MR. WISE EMAILS US AGAIN, WITH A VERY DIFFERENT TUNE.
(Wise's email comments are posted below in full).

WISE: Thank you for taking the bait. My intentionally over-the-top vitriol was calculated (How very Jewish of me, right?) to prompt you to do exactly as you have done: to print my reply, despite my having told you that you did not have permission to do so.

RESPONSE TO WISE:
My dear, dear Sir. "Bait?" One of us may be a fish, and the other a fisherman. Which is which? I think you need to refrain from viewing the world through your moral inversion.

Your fixation on censorship of your rash email is rather foolish, don't you think? There is nothing of personal nature in your email except a response (largely threatening, hostile and aggressive) to an invitation to engage in a debate about something you have written. Is your "vitriol" endemic to your emails and always "calculated?"

By doing so, you have violated Federal Law, which allows me to pursue criminal charges against your pathetic operation.

My dear sir. Sooner or later, we expect someone like you to "sue us" for some silly, contrived reason. The result will be:
1) You get exposed as the censor you are as part of the Jewish Lobby.
2) You get nothing because we have nothing to lose, I assure you.
3) We get publicity for more Jewish censorship, more attention to the Judeocentric /Zionist problem, more attention to our web site, and more attention to you.
4) You will become famous as the guy who tried to destroy the freedom of the Internet merely to prevent public view of your self-described "vitriol": emails are posted everywhere routinely. You have probably done it yourself.
5) Jewish Tribal Review will endure as so constituted. We are ethical. You don't appear to be. We're not doing anything illegal, unless telling the truth and exposing your libelous slurs to the public is a crime.

It didn't take much thought to realize that you would have a hard time resisting reprinting it, especially after I essentially dared you to do just that and called you all sorts of horrible names: names that I actually never use publicly, and rarely even privately, but which were worth using here because of their ability to essentially guarantee your reaction.

Wow! Real chutzpah! Your dissimulation is quite amazing. Quite contrived. But I won't call you a liar. I leave it for readers to decipher your text -- this one and the former -- for their essential meanings.

You guys are nothing if not predictable. The law you have violated is explained below. There is no exception in the law, by the way, for having been set up, which you have been, since I am not a law enforcement officer entrapping you for the purpose.

Who is "you guys?" Another stereotype? If I call you a "punk," a "bitch," an "asshole" and the rest of your apparent debate vocabulary, rest assured you will let others publicly know about my moral and intellectual fiber. If you have evidence of this, you will present it.

And your strange venture into Alice in Wonderland legaleze is bizarre. Let's see. You are stating here that you intentionally "entrapped" us in order to destroy our web site. And, because you're not a cop, you're above the "law?"

Suffice it to say, you are in violation.

I'm sorry. YOU are in "violation." A simple civil response to our query to debate your article would have been sufficient. "No thank you," might have been your reply and that would have been the end of it. Or no reply at all. But you chose to slander, libel, threaten, and insult us for merely inviting you to a public discussion. What are you afraid of, except to be proven wrong? And why such fierce hatred?

You should also know that I never have sought to suppress your free speech. You can say whatever YOU like.

Gosh, thank you for your permission. You have slandered, insulted, smeared, defamed, and libeled us and then proclaim that it is against the law to present the evidence of this. I beg your pardon?

But you are not allowed to repeat a private email correspondence because that material is protected.

You sent the email to us, not to yourself. It is not your latest novel. It is not your latest song. You didn't have to email us anything. You could have merely said "No, thank you" to the proposed debate, and there wouldn't be much for us to respond to. If you stand across from me and yell and scream obscenities, I'm going to tape-record it as evidence, even if you claim I am violating your copyright per, say, "creative vulgarizing."

So, for example, if you had merely quoted (as in paraphrased) my email, or simply quoted it without specifying who the email was from, you would not have been in violation of the law, and it would have been no big deal.

No. "Paraphrase" won't do. No one would believe us. You have a reputation as a man of "tolerance." Tolerance of various peoples, various views. You've positioned yourself, publicly, to be against all the Bad Things.

