>>4442869 (lb)

you actually concede his first point even as you

attempt to refute. in fact by attempting to excuse

the behavior by laying it at the feet of religious jews,

you make his point, surely?

what a nasty religion it is then.

he claims "Christians are harassed by Jews".

you say this is a LIE because the TRUTH is

"open vocal missionaries get harassed by religious jews."

GET. I note your choice terms. Quid Pro Quo. Axiomatic

Threatening.

It is your choice call what he terms a Christian a blob of cells

so you can abort him into "open vocal and missionary" as though that

justifies the Jewish harassment - RELIGIOUS JEW aggression - and a

religious Jew is still a Jew isn't it? So the more Jewish…the greater the

harassment expected?

So Jews do in fact harass SOMEONE, a point you concede, so he did NOT lie; the issue is whether the Jews harass a Christian or an open vocal missionary (of Christ, I assume); it seems that a Christian is someone who is not open, vocal or missionary (I assume about Christ) and an open vocal missionary is someone who is open vocal and missionary about Christ and not donuts or this wouldn't be an issue would it? Jews religious or otherwise do not have a reputation across the millennia for harassing open vocal missionaries of Boston cremes.

I will concede your point if you will concede mine and we'll meet half way -

"open vocal missionaries of Christ get harassed by (religious) jews."

can we agree on that statement?