On the bad taste scale OJ Simpson rates a perfect 10

[Konovalov]

I viewed this article from my local paper back home: http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/ojs-revolting-confession/2006/11/16/1163266678010.html

In a deal that some media executives called revolting, OJ Simpson plans a book and TV interview to discuss how, hypothetically, he could have killed his ex-wife and her friend - a story his publisher considers "his confession".

And:

One expert noted that the justice system's protection against so-called double jeopardy means Simpson's book, explosive as it may be, should not expose him to any new legal danger.

"He can write pretty much whatever he wants," said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola University law school professor and former federal prosecutor who has followed the case closely. "Unless he's confessing to killing somebody else, he can probably do this with impunity."

Really sickening not to mention sad for the victims families. :nope: :nope:

What on earth does Mr Simpson have in store next? :roll:

[The Avon Lady]

What on earth does Mr Simpson have in store next? :roll:
Politics would seem about right. :p

[TteFAboB]

We should boycott him, his book, whoever prints his book (if possible, if there is an alternative), his TV Interview, whoever advertises during his interview if that money is going to him (again if replaceable) untill these entities apologize, withdraw, express regret, etc.

To me this is a confession indeed, but that means he must pay for his crime. He can't write pretty much whatever he wants. I could write this because I didn't killed anybody. OJ can't. He actually did commit murder.

[Konovalov]

We should boycott him, his book, whoever prints his book (if possible, if there is an alternative), his TV Interview, whoever advertises during his interview if that money is going to him (again if replaceable) untill these entities apologize, withdraw, express regret, etc.


Ultimately you are talking about News Corp. because the book is being published by Harper Collins and the TV program is to be aired on Fox television, with an interview by celebrity publisher Judith Regan. Let the boycott begin.

[STEED]

I have no interest what so ever.

[kiwi_2005]

Must be the worse feeling ever knowing the person who has killed your loved one is walking free. And now hes putting out a book. :nope:

[Onkel Neal]

We should boycott him, his book, whoever prints his book (if possible, if there is an alternative), his TV Interview, whoever advertises during his interview if that money is going to him (again if replaceable) untill these entities apologize, withdraw, express regret, etc.

To me this is a confession indeed, but that means he must pay for his crime. He can't write pretty much whatever he wants. I could write this because I didn't killed anybody. OJ can't. He actually did commit murder.

He was aquitted, which means he can never be tried for this crime again (double jeapordy). He could write a book and declare he did it, wouldn't make any difference now.

[waste gate]

He was aquitted, which means he can never be tried for this crime again (double jeapordy). He could write a book and declare he did it, wouldn't make any difference now.

Correct, but the Feds have a great civil rights case to bring against OJ if he ever admitted to the crime. Murder is the ultimate denial of a persons civil rights.

[fredbass]

Well I just hope he has nightmares every night. And maybe we'll get lucky and somebody will send him to Hell very soon. :yep:

[joea]

I confess, I, hypothetically speaking, did NOT pretend not to shoot JR. I deny having shot him and if I did, hypothetically speaking, it was just a dream.



Where's my multi-million dollar contracts, interviews and movie deals. :|\\



Anyone? :88)

[tycho102]

JR deserved to get shot. That series needed kill'n.

As for OJ, he is an "acquitted murderer". I think putting him up there on Fox is repulsive, unless it causes the bastard more trouble, in which case it will have been a good call.

[ksmith213]

Why do you folks keep saying OJ is a murderer?
He was found not guilty. What was the motive? Jealously?
Wasn't he and the wife divorced for over 9 years? Why would he do this
when his kids were so close by? Only an idiot would believe that.

I think America is mad because OJ was a Black man with major money and caught
the system trying to frame him. He had the money to catch their lying behinds.

Black America cheered....and White America cried. For that OJ must pay the price of social outcast. That's why I think OJ does this. Just to pissed you sore loser off. If you only would have accepted the verdict and move on. But....no....

Ron Goldman and Nicole were druggies. Goldman had shaky associates.....I think somebody killed for money.

America really needs to get over the OJ lost. You can't frame and plant evidence on everybody. EDTA doesn't lie...blood compressions can't be hidden....a little glove can't become a big glove. It didn't fit....get over the schtt!!!

[August]

Until i read Ksmiths post i had yet to meet anyone, black or white, who believed OJ was really innocent.

[tycho102]

Why do you folks keep saying OJ is a murderer?