The evidence of your off-the-wall poison against us, for no reason (other than we dare to investigate Jewish influence and power), is better to indict you. We'll let you hang yourself (morally speaking; please no new "Holocaust" charge) with your own rope.

But your desire to republish what amounts legally to copyrighted work is what places you afoul of the law.

Do you routinely copyright your libels and slanders to people you hate for asking questions that make you uncomfortable? I hope so, that they might be part of the public record. Where is this archive?

I will begin seeking legal redress as time allows. The violation, it should be noted, will be ongoing so long as my email is posted at your site. This allows for a virtually limitless statute of limitations. How very convenient for me.

Your sequential responses to our initial query are always welcome. We will post them in explication (?) of your world view. But what we want is what you avoid: a reasoned exchange of ideas about the premises of your article at Southern Poverty Law Center. Are you still afraid of taking us on? Why? If you are so certain that you are right, why all this fuss about censorial lawsuits for your insults hurled our way and such obsession over something so relatively trivial?

What really counts here? Who cares about your fixation with your embarrassing emails? As I have stated from the first, we'll post here your responses to our commentaries about your article about Jewish power: a continuous exchange.

We are offering you an uncensored forum at our web site to state your views. We are offering you an open door to prove our position to be false. If you are absolutely certain of your correctness, why would you avoid such an opportunity? You could possibly influence people and steer them onto a course of belief that suits you, no?

Unless, in your heart, you know that you are wrong. Better to focus on inane, irrelevant threats of lawsuits because someone caught you (with the equivilant of) cursing on tape with your guard down than proving that the foundations of this web site are incorrect.

It should be a slam dunk for you, Mr. Wise. Why do you focus on the obscure ("Whaa! Someone printed my insults to them!") when, featured at our web site, you could help your ideological cause towards multicultural justice and "tolerance?"

By the way, you definitely have my permission to post this response, in full, as written on your site.

We're at your beckoning. We'll publish more of your commentary, providing it is an exchange of ideas about Jewish power. What's so bad about that? We'd like to be a venue for an expression of your ideas.

I think it is important for your readers to know the law, and just how easily you can be sucked into a trap by a crafty Jew like myself.

Yes, it is important that more and more people become savvy to "crafty Jews" like yourself. Yes. We do agree on this point.

And for the record, I consider you neither a bitch or a punk, nor even an ass. But I do think you a bit gullible.

Mr. Wise. You are an extraordinary man. Gosh. "Gullible" enough to think that you're not trying to save face now, crawling out of the hysterical muck you chose to swim in? Gee. We knew all along that you didn't think we were a "bitch," a "punk," or even an "ass." You meant them as terms of endearment. But you also called us "Nazis." No retraction? Or do you think anyone who criticizes Jewish-inspired injustice is a "Nazi?"

Have a great day.

Likewise, sir. May a glint of morality sneak one day by accident through your soul and change you for the better.

Tim Wise

According to the United States Code 17, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (H.R. 2281), and the Copyright Term Extension Act (S. 505), it is against the law to "repost an email message without the written permission of the author." Email messages are "tangible and fixed, therefore, they are copyrighted." You may verify this by visiting the following URL: www.dese.state.mo.us/divimprove/curriculum/copyright and then opening the pdf file "copyright applies to everyone" and going to page 87 of the document (89 of 127 according to the pagination on the bottom bar), as well as page 89 of the document (91 of 127 according to the pagination on the bottom bar).

Mr. Wise, since you are so obsessive about all this, down to the smallest minutia, is it safe to assume that emailing insults, threats, libels, slanders, and smears is your normal mode of operation? And that, when people logically display the evidence for the kind of man you are offstage, threats of lawsuits automatically follow?

No offense, sir. But it sounds like a rather sordid system.

Is this the best you have for defending against people who make inquiries about your social and political premises, particularly regarding Jewish power and influence?

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but, uh, why not just go to the heart of it all and prove that those who dispute you are wrong?

Everything else is just smokescreen.