Sunday, December 05, 2010

Free exchange of ideas on CODOH includes ...

... the psychopath Carmelo Lisciotto ("Blogbuster") peddling his monologues under various aliases on fake blogs to a grateful audience of gullible "truth seekers", including my old friend "Drew J".

This showpiece of "Revisionist" intellect further disgraced himself by referring to the beaten old "Roberto Muehlenkamp debunked on 3.5kg of coke cremations" nonsense (commented in my RODOH posts of 4-Oct-2006 21:23, 5-Oct-2006 10:27, 5-Oct-2006 11:04, 5-Oct-2006 14:42 and 16-Dec-2006 20:17).

In response to Drew J's euphoric post of Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:34 pm, the poster "Balsamo" pointed out the obvious:

Actually, they werer not.
All those sites seem to come from the same psychopatic mind. This guy should get a life. Personnally, i don't care if he wants to waste his time creating fake blog pages. But again, i am not a doctor.

Drew J didn't answer, presumably because he realized that he had let himself be taken for a ride by straitjacket-case "Blogbuster" Lisciotto.

But another "Revisionist" genius, writing under the handle "holographic", produced this pearl when applauding one of compulsive liar Lisciotto's hysterical bitching monologues:

Nice to see that he believes in vampires too!

Or maybe the guy was just trying to be funny ...

Update, 09.12.2010:

Witness Drew J sinking to the lowest levels of imbecility (or shall we say mendacity?) by endorsing the inane falsehoods proclaimed by compulsive liar Carmelo Lisciotto on this pituable psychopath's fake blogs and in forum monologues between his various sockpuppets.

Is Drew J really that stupid?

Is he really such a hopeless sucker?

Or is he a compulsive liar like "Blogbuster" Lisciotto himself?

Our readers may decide.

Update, 11.12.2010:

My conversation with Drew J continues here.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Anyone else see this? Drew J wrote:

    "And their [Jews'] mind reading far flung bureaucracy was the religion of Judaism which just reinstalled the kol nidre absolution of vows prayer in Judaism in 1945."

    Huh? German Reform Jews had removed the Kol Nidre for about seventy-five years before 1945, and after the war, they reinstated it. Notably, American Reform Jews did not remove the Kol Nidre from Yom Kippur prayers, nor did any other denomination of Judaism, notably Conservative (largest denomination in America) and Orthodox (fastest growing denomination).

    Perhaps Drew J would like to debate his vast expertise in Judaism?


  3. Drew J:

    Link to my response here. It's my personal Web site, because my actual response was too long.


  4. Next response is up at:

  5. And again.

  6. For the bored, here's the gist of the argument:

    OK, here's an essential problem, or perhaps more than one:

    (1) You're not reading things in context, by your own admission. You are reading things knowingly presented out of context. That's a big problem in reading anything. Suppose I say to you that Jesus once said to one of his apostles that they'd always have the poor with them, so they should pay attention him instead. And I concluded from this that Jesus was an arrogant bastard who hated the poor. Not exactly fair, right?

    (2) Neither you nor Pike nor Hoffman can read classical languages (maybe, as a Catholic, Hoffman can read Latin but I doubt it -- my parents can't), which brings with it a different set of problems. So Pike and Hoffman present themselves as experts. I am a certified expert in American literature, as proved (let's just agree to agree) on the fact that I have a Ph.D in the field. Do you suppose someone would be awarded "expert status" in the literature of a nation without knowing the national language? Can you get a Ph.D. in Russian literature without being able to read Russian? Same standard applies to Jewish literature. Same standard applies, in fact, to any student doing graduate-level work in religious studies and focusing on Judaism.

    (3) Because of (1) and (2), you end up with, at best, a surface-level knowledge of things that require much more than that. You claim to be fluent in the Talmud, but you don't even know what Pirkey Avot is. The reason they start ten-year-old boys on Pirkey Avot is not only that it's relatively easy to comprehend, but that it also provides a logical basis on which to teach the rest of Mishnah and Gemara (based on the introduction of pairs of disagreeing scholars over generations). But you have none of that. Plus there's no evidence that any of you have any training in textual criticism.

    The average yeshiva boy has both. I have one, at least, even if I learned most of my Judaism long after ten years old.


  7. The latest:

  8. And again:

  9. Getting a bit tiresome:

  10. Yawn...

  11. The end?

  12. This is just ridiculous bullshit at this point. To wit:

    Drew J "quoted" a Web page

    This is the page he "quoted":

    Drew said it said, " The minimum age for marriage under Jewish law is 13 for boys, 12 for girls."

    He cut this part off: "however, the kiddushin can take place before that, and often did in medieval times."

    That means a couple can be betrothed one to the other at an earlier age. They cannot consummate the marriage until later.

    So when Drew quotes this as a proof against the above:

    "Raba said: Come and hear! A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother's wife [the former having left no issue] acquires her [as wife]."

    He is ignoring several factors:

    (1) The argument at hand is at what age does the requirement for levirate marriage fall on a boy. The answer, according to Raba (the halakha is not cited) is nine.

    (2) The reason this is even brought up is that they are debating at what age a child can be held accountable for a sexual offense. Here they are actually specifically discussion bestiality.

    (3) Nothing in the quote indicates that a nine-year-old boy has sex with his brother's widow. Just that they are legally married through living with each other. (It says nothing about their having sex together.)

    (4) The marital ages for boys and girls are not biblically mandated.

    Drew has failed — yet again — to produce a halakhic decision rendered in the Talmud that overrules a biblical commandment.

  13. Hey Drew,

    Looks like your "pro-free-speech" li'l buddies over at CODOH deleted a bunch of your posts in response to me.

    I guess Mr. Hargis wet his pants? You tell me.



Please read our Comments Policy