He was acquitted in the federal trial, convicted in the civil trial. There is a $30 million dollar bounty/decision on him from the civil trial, of which almost nothing has been paid because there are so many loopholes in the law and OJ was transferring assests while riding in the "white bronco".

Thus,


Acquitted. Murderer.

[Torplexed]

OJ is a narcissist. I think he really does want to flaunt the fact that he got away with two murders.

I guess there's nothing to do but wait for Michael Jackson to hawk his book: "If I did touch them here's how I did it!"

[kiwi_2005]

I guess there's nothing to do but wait for Michael Jackson to hawk his book: "If I did touch them here's how I did it!"

Peter Pan: The untold story. R18. by Micheal Jackson

:arrgh!:

[d@rk51d3]

I guess there's nothing to do but wait for Michael Jackson to hawk his book: "If I did touch them here's how I did it!"

Peter Pan: The untold story. R18. by Micheal Jackson

:arrgh!:


"Peter Pan" pretty much sums up my opinion of MJ. He's a little boy that never grew up.

[kiwi_2005]

"Peter Pan" pretty much sums up my opinion of MJ. He's a little boy that never grew up.



Interviewer: So Mr Jackson you claim your pet chimp bubbles is a fantastic nose surgen?
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c387/mischazion/ICONS/tha_jacko1.gif

[d@rk51d3]

Yeah, he really nose his business........:rotfl:


Sorry - signing out.:roll: :88) :oops:

[Sailor Steve]

I didn't want to do it, but ya made me:

Q: How do you know it's bedtime at Michael Jackson's house?
A: When the big hand touches the little hand.

Q: What did Michael Jackson say after his aquittal?
A: Gosh, I feel like a kid again!

America is the greatest country in the world! Where else can a young black man grow up to be an old white woman?

[bookworm_020]

He was aquitted, which means he can never be tried for this crime again (double jeapordy). He could write a book and declare he did it, wouldn't make any difference now.
Correct, but the Feds have a great civil rights case to bring against OJ if he ever admitted to the crime. Murder is the ultimate denial of a persons civil rights.

Could he be charged with perjury for lying under oath???

[waste gate]

He was aquitted, which means he can never be tried for this crime again (double jeapordy). He could write a book and declare he did it, wouldn't make any difference now.
Correct, but the Feds have a great civil rights case to bring against OJ if he ever admitted to the crime. Murder is the ultimate denial of a persons civil rights.

Could he be charged with perjury for lying under oath???

No. OJ never took the stand, was never sworn, and didn't perjure himself.

[kiwi_2005]

America is the greatest country in the world! Where else can a young black man grow up to be an old white woman?

:rotfl:

seriously does the man really have a skin condition or is this some feeble excuse. He looks like a doll from mars left by the last alien civilzation!:lol:

[waste gate]

America is the greatest country in the world! Where else can a young black man grow up to be an old white woman?

:rotfl:

seriously does the man really have a skin condition or is this some feeble excuse. He looks like a doll from mars left by the last alien civilzation!:lol:

he's just a freak.

[Konovalov]

I never would have knew that this thread would have got onto Wacko Jacko but then again, may be OJ and Michael are one and the same? :hmm:

[Sailor Steve]

In the pilot for The Dead Zone TV series, Johnny (Anthony Michael Hall) is learning how to re-use his legs after six years in a coma, and his physical therapist Bruce (John L. Adams) is bringing him up to date on what he's missed.

Bruce: "The baddest golfer alive is a brother, and the biggest star on television is Regis Philbin."
Johnny: "Come on! I've been in a coma; I'm not brain-dead!"
Bruce: "Oh, you don't know about OJ."
Johnny: "Let me guess: ambassador to the United Nations?"
Bruce: "Umm...not exactly."

[Payoff]

How about the new song by Michael Jackson and Elton John. . . "Dont let your son go down on me "

Sorry, couldnt resist.:lol:

[The Avon Lady]

Good news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061121/ap_on_en_tv/tv_simpson_interview)! :up:

[d@rk51d3]

How about the new song by Michael Jackson and Elton John. . . "Dont let your son go down on me "

Sorry, couldnt resist.:lol:

Don't forget: "I'm forever blowing bubbles"

[Konovalov]

Good news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061121/ap_on_en_tv/tv_simpson_interview)! :up:

Yes. :yep:

Murdoch saw just how big a PR disaster that this would be for his businesses Fox TV Network and book publishing companies. I would be surprised if someone isn't fired for allowing this to get as far as it did. For Judith Regan I would say that it is game over. That woman is now damaged goods. :lol:

[bookworm_020]

Fox has limits on how low it will go???? First time for everything!

