Talk:Antisemitism/Abuse

message: The section was not added with a "detailed explanation" thus, it did not deserve one for removal. It was obvious to anyone with a sense of reason that it was inappropriate for the article. Vandalism, if you'd bothered to check, is the "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property" (ala Webster's Unabridged) -- thus the inclusion of a false and derogatory item like that section was the true vandalism; removing it was not. If you can't tell the difference between the two, perhaps you should spend some more time with the subtleties of language.
I understood perfectly well the poorly-written anti-Jewish text; it's you who can't understand English. The sentence "The Soviet Union hasn't existed for nearly 15 years!" refers to the present -- as in, the Soviet Union does not exist now, nor has it existed for the last 13 years (yes, I rounded too high), since the fall of communism. You remember that, don't you -- when the coup against Gorbachev failed and all non-Russian Soviet republics declared independence in 1991? My comment points out that there was nothing contemporary in the entire section.
The writer said  "committees to fighting an [sic] Anti-Semitism" -- you apparentally aren't up on the concept of bracketed ("[" and "]") information. It's clear that "fighting... anti-Semitism" would make them "anti-Semitism committees," however for the quotation, I bracketed the word -- which means that whatever is inside was added by editorial comment.
Yes, I mis-typed Who's political opponents? The word who's is the contracted form of who is, which apparently confused you. However (and obvious to an English reader) the sentence was intended as "Whose political opponents?" Mis-typing "who's" is a common English typo, on par with it's = its.
Of course the "political opponents" were not Jews. The author is implying that Jews on these supposed, unnamed and uncited committees silenced their political opponents through what he claimed was  "abusing the term anti-Semitism." The section, itself, is anti-Semitic and your inability to get your head around why is astonishing. It must come from your Soviet background, Michael, which was colored by such propaganda.
: Your text is clear abuse of Anti-Semitism label itself. Are you aware of that fact?? Cautious 14:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you understand the difference between fact and opinion? No, apparentally, you do not; nor do you know how to read for comprehension. If you did, you'd understand the paragraph below. Before posting nonsense emotive rhetoric, try to exercise your brain a bit. LeFlyman 15:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personal onslaught doesn't fix the problem with your reasoning. If somebody is an Anti-Semit or not, depends on his opinions or actions. If you are assigning anti-Semitic label to somebody, after some word operation on his opinions, you probably have a problem. Cautious 16:35, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stick to whichever native language you're comfortable in, because writing comprehesible English appears to be beyond your linguistic skills. See further note below LeFlyman 21:13, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Learning to read for comprehension