E. Michael Jones

And that's the very generalization I repeatedly challenged on my radio show -- and the type of generalization that has led to much Jewish bloodshed and that leads to horrifically ugly comments on his YT channel.

I listened to it and you also do a poor job of representing your position. Ad hom is not a way to dispute historical evidence. Leave that for the SPLC.

You're entitled to your opinion! But there was nothing ad hominem from my side. Not a syllable. Please be kind enough to give me one example. Thanks!

It was a reasonable debate and I found nothing to upset anyone's sensibility on your program but the continual attempt to mischaracterize Dr. Jones position which he adroitly defended. The ad hom is the attack on the listeners whom you dislike, who have just been made 'haters.'

BTW, we did not have a debate, we had a discussion, but at no point did I mischaracterize Dr. Jones' position.

1) Dr Brown never mischaracterized my position? During our discussion, I repeatedly had to correct his mischaracterizations of my positions and for putting words in my mouth.

2) His follow up video's claim that I "finds something that's inherent in the Jewish people either in their religion or their nature, their spiritual nature or something that makes them rebels and subversive so that you can speak of the Jews, [con't]

[con't] 3) and then you'll allegedly find New Testament support for it" doesn’t accurately reflect my position.