Yet another Oxbridge prat!

Only yesterday I was  congratulating myself on not having been banned for, well, some considerable time by my standards.  In fact, I could not remember the last time that some one entered my Street of Shame which is, as you all know, occupied by all those pathetic creatures who cannot abide a contrary opinion.  To be fair, it was perhaps that lurking thought that made me indulge in a piece of fairly mild rudery at the expense of a certain 'Rob' Jubb who is, I believe, some sort of academic in Oxford.  To give you the full and ferocious, vindictive, not to say down-right crude, flavour of my rudery, here is the quote:

"I apologise in advance because this is going to be rude and generally I try to avoid rudeness, but how do such very silly people as you get into universities? And how do you stay there?"

Well, 'you better watch out' because when I get really riled that is the sort of vicious stuff I can produce! Even rough, tough characters like 'Snotty' McShot go about in fear and trembling lest they raise my ire but, of course, being rough and tough they don't ban you, they just give you back as good as they get.  Of course, I exaggerate, to re-make a point I have made 'many a time and oft''.  The likes of 'Robb' Jubb are delicate creatures, nurtured in the safety of state-subsidised Academe.  Like his equally effete Oxfordian, the 'Virtual Stoat', he has never had a drill sergeant tell him the story of his life, never had a sales manager scream at him that his sales figures were down, never, in fact, ever had to go out and hack a living for himself in the real world.  Now, safely ensconced in his ivory tower at the tax-payer's expense he feels free to write the sort of dribbling rubbish that this post exhibits.

If you read his post in which he minces about wondering why the Israeli's counter-attacked (although he would never recognise it as a counter-attack) because Hezbollah were only killing 0.5 of a person per month, just ask yourself this: would you entrust your child's education to such a moron?

Comments

[Planeshift]

"but how do such very silly people as you get into universities? And how do you stay there?"

Don't be naive. The answer, 90% of the time, is mummy and daddy.

[Tom Tyler]

David, as I'm sure you have realised long, long ago, there is simply no use arguing with the anti-Israel brigade. To them, Israel can do no right, and indeed Israel represents a blot on their world-view simply by existing at all.
I'm not sure if you are a religious chap, a believer in the ancient bearded one depicted in the Old Testament, and I have no desire to coerce you into such a belief, if you are happy without it. However, the continual and numerous "prophecies" made by this bearded chap in said book, to the effect that "all nations will hate Israel without cause" is certainly food for thought, to my mind at least. Where does all this utterly unreasonable anti-Israel bile stem from? I mean, why Israel in particular? Why not North Korea or Somalia? Not even America and the universally loathed GWB can command such a, ahem, disproportionate seething hatred!

I'm currently engaging in debate on other blogs, trying my best to defend Israel's position, and the responses I'm getting are nothing less than psychotic! What makes me laugh more than anything is people's continual appeals for Israel to obey "international law" and "the rules of warfare"!!! The Rules of Warfare?!?! Ha ha ha ha! I don't have any sort of military background, yet what a total oxymoron that is! Even a non-intellectual like myself can see that at a glance. Surely, part of the whole definition of a state of war between two opposing sides is that all the niceities of civilised diplomacy have broken down irretrievably, and there are effectively no "rules" left except "fight to win".

[Barry Bananas]

I think you are being slightly disingenuous here, David; I don't think you were banned for being rude, as the last paragraph in Jubb's post indicates. Rather, it's quite clear to me that you were banned because you are known the length and breadth of the internet for being a legendary arsehole.

[David Duff]

That's the sort of thing that could get you banned from 'prof' Jubb's site, but here, I'm proud to say, we maintain a healthy, robust tolerance even for, how shall I put this delicately, eccentrics such as yourself.

[Barry Bananas]

Well, I appreciate your tolerance, and in appreciation of same I won't even mention all those times when your own delicate sensibilities compelled you to censor and/or delete my comments.

[David Duff]

I can bet you a wheel-barrow full of fivers that any censoring I undertook was as a result of your *constant*, tedious *repetition* of four-letter expletives, 'up with which I will not put'. Your ideas, no matter how grisly or dumb or contrary to mine, are always welcome.

[dearieme]

Sit rep, Corporal Duff. "1599" good read. Comes nowhere near explaining the genius of WS, of course, but at least no drivel about porcupines.

[David Duff]

I'm halfway, 'Dearieme', and the delight is in the detail. The shame is at my ignorance. I shall probably be moved to post on this more fully when I have finished.

Now try "1812"!

[Rob]

If you're going castigate me as effete ivory-tower dweller as part of whining about me telling you where to stick it - surely some irony there - you could at least bother to get the details straight. Although I do live in Oxford, where I did go to university, casual perusal of my archives would have revealed to you that I have not been a student for more than a year and am currently a genuine tax-paying wage slave. Indeed, I have spent more of my adult life working - only once with members of the armed forces, and never with sales reps, admittedly - than I have studying. It'd also be nice if you spelt my name right.