I guess Rupert guessed it wasn't worth the trouble and problems this would have brought him. I wonder who's head is going to end up on the chopping block??

[AVGWarhawk]

This is the most tastless stunt I have ever seen on this mud ball called earth! Furthermore, they should have called it "This is how I did it". The man is guilty as sin. After he was aquited,OJ stated he would spend his time looking for the killers. I hope the killer is on the golf course because that is the only place you find OJ Simpons. It is a crying shame that they would consider this program irregardless of what the families of the deceased would think. Futhermore, there was a feeble attempt of those that would carry the program would donate any monies to charity. How insensative of the networks to attempt to make this OK if monies are given to charity. What a joke and what has the world come too?

[STEED]

Good news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061121/ap_on_en_tv/tv_simpson_interview)! :up:


Yep. :yep: :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

Bye bye!

Publisher behind O.J. Simpson book fired (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061216/ap_en_ot/simpson_publisher_fired).

[Abraham]

Bye bye!

Publisher behind O.J. Simpson book fired (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061216/ap_en_ot/simpson_publisher_fired).

Consumers (= the general public) win!
At least a good lesson taught for further bad taste publications...
:up:

[TteFAboB]

Bye bye!

Publisher behind O.J. Simpson book fired (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061216/ap_en_ot/simpson_publisher_fired).

Consumers (= the general public) win!
At least a good lesson taught for further bad taste publications...
:up:

Yup. There was no other option in this case. All boundaries of the tolerable, acceptable and respectable were crossed. This project and this book if carried out would diminish all of us, all of humanity.

[Tchocky]

Yup. There was no other option in this case. All boundaries of the tolerable, acceptable and respectable were crossed. This project and this book if carried out would diminish all of us, all of humanity.

Eh? It would hardly "diminish" "humanity" any more than the act of murder. Is it that a famous person is doing this? I dont understand your point. Is humanity a single entity, and can one part diminish the whole?

argh i hate hyperbole

[TteFAboB]

If you accept the possibility of the murder to be considered diminishing then any extension of the murder itself is an extension of the diminution. If this project would be more or less diminutal than the act of murder itself is arguable, but the scale is not exponential: being diminutive even by the smallest degree would already be enough to add to or even increase the original diminuent level pushing the total amount of diminution higher.

One part can certanly diminish the whole as happened on the day of the murder, two less individuals in a strict mathematical sense. Of course, humanity has not shrunk by two, maybe this is where the confusion comes from: the final net amount has not been diminished at all! The outcome is positive, but diminutively reduced. Humanity as the quality of all members of the human race can also be diminished by a single person considering this person wouldn't have been able to do any diminishing if it weren't for the inaction of everybody else for example. But that was not the case here. There are more people involved. I do not posses the omniscience required to tell you precisely to what extent the net result of Humanity as a quality would've been affected by this case but I suppose that as Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing", says it definitely wouldn't be good to further desensitise people towards killing.

[Tchocky]

Dont worry, didnt expect onmiscience :)

I just dont think that there is any identifiable entity called "humanity', that's all. In a biological or anthropological sense, maybe, but usually "humanity" is used as a emotive, loaded term which to me is a little spurious.

[The Avon Lady]

Mel Gibson, move over (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061219/ap_en_ot/books_simpson_publisher). :roll:

[kiwi_2005]

Saw mel in an interview the other night with some US interviewer on 20/20. Spilling his heart out and trying to redeem himself which i think he really meant he was sorry at what he said. I think he should be given another chance we all make mistakes can't hold grudges foreva. Besides if he got up and said Its all the Black mans fault or the American Indians are to blame would ppl be outraged? I doubt it very much. How i saw it, Hollywood is run by a lot of Jewish ppl, and he was really taking it out on his bosses The movie Moguls of Hollywood whom are jewish not nesscessay the jewish race. If Hollywood was run by Asians he would of said the same about them.:hmm: Still it doesn't give him the right to say what he said. But an Anti Semite, hes not. If he is then i am and alot of us are.

