User talk:Trovatore/Tellerman issue

I think that you gave no good retort for my arguments against Tellerman-let me explain:

1. as for your claims that Tellerman was sinning inadvertently:

A. I don’t remember that Tellerman was talking about the Jewish encyclopedia (actually, Newport well erudite reply to him have nothing to do with the full meaning of his statement-she only gave one example for why he is wrong or else) when he said “only……” , he said that every one who wrote, past to the discussion, that Cantor is Jewish is inventible an anti-semic/Zionist.More, if it was only about the Jewish encyclopedia-so why should he said "Anti-semic and Zionist"- does he ment that the Jewish encyclopedia is somehow bot???????.As far as I can tell, I have cited an academic source, from Oxford university press (by Jewish author) -that been written at the 2000’ (2002?)-and it’s clear that Tellerman saw these source-as well as many others that been written by several different authors that are not known for being Zionist and surely not for being anti-Semites. Does Tellerman actually saying that Oxford university is some how Zionist or anti-Semites (if he does-then some day, if he continue like that, he could find himself under prosecution) or it just because the author was Jewish (->code word: Zionist )?

B. Zionists are, at least in the common view, mostly Jewish. Tellerman suggested that, in general, Zionist sources are not to be trusted. I don’t ask or expect any of the users for being Zionist or anti-Zionist, but to say that Zionist academic sources are not reliable as a rule- well, what else can I said? He make here an assault over more than a half of the Jewish people, including countless Zionistic scientists like Albert Einstein, Eduard Teller and etc and including countless world class historians and thinkers. and not only that, the Zionist academic sources are mostly very reliable and also documented, not once, historical occurrences which are not flattering to the Zionist movement. So, it’s out of question that Tellerman vilified every person which is Zionist-and that’s, shouldn’t be done on wikipedia-but you choosed, again, to ignore it.

C. Can you tell me about one source that was cited on Cantor page or on the talk page or about any important event, that actually happened, in which Cantor been called “Jewish” by anti Semites, as Tellerman said? (as far as I can tell he didn’t gave any evidence for such-while he should).

D. Tellerman slander that “only anti-semities and Zionist calld Cantor a Jew” actually meaning that Zionist are actually consider the Jewish people, or some how want the Jewish people to be considerd, as a Super-race (as the Nazis which want the Germans to consider as such)-and for that they are willing to forge the Jewish-ness of prominent people at different cultural fields- these is a wild and malicious plot- there is not even one considerable Jewish movement that saying so (there was one pretty marginal movement like that but it the Israeli Zionistic court and the Israeli Zionistic parliament both invalidate it as illegal movement many years ago) . But again, you choosed to ignore it.

E. These statement of Tellerman is only part of the continuing efforts being put by him not to mention even the possible Jewishness of great figures, when it’s reasonable to assume that they have possible Jewish connection . When someone saying that Cantor was Jewish-he doesn’t mean to offend no one. On the contrary, some times, as the experience tall us, when someone saying that he, or any other, wasn’t-and it’s not about if he is right or not, but about the way he choose to formulate his arguments, he could be, probably, maliciousness offensive.

2.

A1.You admitted that one could see Tellerman writing as an anti-semic, if I understand you right. Any way, many other users, most of them didn’t involved in that matter for now, does. So, I cant understand your furious attack on me-but this is not important. What is important is the principle that any state is to be understand in it’s simplest, most self-explanatory, interpretation-these is the gold standard. any wikipedian should be aware for the meaning of it’s saying, and I strongly disagree with the method you suggest to distinguish between racist/anti-smities/anti-religious/ anti-secular or any biased comments, nor does I accept that there is any well noticeable style of hostile wikipedians or that it’s very different from the writing of Tellerman-which is an exceptional. Interpretations are for lawyers and for courts-not for here.

A2. To make clause A1 even more explicit, I should say the obvious: if any statement could sound offensive in an extreme way (i.e. racist end etc) than it should be addressed as such, otherwise, the door is open for hate, i.e. there is no place for ambiguity or benefit from the doubt here (and as I see it, especially not in the case of Tellerman).these is not for discussion. However, from your wording, it’s hinted that if something ‘only’ ‘could’ (for me it’s clear) then it’s o.k. and it have place on the talk page.

