i'll try:
please provide example, by accessing LBO archives at:
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/
of the list's "preoccupation with yids" and why it "creeps you out".
your post: http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0203/2122.html
relevant text:
------ Present company excepted, I have to say that the preoccupation with Yids on this list by some people creeps me out. ------
the reason i ask:
jks has argued that it is not meaningless to use the term "the jews" (they exist as a group - its a social reality - i think that jks' point). you or others have said that there is no such homogenuous entity. i think you have also said that this should be clear by substituting "palestinians" - but i can think of valid statements: the palestinians deserve to live in peace in their homeland. indians form the wealthiest immigrant segment in the united states (not made invalid by the lack of wealth among indian cab drivers or those working at gas stations). so on...
i would of course be cautious of making any sort of generalization about jewish people, in particular using a term like "The Jews"... are you advising such caution? or are you arguing that though meaningful statements about jewish people as a group can be made, those statements are in a different context (such as a religious one: the jewish people use the legend of the golem to illustrate the good and bad sides of using power to right wrongs), not relevant to this list? or am i right in understanding your position as one denying any valid grouping of people under the term "jews" (other than the trivial one)?
--ravi