[Konovalov]

Saw mel in an interview the other night with some US interviewer on 20/20. Spilling his heart out and trying to redeem himself which i think he really meant he was sorry at what he said. I think he should be given another chance we all make mistakes can't hold grudges foreva. Besides if he got up and said Its all the Black mans fault or the American Indians are to blame would ppl be outraged? I doubt it very much. How i saw it, Hollywood is run by a lot of Jewish ppl, and he was really taking it out on his bosses The movie Moguls of Hollywood whom are jewish not nesscessay the jewish race. If Hollywood was run by Asians he would of said the same about them.:hmm: Still it doesn't give him the right to say what he said. But an Anti Semite, hes not. If he is then i am and alot of us are.

What on earth has being Jewish got anything to do with the "movie Moguls of Hollywood" as you put it or that "Hollywood is run by a lot of Jewish ppl"? Quite frankly I think this kind of talk plays into the hands of the conspiracy nuts who think that Jews control the world blah blah blah. Perhaps I have misunderstood what you have written here. :-?

[Konovalov]

Mel Gibson, move over (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061219/ap_en_ot/books_simpson_publisher). :roll:

I hope that Judith Reagans career is effectively over.

[kiwi_2005]

Saw mel in an interview the other night with some US interviewer on 20/20. Spilling his heart out and trying to redeem himself which i think he really meant he was sorry at what he said. I think he should be given another chance we all make mistakes can't hold grudges foreva. Besides if he got up and said Its all the Black mans fault or the American Indians are to blame would ppl be outraged? I doubt it very much. How i saw it, Hollywood is run by a lot of Jewish ppl, and he was really taking it out on his bosses The movie Moguls of Hollywood whom are jewish not nesscessay the jewish race. If Hollywood was run by Asians he would of said the same about them.:hmm: Still it doesn't give him the right to say what he said. But an Anti Semite, hes not. If he is then i am and alot of us are.
What on earth has being Jewish got anything to do with the "movie Moguls of Hollywood" as you put it or that "Hollywood is run by a lot of Jewish ppl"? Quite frankly I think this kind of talk plays into the hands of the conspiracy nuts who think that Jews control the world blah blah blah. Perhaps I have misunderstood what you have written here. :-?

No you read right. But i never made the statement, just going by what is known. He also got alot of flak from Jews in hollywood for making "Christ the Passion" Put one and one together mix it with alcohol and what do you get? A drunken angry man that lets loose his mouth then realises the next day he has blown it. He could of ignored what he did and carried on with life sooner or later down the line it would of been forgotten or all he would need to do is wait for some other hollywood fool to mouth off and the heat would be gone. But he got an interview accepted he was wrong in what he said and now wants to move on. All im saying is he should be given another chance. His demon is alcohol. Hes a great actor and movie director.

[kiwi_2005]

Mel Gibson, move over (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061219/ap_en_ot/books_simpson_publisher). :roll:
I hope that Judith Reagans career is effectively over.
You being Australian would you feel the same way if she said the same thing about aborigines?

[The Avon Lady]

But an Anti Semite, hes not. If he is then i am and alot of us are.
He is a blatant anti-Semite. So is his father. And Konovalov pointed out why your other comments are a possible consideration for concern on their own merit.

"Who me?"
"Yes, you!"
"Couldn't be!"
"Then who?!"

[kiwi_2005]

Well i must be then:roll:

Hes anti semite yet he made a movie about Jesus who is a Jew? I did not see any anti whateva when i saw that movie. He had a passion to tell the story about Jesus.

[The Avon Lady]

Mel Gibson, move over (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061219/ap_en_ot/books_simpson_publisher). :roll:
I hope that Judith Reagans career is effectively over.
You being Australian would you feel the same way if she said the same thing about aborigines?
Said what about Aborigines?

[kiwi_2005]

This sums it up.
If hes anti semite yet he made a movie about Jesus who is a Jew? I did not see any anti whateva when i saw that movie. I saw Jesus the Jew been crucified because of his beliefs by Jews his own ppl. He had a passion to tell the story about Jesus. If he was anti semite he wouldn't of even gone near that movie. An anti semite would of made out Jesus was not jewish but some other nationality and the Jews killed him. Did he do that in his movie? Nazis beliefs that Jesus was aryan blood killed by Jews - thats anti semite.

My question with Konovalov is if Judith Reagans said the same thing about the aborigines would he say the same thing - I hope that Judith Reagans career is effectively over.

If his answer is yes then good for him.

