It's a figure of speech, you got a better analogy?
Your anaology, you come up with a better one.
This link (in the footnotes #4 at the bottom of the page
EDIT->
) You chastise me for not reading all the webpages and all the links of the links you post - takes you 1minute to find the link and me substantially longer to figure out everything the page and links from the page say. A fair point? Especially when I find nothing informative in the links,
EDIT especially the second two above)
OK, will scanned copies of the evidence and court documents do?
http://findingaids.cjh.org/?pID=477923
I don't think a citation not required. Matter of opinion. Surely the people who run it and therefore are able to remove/deny evidence unfavourable to their cause would have an impact also. And unless you want to go through all that business, then I must agree with you, that one cannot be considered better than the other.
Which is why one should always check the sources it cites before using it.
However given your new found appreciation of the possibility of bias in a source you will no longer be using the likes of Natural News, etc as 'proof'.
So if I assume that you consider that there was a trial and that the defendents weren found guilty of distributing it to the public was an offence, means that the papers are a forgery? If so then if the verdict is overturned then it no longer stands as evidence? (The high court of the Canton of Berne, Switzerland November 1st, 1937)
The only question was whether the Protocols was, as claimed, immoral literature. The law did not define the term precisely.
No the only part overturned by the second trial was that it was immoral literature, the verdict that they were forgeries was never reversed.
Even evangelical sites that moan about the lack of publicity for the second trial acknowledge such:
"On November 1st, 1937 the high court of the Canton of Berne, Switzerland, ruled that the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion do not constitute immoral literature in that sense that circulation of the documents calls for punishment. The conviction in the lower court of two anti-Semites, Silvio Schnell and Theodore Fischer, accused of circulating the documents, was reversed. They were convicted after a seventeen-day trial which ended in May of 1935, at which the presiding judge ruled that the
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion" purporting to reveal Jewish plans for domination of the world "are forgeries and immoral literature"".
Source:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/examiner.htm
As you can see of the original ruling that they were forgeries and immoral literature, only the latter charge was overturned, that of immoral literature.
The key ruling that they were forgeries was never overturned (and even a rabidly anti-Jewish site such as the above admits as much - even if its tucked away at the bottom and presented in a misleading manner). Now if you had bothered providing a source in the first place your inaccurate claim of the trial only concerning the morality of the literature would have been seen to be inaccurate.
Cheap shot, you trying to wind me up?
No, I'm stating fact.
You rarely use sources (see above - you once again make an unsubstantiated claim without a source, that is proven to be untrue when sourced) and when they do they are often out of context or serious biased and unreliable.
If you don't like it then use better sources (and actually use them rather than making unsupported claims).
I have drafted a response, however I still need to check over what I have said, and as such have not posted it yet. When my train of thought moves over to the vaccine question then it will get my full attention.
Really! Its taken this long to reply to points you were clearly incorrect about and to explain source material you provided without any context?
Fair point in this case. Nothing evidential although they are words that Disraeli wrote, and again I care not for who the subjects are, just that there are subjects.
You actually seem to only care about making a point, regardless of its relevance, accuracy or your ability to support it. In doing so you present yourself as an unreliable commentator.
I don't really care who the Protocols were written by (Nazi's, Jews, KKK, Moonies etc). Take religions out of it. You could write the Protocols without religion and see for yourself that whether the Protocols were a work of fiction(not sure about that one), satire(very possibly), plan(distinct possibility) or a prophecy(better than Nostradamus), then they can certainly be seen to have in some form come to pass, the subjects will reveal themselves.
The origin of them and the authenticity are key, that you 'don't really care' seems to indicate that you have no real understanding of the damage the creation of them unleashed upon the world. It is more than possible to trace a link from them directly to the Holocaust.
As such they should not be a plaything of the conspiracy theorists of the world to 'prove' NWO fantasies, but rather should serve as a reminder of the implication blinding accepting propaganda designed to incite hatred can result in.
That you seemingly dismiss that factor in such a way (or have never even considered it) speaks volumes about your potential character as an individual, and not in a positive way.
. But don't get me wrong, Zionists are controversial for many reasons