[David Duff]

I apologise for mixing up the double 'b's in your name but I can make no apology for failing to delve into your archives - dread thought - having read your mathematical nonsense on the subject of the Israel/Lebanon war. I mean, '0.5% of a person per month'!

However, I did check your Blogger profile but found in it nothing but your name and your location, Oxford, hence my not unreasonable deduction. However, now that you have clarified the position surely the answer to my two questions: "[H]ow do such very silly people as you get into universities? And how do you stay there?" would have been what you stated above, instead of banning me. And I am not "whining" about your injunction to "f*ck off back to the hole you came from" which I barely noticed. My only complaint was that you banned me for some mild rudery barely worth the name, even if it did provide me with a wry smile.

[Rob]

Inhabitant of Oxford = "delicate creatures, nurtured in the safety of state-subsidised Academe". You tell that to the inhabitants of Blackbird Leys then.

The fact that I am currently not a student would have been an answer to questioning how I became and remained a student. Because no-one has ever been a student other than for the whole of their life.

Telling someone where to stick it, rather than referring to the lengthy self-pitying - drill sergeants shouted at me, I never got ensconced anywhere at the tax-payer's expense - and fact-free - I notice you haven't actually corrected any of the errors - screed above, clearly refers to having once used the word 'f*ck'. Well, I'll use it again: you're a f*cking idiot, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop libelling me.

[David Duff]

"The fact that I am currently not a student would have been an answer to questioning how I became and remained a student. Because no-one has ever been a student other than for the whole of their life."

Ah, bless! Isn't he a treasure? Don't you just love that last epigram, "Because no-one has ever been a student other than for the whole of their life." So very, very Oxford, don't you think?

So, Robert Jubb Esq., I can't help wondering who does fill your pay packet every month - but of course you are not obliged to tell me. As to libel, I think that anyone who writes serious political posts telling us, amongst other things, that the Jews have no right to retaliate because their enemy has only killed 0.5% of a Jew per month, makes libel entirely superfluous.

By the way, don't think I don't appreciate the '*' in "f*ck" - it makes all the difference! Your mummy and daddy obviously brought you up properly, well done.

Oh, and finally, like Mr. Barry Bananas above, you remain welcome to visit here and say your piece. After all if I can put up with nincompoops like him, I'm sure I can cope with you, even if you are too delicate to return the favour.

[N.I.B.]

Now, now - you're not really in a position to take the piss out of how people write, David! Stones and glass houses and all that...

[David Duff]

Do you refer, Sir, to my grammar or my content?

[N.I.B.]

"Do you refer, Sir, to my grammar or my content?"

I rest my case.

[Rob]

I didn't say the Israelis - it's interesting you describe them as Jews, I think - didn't have a right to retaliate: I said their retaliation was disproportionate. If you think the two are the same, presumably you think that in retaliation for your lying about me I would be entitled to find out where you live and paint in large red letters on the front of your house 'David Duff is a lying prick' or indeed blow it up.

Also, I said 0.5 Israelis were being killed on average in the pre-escalation situation, not 0.5% of an Israeli. If you can't tell the difference, I suppose that means that apart from having no regard for the truth and believing that murder would be an appropriate response to libel, you're also totally mathematically illiterate.

[David Duff]

A delayed response which I will explain in a post.

I deliberately used the term "Jews", first, because that is what they are and second, because of the frisson it causes in the delicate sensibilities of those who tiptoe through language like *Jewish* soldiers crossing a Hezbollah minefield. I just knew that Rob would re-act, thus confirming that he is as predictable as he is silly.

His silliness, of course, is confirmed by his application of the word "disproportionate" in the context of warfare. I don't know what he studied at Oxford but it certainly wasn't military history - although, now I think about it and remind myself of the general standard of what is laughingly known as modern 'edukashun', perhaps he did! Whatever, it is obvious that no one has told him that warfare is not cricket.

It is also an interesting sidelight on the weakness of his argument that he picks up what was *obviously* a 'typo' when I inadvertantly wrote "0.5%" in my comment instead of the "0.5" I used in my original post. As to being "mathematically illiterate", I am quite cheerfully prepared to admit to the weakness, as I have done frequently to 'Dr. Teabag', but I cannot help wondering if, by now, Rob is prepared to admit to his *military* illiteracy?

Incidentally, so far he seems to have failed to appreciate yet another difference between us - the fact that I continue to welcome his contrary opinions here, whilst mine are banned 'over there'. Perhaps it's the irony that he enjoys, very partial to irony, those clever Oxbridge types!

[Barry Bananas]

David - 'I deliberately used the term "Jews", first, because that is what they are'

Rob is talking about Hizbullah attacks on Israeli citizens. Israeli citizens are _not_ all Jewish.

[David Duff]

Thank you, 'Bananas', for stating the 'bleedin' obvious so succinctly. Indeed, not all Israeli citizens are Jews, just as not all inhabitants of London during the blitz were English. I will go further and admit that it is possible that living in or near the Jewish kibbutzim that are the main target of Hezbullah rockets, there may be the odd Arab or three. So, we can agree that Hezbullah is an equal opportunities killer. Well done, 'Bananas'!

[Barry Bananas]

Indeed, so bleedin' obvious that you got it wrong.

To summarise your comment, above: "When I said 'I deliberately used the term "Jews", first, because that is what they are', I was _obviously_ wrong, but I'm hoping that if I just pretend that I knew that all along nobody will notice, even though everything I'm now saying is a direct refutation of my previous statement, and therefore Rob Jubb's point about my curious use of the word 'Jews' to describe Israelis still stands."

Good stuff. Also, how do you know so much about Hizbullah's target selection method? And if they are mainly aiming for kibbutzim, how have they managed to kill vastly more Israeli soldiers than civilians?

[Andy M]

David, would you mind not referring to 'Oxbridge' types? The idiot Jubb is plainly an Oxonian. We Cantabrians get very shirty at being lumped in with the denizens of the other place. Why, it's tantamount to LIBEL!!!

[David Duff]

Apparently, 'Mr. Bananas' in conjunction with his friend, Mr. Jubb, the well-known Oxonian wage-slave, would like it to be clearly stated that Hezbullah are not aiming their rockets at Jews. Any damage to Jews, even at the miserly rate of 0.5 of a Jew per month is entirely co-incidental and contingent. They, Hezbollah, take any suggestion that they would even dream of killing Jews because they're, er, well, Jews, would be a gross misinterpretation of their motivation which has always complied faithfully to a strictly non-racial policy of murder and mayhem.

I am delighted to set the record straight.

[Barry Bananas]

Well, thank you for replying to my comment like a grown up, David.

Despite your admission that it is "bleedin' obvious" that not all Israeli citizens are Jews, it is very odd that you are unable to refer to them as anything but. Would it hurt you so bad to say "Israelis"? You couldn't even bring yourself to say it once in your last comment.

I can't speak for Rob Jubb, but I am not seeking a declaration from you "that Hezbullah are not aiming their rockets at Jews", or anything like it. I guess I was just - rather foolishly, it transpires - suggesting that you give some serious consideration to the fact that the casualties suffered by Israel do not appear to support the thesis that Hizbollah (about whose choices of target you have a curiously intimate knowledge) are predominatly targetting civilians. Apparently you are reluctant to engage in rational analysis. It is apparently also too much for you to actually follow through on the "bleedin' obvious" and use the designation "Israeli" instead of "Jews" when describing people who are not exclusively of the Jewish faith.

Evidently I have overestimated you yet again.

[David Duff]

Alas, very few people have ever "overestimated" me, except perhaps the little 'Memsahib' in our earlier years which might explain her somewhat sour outlook these days! Usually, people's poor evaluation of my worth is confirmed by experience but, you know, 'Mr. Bananas', as our local vicar might put it, in a very deep and fundamental sense, I don't give a rat's arse!

As to our current controversy, suffice to say that everyone and his uncle knows that Hizbollah is hell bent on killing every male, female and child Jew it can get its hands or its rockets on - and not at the rate of 0.5 of a Jew per month as our Oxonian friend has indicated. The fact, as you so kindly pointed out, that in the process they will also kill some Arabs (I don't know, say, 0.25 of an Arab per month?) must say something about them but neither you nor the learned Mr. Jubb seem prepared to spell it out.

Also, if reports are true that the vast majority of the deaths have been inflicted on IDF personnel, then I should remind you gently that they are very definitely Jews because Arabs do not serve.

[Barry Bananas]

"Hizbollah is hell bent on killing every male, female and child Jew it can get its hands or its rockets on"

Although apparently they are much more successful at killing IDF combatants. Why?

"and not at the rate of 0.5 of a Jew per month as our Oxonian friend has indicated"

No, because Rob Jubb was (a) talking about the period between the first Israeli withdrawal in 2000 and the beginning of this latest episode and (b) talking about Israelis, not "Jews" (you really are going to be that stubborn aren't you?). This figure of 0.5 is accurate according to the Israeli Ministry of Information's own statisics for that period, and would include any Arabs or Christians or any other sort of Israeli citizens killed, so no need for you to take your wild guesses about Arab deaths.

"if reports are true that the vast majority of the deaths have been inflicted on IDF personnel, then I should remind you gently that they are very definitely Jews because Arabs do not serve"

Right, but this has nothing to do with Rob Jubb's post, which, again, was based on Israeli citizens killed in the period between 2000 and mid-June 2006.

0.5 Israelis, David. Not 0.5 Jews. Seriously, is that really such a different concept for you?

[Barry Bananas]

Last sentence should read "difficult concept", obviously. But "different" will do too, I suppose.

[Barry Bananas]

Also, regarding the Arab death toll, it is worth pointing out that Arabs can be Jewish or Christian too. They are not all Muslim, just as not all Israelis are Jewish.