[The Avon Lady]

If hes anti semite yet he made a movie about Jesus who is a Jew?
LOL!

Yes, therefore it is not possible that the Church throughout its history, could have ever issued anti-Semitic edicts or preached anti-Semitic teachings.

Nope. Couldn't be. After all, Jesus was a Jew. :roll:
I did not see any anti whateva when i saw that movie.[/url]
The funny thing is I never mentioned Gibson's movie nor was I referring to it. I am not referring to the move "The Passion" whatsoever. That's a topic on its own.
[quote]I saw Jesus the Jew been crucified because of his beliefs by Jews his own ppl.
Jewish courts had long before banned capital punishment. Crucifixion is a Roman method of capital punishment and would be forbidden to be implemented even if the Sanhedrin could hand out capital punishment.

2000 years of being lied to has rubbed off on some people.

Out the door I must go.........................

[kiwi_2005]

Good cya later :smug:

Thing is Harod asked the Jews who should it be? the murderer or Jesus? The Jews chose Jesus. And saved the murderer.:roll:

It was up to the Jews they had the last word they could of saved Jesus but they chose a murderer to be saved instead. And had one of their own cruified.

Of cause no doubt your have an anwser as your not christain am i right?

And its the christain nations that stand by the Jews today. Cause we know how to forgive.

Out the door i must go...

EDIT: Oh BTW before anyone start accusing me of being anti - semite? No far from it. I mentioned along time ago on here my exwife is Jewish blood and no I have no grudge or anything were great friends. Therefore my son who lives with me is part Jewish. My motherinlaw who visits Isreal every yr whom i get on very well with is a great grandmother to my son. If i was anti-semite or whateva i would have nothing to do with my ex-wife her family and my son. My point is Mel should be given another chance, he aint anti-semite. But yes he does have a demon - alcohol which he needs to solve.

Now im off. :)

[The Avon Lady]

Good cya later :smug:
Back! :p
Thing is Harod asked the Jews who should it be? the murderer or Jesus? The Jews chose Jesus. And saved the murderer.:roll:

It was up to the Jews they had the last word they could of saved Jesus but they chose a murderer to be saved instead. And had one of their own cruified.
I have no reason to assume the story is true. Example:
Jesus or Barabbas? Jesus is Sentenced to Die (Mark 15:6-15) (http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/mark15b.htm)

From Austin Cline,
Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Analysis and Commentary
6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired. 7 And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
8 And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them. 9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? 10 For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.
11 But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them. 12 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? 13 And they cried out again, Crucify him.
14 Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him. 15 And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
Compare: Matthew 27:15-31; Luke 23:13-25; John 18:38-19:16

Jesus vs. Barabbas
The historically inaccurate image of an indecisive Pilate is continued when he offers to release either Jesus or Barabbas to the crowds of Jews. Pilate is depicted as almost desperate to find an excuse to let Jesus go, but the blood lust of the Jews forces him to execute an innocent man.

Was there a custom whereby the Romans would release a condemned prisoner on the occasion of a holy feast day? No, there is absolutely no evidence that any such custom existed. While it certainly sounds like it would be nice to believe in, it would also be contrary to typically harsh Roman practices.

They simply would not have let thieves, murders, or political dissidents go on account of an odd Jewish festival. Even if such a practice existed, however, there is no way that Pilate would consent to allow Barabbas go over Jesus — Barabbas is specifically described has having participated in insurrection, a political crime. No one who tried to overthrow Roman rule was allowed to live. Jesus, even if he did claim to be King of the Jews, hadn’t done anything overt or violent yet.

Why did Mark make up this custom? Probably for the same reason that he made up the image of crowds of Jews calling out for Jesus to be crucified: it allows him to shift the blame for Jesus’ death away from the Roman authorities and onto the shoulders of the Jews. Mark’s community of Jewish Christians lived outside Palestine and under Roman rule. They would have been watched, and had the authorities found them developing a religious sect after a man executed by Romans for being a political revolutionary, they would have cracked down even harder.

Some have tried to excuse the author’s shifting of blame to the Jews by arguing that there was a theological rather than political motive here: Barabbas was supposed to be seen as a violent revolutionary whom the Jews preferred to the more peaceful policies of Jesus. Such a preference is plausible, to be sure, but the aforementioned absence of this custom makes the entire rationalization implausible. Besides, arguing that the Jews preferred violence and ended up dying by the sword because they chose the sword isn’t exactly a positive depiction of Jews.

