a bigot, and you knew enough to say so,
you would have known the answer to his question.


I did answer it, in my response, the question is irrelevant....

Calling it irrelevant is not answering the question. But whether or not
you answered it is irrelevant; you have probably been stalking James for
long enough to know those answers. The question was to Ray.

Ah, right... got the 'wrong' answer from me so ignore it and ask someone
else and keep asking until you get one that suits your mood.... cool...


being a
bigot is not defined by what race, creed, colour, height, weight,
residence,
career or education one might be ascribed. It can be defined as fearing
and
despising those who can be ascribed a different race, creed, colour,


Bingo, "different". Since Ray has only his own fantasies as to what
James's "race, creed" are, he cannot really know which race or creed
are _different than his. That makes his judgement founded purely in
his own prejudice and bigotry, especially since, as you probably
remember, James's background doesn't much match what Ray is assuming
about him. That is what makes it relevant.


Well, James is not a muslim but he holds definite bigotted opinions
regarding muslims. Homocidally bigotted. genocidally bigotted, in fact. Now,
he tells us he is not a christian, he tells us he holds no religious opinion
but he continually goes in to bat for christianity as humanities only
saviour from the islamic hordes. Just how much of a genocidally xenophobic
bigot does he have to be to qualify in your book. Unless , of course, you
consider such views to be sweet reason and can't see what the fuss is about?



James's question would hold as much relevance to that matter if he had
asked

'And what are the colour of my eyes and hair?'

No, you yourself say "race, creed", and that is what the question was
about. "religion, race, and nation" are relevant. "color of eyes and
hair" are your pitiful strawman.


So, maybe James is a self-hating whatever race creed colour, height, weight,
whatever he may be..... the point remains, not what his physical
description may be, but the fact he fears and hates others for not being as
he would wish them to be.... like him, or, more probably, doing as he would
wish.

Al Klein wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006 14:09:46 -0800, wrote:
All these examples of violence during secession were the product of the
aggressive policies of the neo-prussian militarists in Washington.
Without Lincoln no civil war
And no freedom for slaves until the industrial revolution, which made
them unnecessary.
Better slavery than war (which is an even bigger slavery).
Not for the slaves.

Yes, also for the slaves. War has to be prevented or stopped. This has
absolute priority.

without Wilson no violent breakup of the
Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Austria-Hungary and hence no
Yugoslavia and Soviet Union.
Maybe. The Russian revolution wasn't due solely to the breakup of the Empire.

Without Roosevelt no WW2
Hitler started the war for expansion - it had nothing to do with Roosevelt.
Hitler did not start the war. PL, F, and UK did because they wanted a
regime change in Germany.
The "Polish" invasion of Germany was Hitler's doing.

There were human rights violations from Polish forces for months, the
intervention was necessary to stop it. Jozef Beck (Poland's Prime
Minister) did not want a peaceful solution but wanted Hitler gone. He
thought that the Generals will depose Hitler when war breaks out.

UK and F also did not want peace anymore but regime change in D
(Roosevelt convinced them so by seeding mistrust). Therefore they
declared war on D but interestingly not on the USSR when Stalin invaded
Poland two weeks later from the other side.

Japan attacked the US because we cut off their oil - most
people who would have risen to the presidency of the US would have
done the same.
This does not speak favourably about the US.
One does what one can to weaken one's enemy, one doesn't act to
strengthen him.

Japan was not an enemy of the US before Roosevelt made them an enemy
(for his goal to save the Soviet Union).

and Cold War. If
there were no federal governments in Washington, all these wars would
not have happened.
If there were no governments we wouldn't have had wars. If there were
no people there would have been no wars.
I was speaking about the "evil empire" aka USA. No other state is that
aggressive and dangerous. States should be small and neutral, like
Switzerland.
Sorry, but we don't agree with you, so you have 2 choices: Accept
reality or move to a different planet.

I would like to see that every American would simply ignore these
parasites and state terrorists in Washington. They have no legitimacy.

