Gentlemen, I was referring to a political ideology rather frequent in the Times, not intending to stir up strife or make this a political thread. Neither was the use of the word intended in an inflammatory manner.
Esav, no, you mistake what was said. There's more than one type of zionist (for instance, there's a large contingency of Christian zionists. Since matters of theology aren't the topic of the thread here, no sense into getting into that. They are not Jews in the sense you mean; there are also political zionists with no affiliation to Jew or Gentile, bond or free.), and I say this without bias against any particular person, whatever they might believe. I don't care if a man is a zionist or moslem or whatever, but certianly object to the ideology. One could say the same of Cold Steel's president, a self-admitted braggart whose shirt he would give off his back, but many in spite of the advertising buy his products.
Now, moving back to the post, it is interesting that the NY Times would post anything about cutlery at all without some agenda one direction or another. My point is that what was the reason this rag would publish this article unless they had a bias one way or another; this is certianly not the friendliest publication to cutlery.
However, a quasi-positive article did have a beautiful damascus lock back, worthy the read no matter one's thoughts on other matters, wouldn't we agree?
Good day all.
), I wouldn't be surprised to find out. 
