It depends on what you define as "racism", Jim. My point is that I can't see that Keith's accepting the word of people more acquainted with the demographic in question than he himself admitted to being made him a racist; accusing him as being so in such circumstances strikes me as mere messenger-shooting. And I am afraid that I do regard your persistent use of terms aimed offensively at Jews, and declining to desist even after their offensiveness & inevitable hurtfulness, as reminders of the lowest point in modern European history in which they were the principal victims, in such a way as to detract from & belittle the horrors and enormities of the persecutions undergone, was pointed out by Bobad, me and others, can only be construed as antisemitic ~ how else would you designate such persistent belligerent indulgence in behaviour and rhetoric which is bound, and apparently intended, to cause offence to that particular demographic?

~M~