 |
| |
|
|
blackice
|
 |
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
No BlackIce, I'm saying that you either don't read my responses or you don't understand them. I've tried to simplify them, but apparently I can't make them simple enough.
But as I said, if you still wish to discuss this at a mature level, just tell me exactly where the arbitrary divisions your report originated and what reputable agencies use them.
It shouldn't be hard, since you claimed repeatedly that the UN used the same divisions, right? |
I did read them and have responded. The U.N. and every single agentcy that investigates and or reports on these events uses this universal break down.
You are typical of a person with no answers and no understanding of what was said, in other words you have no idea do you. If you did your responce would have been quick and concise. Instead we are treated to your complete lack of knowledge with this entertaining dictatorial diatribe.
Just prove your "opinion" it has been three days, surely a google search has turned up something to reinforce your "opinion" or is it that it did not therefore you have to resort to this entertaining diversion?
You have yet to respond to anything without an insult, immature comment, something completely off topic and or a diversion. Why not just show your resources which prove your claim. Seems to me this debate would be in a new direction if you did. The simple fact is you can not back you "propaganda".
So in all fairness toss in the odds that you will back anything you say. Toss in the odds that your response to this will be immature. Toss in the odds that you will respond to any challenge of your personal agenda. Toss in the odds that this thread will die because you have nothing to prove your "opinion".
We all wait with anticipation of your next masterful comment...
Last edited by blackice on 03-08-2002 at 02:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Who has written the 'Rape of Palestine'?
Have you read the book?
What makes you think the author is anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic? |
I appologize for not having to read every book existing on the issue.
I furthermore appologize for not having memorized them by heart, or created a catalogue of quotes for every purpose, like you seem to have done.
As to your question, the title "Rape of Palestine" suggests a certain pre-conception for the reader, and writer of the book.
I would not expect unbiased information from a book labeled "Those god damn awful Israelis" which is simply two logical steps away from "Rape of Palestine".
A book titled "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 50 years" or something would seem less biased.
quote:
It is either a reliable source and worth reading- or it is NOT a reliable source and NOT worth reading. |
I completely disagree with you. Infact, I think your attitude shows what a bad historian you are.
You can not categorize every source as either "absolute truth" (=completely reliable) or "absolute lie" (= completely unrelaible).
If we did that, then we could not have relied on any book ever written, since most of them are biased.
What you do need to take into account when you come to analyze a text, is it's author, the date, the audience of the publication, the baises and pre-assumptions inherited in it. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.
If you take every book you rely upon as completely reliable, without understanding that it was written by a person, who *shock* has beliefs and conceptions and opinions which often affect his writing, is quite disappointing.
I'm not accusing your books of falsificating facts. I'm saying that I think that they took facts, and used them to prove some theory of theirs, and to convince you, instead of simply bringing you the facts.
You have accepted them at face value, and accepted their suggested explanation together with it.
When i'm trying to suggest a different explanation to most of the same facts, you refuse and ask me to bring new evidence and facts.
quote:
Doubtless you will not believe me, but nevertheless I try -using my rather limited intellectual powers- to search for and read books that are reliable.
That is why I started searching for literature in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
In the Western world -and I live in the Western world- this is considered the most reliable and impartial encyclopaedia produced. In my view there are many other good encyclopaedias though. |
Well, just so that you know, I read chapters about Israel in both the english and hebrew editions of Encyclopedia britannica.
I did not however, took time to copy and categorize quotes.
quote:
It seems to me you are rather suspicious of Dutch historical studies and universities.
|
Seems odd as I do not recall ever saying anything about the Dutch, especially to you.
quote:
please reveal title and author of a better, more reliable bibliography, Please do! |
I can not since I do not write down all the books I read so I could wave them at your nose.
But I have read many books and many reports, and many international documents about this.
If you for some reason choose to believe that I am not speaking the truth, but rather am inventing facts as I go along, or quote inexistant sources, I'd like to hear a reason for it.
Until now, I have made assumptions about most people with whom I talked to here, that they are not basing their opinions on zero knowledge, and have rarely asked them to actually quote their sources, believing that their sources existed, and knowing that they would treat my words with similar respect.
If chegitz or gnu say they have read something in a book or a paper I usually believe them, unless I remember a specific source which conflicts with what they are saying.
quote:
I sincerely hope there has been produced a bibliography better than the Apparaat voor de studie der geschiedenis since it is obvious it has not found favour with you. |
I really could care less about bibliography.
I'm not here to see whose bibilography is longer, so to speak.
I'm not writing a thesis nor am I defending one against you.
If you seem to doubt my similar abilities to read books and watch the history channel, just because I don't bother to assemble huge bibliographies, then you shouldn't even honour me in discussing things with me.
quote:
Next I consulted
The Middle East Journal, Washington,
as you doubtless will know, by far the most respected and prestigious scientific journal, searching for reviews of recently published scholarly publications and articles in other journals.
|
Interesting.
Which, exactly, of the theories and quotes presented by you in the last 5 months, have originated in the Middle East Journal?