It’s likely that Mark’s invention of Barabbas extended to creating an ironic name as well: Bar-abbas literally means “son of the father.” A false “son of the father” was chosen by the Jews to be released to them while the true “son of the father” was delivered to the Romans for crucifixion. Some early manuscripts of Matthew even give Barabbas a surname: Jesus. This, however, may have simply been a copyist's error because the Greek words for “to you” (“release to you Barabbas”) could have looked like an abbreviation for the name Jesus.
But for argument's sake, let's say it did happen.

"The Jews"? How big was this "multitude"? 100? 1000? 10000? The entire nation? The leaders of the nation or ignorant and idle people, with nothing better to do with their time? No one ever asks. No one knows.

But let's again assume that there were even 10000 people there. Barabbas murdered whom? One or more Roman in an act of insurrection. He would have been considered a hero and rightfully so under the suffering incurred by the Jews throughout the country for decades.

Jesus, on the other hand, was, frankly, a nobody. In fact, he was a trouble maker. There were lots of people during the era trying to awaken the nation's messianic yearning (nothing like what Christianity concocted later on). The Roman's dealt with such rabble rouser by the standard method of crucifixion until death. 1000's died this way and were kept up there for all to see and learn a lesson from.

So did they chose against Jesus or for Barabbus? I can't tell. Can you?

The funniest thing is that if this "multitude" had chosen to spare Jesus, there most likely never would have been a religion known as Christianity. Jesus, at best, would have succeeded in forming a new small deviant subsect of Judaism, like others did at the time, and wondered off into the sunset of the Judean hills or dessert, where the Romans would have hunted them down eventually anyway. So if I were you, I'd say you owe this supposed "multitude" big time. :yep:
Of cause no doubt your have an anwser as your not christain am i right?
Heh. :D
And its the christain nations that stand by the Jews today. Cause we know how to forgive.
Other than Micronesia and to a constantly lesser extent the US Government, who do you have in mind?

We don't need your forgiveness. You need ours for the attrocities Christianity has caused our people over 2000 years.
Out the door i must go...
Must be contageous. :88)
EDIT: Oh BTW before anyone start accusing me of being anti - semite? No far from it. I mentioned along time ago on here my exwife is Jewish blood and no I have no grudge or anything were great friends. Therefore my son who lives with me is part Jewish.
If his mother is Jewish, then he's 100% Jewish. In Judaism, there is no such thing as part-Jewish.
My motherinlaw who visits Isreal every yr whom i get on very well with is a great grandmother to my son. If i was anti-semite or whateva i would have nothing to do with my ex-wife her family and my son. My point is Mel should be given another chance, he aint anti-semite. But yes he does have a demon - alcohol which he needs to solve.

Now im off. :)
Getting late here now, too. ;)

[Konovalov]

My question with Konovalov is if Judith Reagans said the same thing about the aborigines would he say the same thing - I hope that Judith Reagans career is effectively over.

If his answer is yes then good for him.

On that hypothetical I would have to say yes but that isn't really relevant here.

[kiwi_2005]

If his mother is Jewish, then he's 100% Jewish. In Judaism, there is no such thing as part-Jewish.

Thats what the grandmother tells me my son is full Jewish so to not offend i agree with her. But! Im maori/croatian the father and i like to think my son has some of my blood as well so to me he's part Jewish/maori/croatian ;)

But yes i know where your coming from when hes 18 she (grandmother) is taking him to Jerusalem.

[Dan D]

Comment on the side-topic: "Jesus trial"
After the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, several Christian theologians filed petitions to the High Court in Jerusalem to reopen the criminal proceeding against Jesus.
It was argued that only now the Jewish people had their own sovereign jurisdiction again, so that it was time for a revision of the proceeding.
The High Court delved into the petitions and rejected them, arguing that all process-related documents are missing and that the only available records, the Gospels (Mark. 15, 53-15. Matthew. 26, 57-27, 30, Luke. 22, 66-23; John 18, 12-19,14) are tendentious.

