tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13169838.post7276056073858941128..comments2023-07-31T15:17:30.792+01:00Comments on Christian Hate?: On calling a Jew a JewCyrushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00512481025183200804noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13169838.post-34432921064689949112009-07-14T11:19:54.980+01:002009-07-14T11:19:54.980+01:00I am still (July 14) waiting for your withdrawal o...I am still (July 14) waiting for your withdrawal of your lies, Cyrus, you scummy little smearbagStephen Hugh-Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13169838.post-85478707433141882832009-04-25T07:54:00.000+01:002009-04-25T07:54:00.000+01:00Oh ho ho ho. When someone who claims to be serious...Oh ho ho ho. When someone who claims to be serious spends 3,000 words untruthfully calling SnoopyTheGoon a racist or (let's say)a rapist, will he just laugh it off with a few beers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13169838.post-47934189569415541362009-04-21T12:08:00.000+01:002009-04-21T12:08:00.000+01:00Aw shucks. The man is certainly going at it...
Ha...Aw shucks. The man is certainly going at it...<br /><br />Has a way with words too. "grubby little Cyrus" and whatnot.<br /><br />IMHO he needs a good BJ and a few beers.SnoopyTheGoonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00920565522498918323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13169838.post-89067057009237658312009-04-02T06:48:00.000+01:002009-04-02T06:48:00.000+01:00Good God! Near to three thousand more droplets of ...Good God! Near to three thousand more droplets of slime from the keyboard of grubby little Cyrus. And still this self-appointed arbiter of morals hasn't the courage--leave aside grace or common honesty--even to sign his name.<BR/><BR/> Why not? I suppose it's always tempting not to, when you're smearing people. Is he really "intimidated" by the word "libel". Take heart, Cyrus, one can accurately use that word without proposing to rush to law about it. In a longish life I've been libelled almost as nastily, to rather more readers, and I've never yet sued anybody. <BR/><BR/> And what are these 3,000-odd words of taradiddle for? Evidently, to spread a bit wider the dirty little lie that Cyrus first aimed at me. And, second, to try to bury the fact that a lie it was ("an untruth spoken knowingly"--and in this case maliciously), by piling on further lies. Let's take a loook at them:<BR/><BR/> 1. A dirty lie it indeed was. Cyrus put in my mouth a total fabrication: the fiction that I was reminding Melanie Phillips that "Jews aren't quite one of us". That phrase and that fabrication are Cyrus's unaided work. I've never in my life had such a thought; I regard it as wholly false, frankly absurd and grossly offensive--to any Briton, Jewish or not. Yet on his self-invented, utterly fictitious basis Cyrus turns a letter disagreeing with Ms Phillips about multiculturalism into evidence for a barely-concealed charge of closet anti-semitism. You father your words on me, Cyrus, and then build your vile smear around them. And now for the fresh lies:<BR/><BR/>2. It seems that with "sly innuendo" I called attention to the fact that Melanie Phillips is Jewish. For pity's sake! One might as well stand accused of slyly insinuating that the Pope is a Catholic. Ms Phillips makes her background plain urbi et orbi, as she is wholly welcome to, and as I proudly would if I were Jewish. And any Times reader would know of it. <BR/><BR/> Did I even "draw attention" to it at all, slyly or openly? I did not. Ms Phillips's dislike of multiculturalism is specifically directed against our attitude to Muslims. The obvious parallel is the 17th-19th century changes of heart that replaced earlier hostility to two other faith-based communities, Jews and Catholics. I'd have cited exactly the same parallel if her article had come from a Christian, a Buddhist or a man from Mars. (And no, Cyrus, my letter did not imply, as you later pretend, that "there is some precedent for violent Islamism in the history of British Jewry". I'd have to be a total ignoramus, or regard all Times readers as such, even to hint at anything so silly).