I for one, do not recall seeing it's name in the bibliography attached to your post, even once. But I could be mistaken.
quote:
benevolence- please reveal the title of a better, more reliable scholarly journal, Please do! |
I first would like to see something you quote out of the said journal.
quote:
Is my conclusion justified that ALL books are unreliable and that it is a waste of time to read any historical study at all? |
Not at all.
However, you should learn, as a historian, to take into consideration the biases inherited in any book. If you do not, you can not be a historian.
quote:
So you even watched dozens of history shows and are allowed to believe the information presented?
You are so immensely favoured in Israel! |
How sweet.
I'm sure you are equally favoured in Palestine.
quote:
When a student of me would list a history show as a reliable source, I would immediately tear up his essay. |
How rude of you, first of all.
Second of all, welcome to the 21st century where writing isn't the only form of documenting.
Infact, picture and sound recording are much more reliable as they usually record events, instead of people's impressions of events.
And how, is a well-researched show by the History channel, or the BBC, or any other source, which instead of posting quotes, interviews the authors of said books, unworthy of your superior intellect?
When a person fails to acknowledge that no book is impartial and fails to consider the baises in an essay, I immediately see he is not worthy of discussion with.
quote:
I am extremely sorry to disappoint you on this issue.
You will doubtless not believe me, but I sat -some fifteen years ago- for my B.A. examination. Afterwards I pursued another career, but at least I learned the basic techniques of an historian. |
You have so far managed to demonstrate that you have zero critical judgement of any source you have read, even when the inherited biases of writers originating in extremely marginalized groups, such as, for instance, the Neturei Karta, should hit you in the face.
That shows that your supposed history title is eligible of tearing up.
But perhaps I'm not aware of the history schollarship techniques in the Netherlands.
quote:
When you would ever start a study of History at a university, you would soon discover that ALL historians are basically 'copy and paste artists'. |
Well seriously?
That seems terribly interesting.
I would imagine then, that no new history has been written since the Historian role was invented, as people were busy copying and pasting old sources.
But wait, it can't be, as there could be no old sources - since historians were non existant then, therefore they must have not dealt with copying and pasting! Therefore it must be wrong!
Your error is that you forget, that what you copy and paste, which was copied and pasted from someone else by another "copier and paster" (aka Netherlands Historian) - did originate from someone's pen, or quill.
And that someone - was not an impartial all knowing human being, who had biases, which should be taken into account.
But then again, why should such things affect a copy and paste historian such as yourself??
quote:
They do not 'copy and paste' from the Internet, but instead 'copy and paste' primary and secondary sources. Yes, some times they will paraphrase their sources -I have done so too several times- but it is still the same technique. |
Wait they have sources?
You mean, that there is someone in the basis of the history chain who is not a copier paster? But rather... a source? A wittness? A person who knows things because he wittnessed them? A person with biases and such? NOO!!!
quote:
I have already tried to explain to your 'friend' musex what line historians usually take: they read a lot and then decide what fragments to combine. |
You mean that all the reality and truth in this world is already documented in writing, and all I have to do is find it?
Tell me, is the absolute impartial truth for the entire human history including the future documened as well?
According to you - it's impossible that a human would actually write down his view of things, and insert opinions and theories to explain facts.
That would be - unscientific!
quote:
Historians do not repeat one another; on the contrary, they often disagree with one another. |
You mean - they have opinions?
I thought their work consisted of copying and pasting well (or not well) known facts?
quote:
They generally read thousands of pages, written by eyewitnesses(can they all be impartial?), journalists (known for impartiality)etc. They read inscriptions, diaries, codes of law, minute books,(all of which are known to be ALWAYS TRUE) government orders, letters, surveys, statistical material, ....
|
quote:
Often they will quote verbatim their sources; if not, they will provide a footnote with a source reference. This makes it possible for other historians/people to read/check these source with their own eyes. |
And then give their own opinion about the validity of said resources.
Just as I have done, when I criticised your taking for face value the words of Neturei Karta, and accepting thier opinions without challenge.
quote:
Since you claim to have studied History from the best of Israeli teachers, I presume it will not be necessary to explain to you the difference between primary and secondary sources. |
Funny. Given that your excellent teachers taught you about primary and secondary sources, they should have also taught you that each source has bias which should be considered and so on.
quote:
Since I do not live in Israel, New York or London, it is rather difficult for me to visit the archives where the most important sources are kept. Consequently I have hardly read any primary sources, though that would have been best. |
Not always.
Reading someone elses account and analysis is interesting as it opens your eyes to possible point of views which you haven't considered.
quote:
Perhaps -I doubt it- you noticed that most studies frequently quote those primary sources. |
You seemed to quote very little of those.
Should I begin to doubt you?
quote:
But I am essentially curious, not really lazy -only a bit- and I do not have reading problems. And I truly like visiting a library and searching for books, articles and reviews. I am forced to visit the university library on a regular basis anyway. |
I'm not actually forced, but rather enjoy doing so.
