The accusation, Jim, is only in relation to your insisting on using the term Nazi, specifically mentioned by EUMC/FRA, as john-sunset-coast's full extract from proceedings of the Canadian Govt confirms, as an antisemitic usage. The fact that it might have been used long before that, in 1948 in a letter from Einstein et al much preceding that declaration, is surely little to the point at this time of day. You have previously agreed to desist from that practice, having been convinced of its objectionable effects, and of its having been thus specified. So why have you reverted to it, except for bloody-minded contrariness, and an apparent wish to appear antisemitic as there declared, so yah-sucks-boo to the whole squalid crew of us?

Sorry, Jim; but in this one particular it is you who are behaving 'squalidly'. Why not just drop these persistent offensive refs to "nazi", as I remind you yet again you agreed to do once before but have now gone back on? It is the only thing you are doing that even suggests antisemitism; but it isn't only 'squalid' us who think it mars the whole of your arguments by laying them open explicitly to that accusation.

~M~