Al Klein wrote:
wrote:
The central govt should
transfer all power to the smaller entities and act solely as
representative for foreign representatives.
That'll never happen in the US. But, if it did, we'd have civil war
with a lot more than 2 sides.
Why is this believe so widespread?
Because some of us know about evolution and about how human nature
evolved. Altruism outside the group is usually exhibited by extinct species.
I fail to see why this should have anything to do with the issue of
selfgovernment.
Usenet's not the place to get 10 years of education in 5 minutes. When
you understand how anthropoids work you may have a bit more
understanding of the problem.

Forget your pseudo-realism. Apparently you confuse 'how humans work'
with 'how humans work who claim to be the government'.

On 22-Dec-2006, "Constantinople" wrote:

wrote:
wrote:
On 21-Dec-2006, wrote:
[...]
No, I do not understand what you're getting at. Whether they want
to
think Easter has nothing to do with Passover is irrelevant.
Historical
evidence -- such as the fact that the majority of the Christian
world
calls these two holidays by the same name -

No, they DON'T.

I have plenty of Xian relatives and never once has any of them
ever called easter Passover!!
Your post is the first time I have ever even heard of such a thing.

Is the first language of your Christian relatives Spanish, French,
Russian, Portuguese, or Italian? If so, what do they call these
holidays in their first language?

There is no world outside of the English-speaking US. Despite this, I
hallucinate that some relatives of mine, including Mom, call Easter
"pascua".

Interesting how this is the first anyone's been hearing of it....

Susan

On 26-Dec-2006, wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure you've got a Jewish friend or two. Yes, there may be a
scattering of Jews around who might. The overwhelming majority don't.

According to a survey of Jewish families of interfaith couples -- which
account for one-third of Jewish families total and over half of Jewish
families formed in the last decade -- about 90% will celebrate
Christmas, though the overwhelming majority of these will be secular
celebrations. (http://pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=7123)

Which means that not only do a majorityof Jews NOT celebrate Xmas
(even your numbers show this), it is, as we all thought, only those who
do not really identify with being Jewish.

Susan


I have not found a statistical source for the percentage of entirely
Jewish families, though in my personal experience it is not that usual
to see entirely Jewish families participating in some secular
traditions associated with Christmas. Probably someone has done a
survey.

[...]

On 27-Dec-2006, Banty wrote:

I guess those New Orleans Catholics should kindly keep their "Mardi Gras"
festival quietly in their homes. For shame - using public streets.

The odd thing is that the strict Catholics doubtless do...

Susan

On 26-Dec-2006, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

In fact, if people were primarily treating Christmas as "Christ's
mass", then Santa wouldn't even be in the picture, since Santa (at
least as he is currently conceived: as a fat elf living at the North
Pole with a toy-making workshop, etc.) is a huge made-up distraction
from Jesus Christ. Santa takes up so much attention that "should be"
given to Jesus Christ (if people were serious about Christmas being
"Christ's Mass") that if anything Santa is an anti-Christ. But then
again, just switch two letters and you get "Satan". :-)

It's a great tool to indoctrinate children into looking forward to the
holiday.
A kid's favorite days of the year are when he gets presents or special
treats.

"Thin edge of the wedge"

I can tell you for a fact that I was raised Jewish and no Jew in our
neighborhood had Christmas lights or talked about Santa.
In fact, I think this is part of the reason why Chanukka was made into
such a
big deal, to fight assimilation into gentile customs..

Pretty much.
Our parents didn't have these problems.

Susan

On 27-Dec-2006, Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 05:26:50 +1000, James A. Donald
wrote:

The real motivation of all the hate that has been spewed in this
thread was revealed in the conversation between Nathan Folkert and
Flavia:

I didn't see where nfolkert showed all that much hate.
Or is he lying about *me*?

: : wrote:
: : Christianity is not *inherent* in these
: : traditions, nor could it be, as these traditions pre-date
: : Christianity, probably by millenia.
: :
: : wrote:
: : Which still means Jews have no business using them.

My understanding is that Flavia is a Jew.

Yes, mine, too :-)

I disagree about Jews having no business using them -- they can do as
they please for all I care.

The same way we can eat pork and descerate Shabbos, too -
I wasn't speaking in the free-will sense of the word.

But this is not antisemitism rearing its ugly head.

Only because you misread *James'* post.

Susan