What I do not do, is take pissing competitions. So I don't write down every quote I might ever use in the future.
quote:
I am still willing to read some books or articles you recommend; so far you have only given the title of a book on Israeli form of government, not my main interest, though useful. |
Again, I do not go around collecting these sources for a thesis. I keep in memory the content, which is what is relevant for me.
quote:
(it seemed to be a book meant for secondary education; am I correct?) |
That one - yep.
I brough it because it was practically lying under my nose, so I used it.
I'm willing to bet though that I will forget it's name once I'll sell it, since I don't need it anymore.
quote:
When you keep refusing to recommend some reliable studies the inevitable conclusion will be that they do not exist. |
Just because I don't go around demanding a source for your every word, since I assume it exists in the english dictionary, doesn't mean I'm stupid.
I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you. If you want to write imaginary theses, go ahead.
so far, I've managed to have interesting discussions with Chegitz and Natan, who no doubt have ten folds the amount of history knowledge you do, and aren't afraid to use thier mind in critical thinking, when it comes to evaluation of sources.
quote:
As I have told previously, Late Antiquity and Early Byzantium is my field of knowledge, but that does not exclude some proficiency when studying another region or historical period.
I do not advise you to pursue historical studies; it seems to me you lack the essential qualities of an historian: curiosity, diligence, excellent reading skills and the joy to delve in libraries and archives -no offense meant. |
I do not advise you to present yourself as a historian.
Your inability to evaluate sources, and deal with their bias, as proven with taken for face value what you've read on the Neturei Karta site, show that.
Furthermore, your tendency to jump to baseless conclusions, which suit your opinions, and your inability to read, such as your understanding of the passage we discussed about Religious Courts, and your baseless conclusion about imaginary Supreme Court interventions in imaginary Religious Courts rulings.
I refer you to my answer to you, regarding what the passage you quoted to support your idea that Israel tried to prevent mixed marriages, really means.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Yes, we always knew Europeans are the most generous of people.
They persecute the professors of some religion for 20 centuries, then 6 million are murdered through assembly lime production and then...
|
Interesting, historian.
Please show evidence of Jewish persecution in Europe, during say, the early 5 centuries of those 20 centuries you speak of.
It's easy. Cut and paste, right?
quote:
the few survivors are shipped -against their own wish- to die in the desert among 'Arab savages'! |
Again, historian, please quote sources showing that survivors were indeed ever shipped to Israel against their will.
quote:
This policy ensures that the Muslim world -till then most tolerant- will adopt Europe's anti-Semitism. |
please post your evidence of the muslim world being the most tolerant, up to the survivors being shipped to Israel after WWII.
include reference to the skull tax jews had to pay, to massacares of jews by authorities and roaming bands, to the arab leaders of the time that approached hitler and applauded him in his idea to exterminate the Jews.
quote:
So we Europeans can be sure that the murderers of Christ will not escape into safety. |
Please quote a source on the Jews being the murderes of christ.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
Cyber borg where are you? I see by other post's you are famous for these stunts?
How much merit do you think you will have in the future if you do not answer the basic things. Like back up your "opinions" with facts.
Hummm does he just like to argue, act childish, throw tantrums, name call, distort facts and or reality, ignore the obvious, play childish pranks, have opinions with no merit, knowledge, or comprehension of the facts, refuse to back it all up and leave?
Well that was interesting and I thought he actually knew (acted like) what he was talking about...to a point obviously.
Last edited by blackice on 03-08-2002 at 10:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
What 'proof' are you asking for?
What I presented 17 pages ago are neither facts nor opinions. I pointed out that the analysis of the date made in the report you presented is worthless. If the analysis is worthless, the conclusions are worthless.
Odds of BlackIce understanding any of this:
10^5678783:1
Odds of BlackIce presenting the reuqested information:
2^553392235:1 and rising. |
 So prove your "opinion" of "worthless" around and around he goes. http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...0&pagenumber=45
You have now come up with a new reason and a new word not included in your original response. Yet you claim it was BS is now what you are doing? As you can clearly see no mention what so ever by you of "date" none.
quote:
Cyber quote:
well, Ice, I read the report,and Oh my Lord!!! Turns out that the report is a pile of fetid dingos kidneys!!! And here I was expecting an unbiased report of high quality, but what I found was an utterly biased, albeit brilliantly written, propaganda piece.
Don't get me wrong here. I admire this piece. It is a piece of work that would have left Goebbels not only proud, but stunned. It weaves in assurances of impartiality while 'not making moral judgements'.
However, it also turns out that their raw data, if even correct (there is no source list apart from their assurances that they've compiled data from arab news agencies, human rights organizations and media both domestic and international), is very carefully massaged. |
Just back up your claim, you had "opinions" about how the break down was done. The link above takes you to your comments. The break down that was done complies with all universal laws on this subject. Please provide the source you have to show the break down is donkey whatever and move on to the next topic.
Last edited by blackice on 03-08-2002 at 22:31
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2002 00:20
|