B. What is hinted, again, by your wording that it could sound but it isn’t (and that any other conclusion is a slander) , is, that your subjective judgment is better than mine and any other people who think like me, I don’t have to tell you that such an assumptions are invalid when it comes to such an events (and then, clause 2/A2 of ‘mine’ should be addressed). More, off the record, as I’m Jewish few years more than you are, I think that I know to identified when it’s could seem as Jews hatred and it usually not (for example: using the British slang “Jew them” ) and when it’s could look like and it usually is (Tellerman writing), better than you do.

3.

A. Tellerman vilified me when he publicly called my claims ridiculous- without even checking them and not in my presence. More, he reject any of my claims from my first time on cantor page in the moment they were presented, using unpersuasive arguments like JewInfo is not a site to be cited, my attempts to explain him that JewInfo cited reliable sources bump into a wall of dullness. while it was clear to me that he had not much knowledge about, at least, parts of related subjects to Cantor biography, about Jewish surnames or about Cantor scientific or personal writing, hence, I find this aptitude to be very biased –and when he called my claims “ridiculous” in front of other users-it’s called to vilified and to be uncivil, is it clear enough for you?

4.

A. I find your behavior through me to be impatience and aggressive, as like you been my prosecutor (and Tellerman defense attorney) . I assume that you had no bad intentions. However, I obligated not to use the Cantor talk page for complaining against other users. That’s don’t mean that if tomorrow another round of clashes about Cantor Jewishness/non-Jewishness will start, I wont say what I think to be the motivations of some users if it would be needed, using only based evidence (like the mentioned above) of course and in regard to the discussion itself and not as I made before.

B. You used the word “grievances” which can have different meanings, as I understood when I used my dictionary later today, it’s some how slippery word that by it you probably ment that my complains are to be despise. However, it wouldn’t stop me from fighting against anti-semiti on line using my adequate evidence, which you, again, unjustly defined as not adequate (might be that in mathematical terms they truly not adequate, but not in the real world) .

C. I want you to know that using intimidating warnings (lol) would not result with my acquiescence or with stopping my struggle against racist of all kinds, else, such an acts are far behind your authority – you can block me if you want, but believe me that it wont stop me, and more, it would prove all of my claims to be right. I intend to make an end for the soft hand that being taken against hatred users and to make an end to the edit wars about the Jewishness of about 90%,more or less, of the most prominent among them, using different excuses why not to mention it, even, and mostly, when their Jewish origin is a fact. I’ve time-and these would be a long struggle for changing wikipedia at these point, which would be made, so I hope, also outside wikipedia and I will speak to organizations outside wikipedia, which many of them have branches in my country as well, to collaborate with it about that subject and about others as well (fight against any kind of hate)- I hope it to be successful, and I believed it would, it’s only matter of time and energy. --Gilisa 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I will respond at my convenience and to the extent I choose, but I want to respond immediately to your point 2. A2, because this is your most fundamental error. Accusations place the burden of proof on the accuser. It does not matter if the accuser is part of a group that has been victimized in the past, by people who have used wording similar to the wording used by the accused. You still have to demonstrate that this particular accused (in this case Tellerman) is guilty, and he still gets the benefit of the doubt until you do. There can be no compromise on this point. --Trovatore 22:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont looking for compromise with you more than you are with me, I think. And dont understand it in the wrong way, I dont think that I have to ask for any kind of clearance from you , I'm writing to you just to let you understand....more, I’ve no fundamental error, you do, and your declaration actually means: “all you wrote is rubbish, I'm right and I don’t have to tell you why” , and however- I proved it very well, that Tellerman writing is an exceptional for the bad. it's not about my being part of a group that has been victimized in the past, by people who have used wording similar to the wording used by the accused (in a very suspicion manner I have to said)-you’re just reducing the all debate to my feeling and it’s of course, nonsense. As I see it -you’re not willing to have an objective discussion-so, save me your comment please, which I find to disrespect me even for minimal extent , unless I’m wrong and you really feel that it would have some contribution for better understanding, which is not something that I think that you are looking for (I could be wrong here). More, I would solve these subject other place and not with you. have a wounderful day--Gilisa 06:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gilisa, as you say (if I understand you), we don't have to agree on this, and I am not really interested in debating with you. However I will not stand by while you defame the character of other users without sufficient evidence. --Trovatore 07:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You understand me well, but I must respond about the "evidence" issue and others: You suggested that because I’m a Jew, than I see Tellerman writing as an antisemic. More, you suggested-as I can understand your sentence, that mainly Jews will consider it as antisemiti and that it some how related to the history of the Jews. Let me explain it to you: A. not only Jews will and did consider it for being anti-semic. B. it’s not because I’m Jewish that I see it as anti-semic, it’s about pure sense to see it as such. C. however, naturally, most of the people that would be offended from it could be Jews, might be that is what you meant. However, I’m not looking for your empathy, nor do I need it- make no mistakes. I’m looking for an objective opinion but I think that you are one sided.What you are trying to do is simple: while average person that would see, sense and smell something that look like a fish, feels like fish and smell like a fish would say that these is a fish, you’re saying that until a genetic study prove it for being a fish it is actually a bird. i.e. you’re meaning the same words have different meaning somehow, even if it not sound like that. I must said also, that I don’t consider myself as a victim, Jews cannot be victims any longer, not in the way in which they were after the exile and before the state of Israel was established. And if you’re meaning that only because of that I , and others, some how feel like that and driven by that-then it tells much more about you than about me. It was you which called my arguments "ridiculous", you didn’t even bothered to correct me . And yes, my grammar is terrible when it comes to English, however, English is not (!!!) the only language in the world, and luckily I can write much better in few others. To the end, as I said- I will solve these matter, but I dont need your agreement for doing so-and thanks God for it.--Gilisa 19:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I deny vehemently that I suggested you thought Tellerman was anti-Semitic "because you are a Jew", and I am deeply offended that you interpreted it that way. What I suggested, in plain words, is that you were claiming a special capacity to say who was anti-Semitic, on the basis of your membership in a persecuted or formerly persecuted group. This has nothing to do with Jews; it has to do with you personally. As for your substantive claims, you have not established them, plain and simple. The burden of proof is on you, and you have not met it. -Trovatore 22:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats the way in which I can understand it-as you go straight to my ethnic origin. (I admit however, that you could mean only to me-but going to my ethnicity is a wrong thing and it's much more offensive to do) any way: " does not matter if the accuser is part of a group that has been victimized in the past, by people who have used wording similar to the wording used by the accused". However, I didn't blame you for nothing but wrong understanding.I think that your all aptitude through me, from the beginning, was very offensive-and I think that you know it well. More, the "discussion" 'between' us sounds like aborken record, lets leave it- I will look for understadnig else where and will see what is the right opinion.--Gilisa 07:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Gilisa, I did no such thing. It was you who brought up your ethnic origin. You said the following:

More, off the record, as I’m Jewish few years more than you are, I think that I know to identified when it’s could seem as Jews hatred and it usually not (for example: using the British slang “Jew them” ) and when it’s could look like and it usually is (Tellerman writing), better than you do.

As I said, you claim to have a special capacity to say who is anti-Semitic, based on being Jewish. I cannot accept this claim. You brought it up, I did not.

If you feel I have misinterpreted your words, please explain what you really meant; it is not impossible that ther is a miscommunication here. However I have absolutely not based any of my arguments on your ethnic origin, and I thoroughly resent any implication to the contrary. --Trovatore 08:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it was, as I wrote, off the record - that’s mean that it have nothing for the matter or for my blaming Tellerman.I meant by "off the record": "leave subjective feelings or experiences aside". It was on clause 2B of mine in which I specifically said that subjective feelings or experience shouldn’t take place here . The full quoting is (why didn't you cite it?): "What is hinted, again, by your wording that it could sound but it isn’t (and that any other conclusion is a slander) , is, that your subjective judgment is better than mine and any other people who think like me, I don’t have to tell you that such an assumptions are invalid when it comes to such an events (and then, clause 2/A2 of ‘mine’ should be addressed). More, off the record, as I’m Jewish few years more than you are, I think that I know to identified when it’s could seem as Jews hatred and it usually not (for example: using the British slang “Jew them” ) and when it’s could look like and it usually is (Tellerman writing), better than you do.)". meaning that if we do consider it (i.e subjective feeling and personal excperience) than, off the record, as I'm in greater chance to be ofended by anti-semiti than non-Jewish is, I might be in better position than you for telling what is anti semic or not (but might be it was better not to write it)-but these is not the situation as we don’t consider it. It might been misunderstanding from your side here, and so I'm not accusing you any longer for using my ethnic origin.--Gilisa 10:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

paciencia, buena memoria, determinacion y justicia son las mejores armas--Gilisa 06:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)