<BR/> <BR/> Even if I'd done what Cyrus falsely claims, what would that show? Not in decades has any civilised West European used "Jewish" in a derogatory sense. Nor have I, ever. And not just because I was in my impressionable pre-teens when we learned the horrors of the Holocaust. No, the mere idea is simply potty, to anyone who admires the huge contribution that Jews have made to Europe and to Britain; as I do (and said as much in a 1980s review of a book on Britain's Jews for the Economist). <BR/><BR/> 3. Allegedly, my question what Ms Phillips thought of past centuries' steps toward multiculturalism really meant "does she, as a Jew, think they were right?". Tosh. The words "as a Jew" come, yet again, strictly from Cyrus's malign imagination. I was disagreeing about multiculturalism with the writer of an article. Can one not challenge a writer who happens to be Jewish without being accused of emphasising their Jewishness?<BR/><BR/> 4. Allegedly, I was accusing Ms Phillips of "hypocrisy". Another figment of Cyrus's fertile imagination. What an idiot I'd have looked: she habitually makes her views plain as a pikestaff, and everyone knows it. And in fact "she's a Jew, and therefore a hypocrite", which Cyrus fathers on me, is, yet again, totally and offensively his own invention <BR/><BR/>5. Allegedly, I also ascribed "double standards" to her. More strictly Cyrusian fantasy.<BR/><BR/>6. Allegedly, I "put words into Melanie Phillips's mouth, making her an opponent of minority rights". That takes some chutzpah--I trust I may use the word, if Cyrus can?--from a man who has put mucky fiction after fiction into my mouth. But still, he's the expert in that black art, maybe for once he's right? He is not. Ms Phillips's exact words in her article were "The doctrines of multiculturalism and minority rights, themselves the outcome of a systematic onslaught by the British elite against the country’s own identity and values...". My letter said that she "thinks that the doctrines of multiculturalism and minority rights spring from 'a systematic onslaught by the elite against British identity and values" . And Cyrus calls that putting words in her mouth!<BR/> And so on, and on. And all this from a man who talks of the "defence" of his own "integrity", while coining lie after fabrication after absurdity to besmirch mine. <BR/><BR/> And if Cyrus doesn't want to believe me, perhaps he will believe Melanie Phillips. She is hardly famous for condoning anti-semitism. Yet her letter of reply in the Times contained not a hint of that charge, not a sliver of Cyrus's fatuous would-be evidence for it. <BR/><BR/> And so to his denunciation of a later piece of mine. That too rests on a grotesque travesty of what I actually wrote (for the truth, see www.moreintelligentlife.com of 1 December 2007). Witness...<BR/><BR/>7. One piece of almost ludicrous fiction. In the Cyrusian myth, I "equated Jewish objections to Holocaust deniers with German objections to Jews wearing yarmulkas and going to synagogues". I didn't. What I wrote was that a co-president of the Oxford students' Jewish Society was reported as saying that by joining the demo against the meeting it "didn't want to deny people free speech, we just don't want to give them any more platforms to air their views." This struck me as an illogical self-contradiction; and my own follow-up was "...like those in the 1930s who 'had nothing against Jews, I just dislike their yarmulkes, synagogues, bar-mitzvahs and kosher kitchens. And money' ". <BR/><BR/> I was actually thinking of British anti-semites of those days. How even Cyrus could see the illogical nonsense that I ascribed to them--if indeed he genuinely did so--as portraying 1930s Germany, God knows. (The Nazis "had nothing against Jews", didn't they? He should read some history). <BR/><BR/> And so on, and on. And all this from a blogmonger who talks of the "defence" of his own (anonymous) "integrity", while coining lie after fabrication after absurdity to besmirch mine. <BR/> Well, I could go on and on, like he does. But I've already written far more than I meant to, and frankly life is too short to be spent refuting a mucky little libeller. He's "modestly pleased with himself". So be it: strangely, clever fools often are proud of their follies, and I'm sure he gives himself plenty of occasion for it. Let's leave master Grubby in his play-pen to his favourite pastimes of baiting lefties and hating Christian Aid and Palestinians. While I rejoin the grown-up world. <BR/><BR/> Though not without checking that this rebuttal of his smears actually appears in his precious blogspot. And, yes, signing my name....<BR/><BR/>Stephen Hugh-Jones<BR/>2 April 09Stephen Hugh-Jonesnoreply@blogger.com