The records say that Jesus after his arrestment was first handed over to the Jewish court.
That court decided to hand Jesus over to the Roman Governor Pilate:
“Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, reached a decision. They bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.” (Mark. 15,1).
The Jews did not have the right of penal jurisdiction (“It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death”- John18,31).
But above all, Jesus was handed over so that Pilate would not have pretence to engage against the Jewish people because of the “agitator” Jesus:
“Now it was Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man should perish for the people “(John 18, 37-38).
The charges against Jesus were:
1) temple desecration
„Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.”
(Mark. 14,57-58)
2) defraudation of tax to the imperial regnancy
“And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king."
(Luke 23,2)
3) presumption of royal dignity
“Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God. -"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied”(Mathew 26, 63-64).
For the Roman Governor Pilate the presumption of royal dignity was the most significant point. Strangely enough, he did not deal with tax defraudation.
Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” He answered, “So you say.” (Mark 15,2).
Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?”
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” (John 18,37-38).
According to Roman law the presumption of royal dignity meant a lèse-majesté of the Roman Emperor for which the Lex Julia provided the death penalty.
“So then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him “. (John 19,1).
Jesus was sentenced to death under Roman law and executed by Roman authorities.
Of course there was also the Barrabas incident, according to the records.
Pilate: “But you have a custom, that I should release someone to you at the Passover. Therefore do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” Then they all shouted again, saying, “Not this man, but Barrabas” (John 18, 39-40).

I wonder what would have happened if the audience had shouted instead: “Yes, release to us the “King of the Jews” (which they thought was untrue anyway).
I guess if Jesus “King of Jews” then would have continued to walk about and preach love, forgiveness and what some people call temple desecration and tax defraudation and causing uproar, Pilate sooner or later would have sent out his troops against Jesus and the Jews.
Looks like a lose-lose situation for the Jews to me.

[August]

If his mother is Jewish, then he's 100% Jewish.

Says you, but that doesn't make him 100% Jewish in the eyes of the rest of the world.

[Enigma]

I love watching people argue over myth. :damn:

[The Avon Lady]

If his mother is Jewish, then he's 100% Jewish.
Says you, but that doesn't make him 100% Jewish in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Says Jewish law. If someone's going to relate something about someone's Jewishness, as Kiwi did, there's nothing disasterous in telling him how Judaism itself actually relates to that situation.

No one said you or anyone else had to agree.

[The Avon Lady]

I love watching people argue over myth. :damn:
We believe in you.

:p

[Enigma]

Well its a good thing that so called "laws" of a religion are optional, eh?

[August]

Says Jewish law. If someone's going to relate something about someone's Jewishness, as Kiwi did, there's nothing disasterous in telling him how Judaism itself actually relates to that situation.

No one said you or anyone else had to agree.

Well actually two people, both Jewish former girlfriends, did say I had to agree regardless of my feelings on the subject or the beliefs of my own heritage.

Then, as now, I found such such a "law" extremely arrogant and racist.

[kiwi_2005]

Thing is my sons grandmother does not believe in God nor Jesus or any other faith she reckons its all "humbug" in her words. When your dead your dead. The End. But she maintains what AL said. My son is Jewish. She confuses the hell out of me at times, but a good old soul. She tells me when she goes back home to visit its her family in Jeureslum she goes to see, the religious side of it means nothing to her.

Some of her relations was gassed during the nazi era, she was very religious when young but lost the faith somewhere along the way.

[The Avon Lady]

[quote=The Avon Lady]Then, as now, I found such such a "law" extremely arrogant and racist.
Goody for you. :rock:

[Enigma]

The more I think about it, I dont know of an organized religeon that isnt arrogant and racist in some form or another. ...

[Takeda Shingen]

Warning #1:

Get back to OJ.

Thanks,
The Management

[Enigma]

Someone must have said something out of step with the majority....:know:

[Takeda Shingen]

Someone must have said something out of step with the majority....:know:

No, but this thread is wandering, and has gone off topic. Even a shallow examination of the sociology of this forum demonstrates that the chances of offending and inappropriate behavior increase dramatically once topics wander, as we have seen here. Accordingly, it is my duty to place the thread back on topic, thus preventing further exchange of insults and hurt feelings, and avoiding the ever-unsightly locked thread.

Proceed, but play nice.

[Enigma]

I was just kidding. I fully understand your point and reasoning, sir.

Carry on, sailor. :arrgh!:

[kiwi_2005]

Warning #1:

Get back to OJ.

Thanks,
The Management
Ok that OJ now if he wasn't BLACK do you think he would of been found not guilty? Noooooooo!..... Oh wait a minute that dont sound right?:88)

[ASWnut101]

from the start of your sentence to "he wasn't...." I could not understand at all... :lol: