 |
| |
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Does this mean that you guys are doing continuous monitoring of IP's, or just that you don't care?
|
When we see a problem, we look into it.
quote:
As much as I'd like the world to be centered on me, this is not the case. Both Mandarin and musex spammed before I joined the respective threads.
|
Many people consider your posts spam as well, just a matter of opinion.
quote:
Intruiging. Would you mind forwarding one or two of these complaints (anonomously, I guess). I'm curious as to the content.
|
There is a reason why they call them "PRIVATE" Messages.
quote:
Sure. Question remains: what is the proper procedure for dealing with spam? Should I email you a complaint about spamming and trust that it will be taken care of?
|
If you think there is a problem, you can always report the post using the complain about post button, or send a normal pm/email. I do read everyone I get. If I think action is needed I take it... If it's a minor complaint, I file it and when I receive multiple complaints about somebody I act. In many cases, I just delete them because they are just whining.
quote:
"Just letting it go" does not feel proper for a forum like this, where silence is equating acquiesense. Maybe a stock reply of "whatever, spamboy" works. Your call.
|
Yeah... you are correct in one thing... MY call. Not yours.
quote:
Look, all I want is intelligent debate. It pisses me off when I engage in what I believe is a serious attempt to debate, and it turns out to be nothing but spam... |
As I said, you piss many people off, so it only seems fair 
So get back on topic, stay on topic, and leave all the personal crap somewhere else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
quote:
Aaaaah, isn't that cute? Taking a leaf from Siros old book, I see? Since what I post doesn't agree with your world view, it must obviously be taken from a anti-semitic propaganda site?
I challenge you to find ONE SINGLE reference to an anti-semitic site. I don't read that drivel. Why would I? That would make me no better than the average pro-israeli.
What I DO reference are REAL sources. Newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times. Sometimes books, if they are written by reputable historians. I leave that part to Kreuze, though, since he is a better historian than I am. The UN website has plenty of good information. And, naturally, the EB, a most excellent source of information, although sometimes to shallow. |
*cough* *cough*
gnu quoted from washington report quite alot the last time I was here (1 or 2 months ago).
And here's what I found on their 'activists' page.
 Attachment: image2.jpg
This has been downloaded 40 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
To get back on topic:
Ned: (reposted from page 21)
quote:
CyberGnu, The Brits took Palestine from the Turks. Because it was multi-ethnic, they held the land as a Mandate under the League of Nations and its successor the United Nations, rather than immediately establish a local government or turn it over to Faisal. (They proposed to do the same for Lebanon for the same reason.)
I will stop here to see if we agree on this much. |
Well, not quite... I don't know what you mean with multi-ethnic. Less than 10% of the population was jewish, and as far as I know that was the only major ethnicity outside of arabs in the area. I have also never heard this explanation for the mandate.
AFAIK, the mandate was established in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which is basically just another part of "the Big Game". The three great powers of the first world war agreed to establish spheres of influence in what was at the time the ottoman empire. Russia got armenia, France the areas Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, and England the areas south.
While it cannot be considered certain that palestine was left under a joint "international" mandate because France and England couldn't agree who should have it, as opposed to a genuine concern over the people living there, we all know the French and British records of altruism. Slim to non existent... And considering the Balfour declaration (issued only a year after the Sykes-Picot Agreement) it is pretty clear that England had no intentions of even adhering to the promises made to the indigeneous population.
So, basically, it was just another self-serving part of Englands intent on adding large parts of the arab world to the British Empire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
Now, again, before you say I'm accusing you of anti-semitism:
You could have said "I wondered if the paper is an Israeli magazine" or "run by Israeli sympathizers" or "run by Zionists". But you went on "Jews".
Checking to see if the newspaper was Jewish, as if to "prove" somehow that it was unreliable.
This means that you are basing your thought on the assupmtion that:
Jewish --> Lies
Doesn't look specifically anti-zionist or anti-israeli to me.
EDIT: spelling after midnight... oy vey
Last edited by Sirotnikov on 24-12-2002 at 07:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
No, Siro, lying is not a specific jewish trait. It is a human trait, and many groups have used it to further their cause.
I don't hold jews to a higher standards than I hold other parts of humanity. So, in the same way I wouldn't trust a communist newspaper in an article about the evils of capitalism, or an arab newspaper in an article about american imperilism, I wouldn't trust a jewish newspaper to report accurately about Israel. Jews, as a group, are overwhelmingly pro-Israel, to the point where when a jewish group speaks out against Israel is becomes headline news. Thus, one can, barring conflicting information, assume that a jewish paper is also pro-israeli. I also assumed you would make that connection yourself.
This is of course part of my refusal to consider biased sources trustworthy. As I've also patiently explained to you about, oh, a few hundred times, this doesn't mean they automatically lie. It means that one cannot trust them.
BTW, are you claiming that Die Welt didn't make the story up? The story is more than a year old by now, and AFAIK, no al-qaeda fighters have turned up in palestine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
quote:
Jews, as a group, are overwhelmingly pro-Israel, to the point where when a jewish group speaks out against Israel is becomes headline news. Thus, one can, barring conflicting information, assume that a jewish paper is also pro-israeli. I also assumed you would make that connection yourself.
|
Tsk tsk tsk.
You know that Jews and Israelis are not always the same people. To assume that Jews are always pro-Israeli would be generalizing. To generalize a race to a certain nationality or political view is to some extent racist, since you practically hold all the Jews responsible for the "crimes" of Zionism, even though many Jews aren't zionist and many are anti-zionist.
quote:
BTW, are you claiming that Die Welt didn't make the story up? The story is more than a year old by now, and AFAIK, no al-qaeda fighters have turned up in palestine. |
The article talked about the camp in Lebanon. Just because several lebanese decided to say that there aren't any al-qaeda there and were quoted by the BBC, doesn't mean there isn't (or that there is). You believe there isn't - I believe there are. But you can't say one report is more sound than another.
As far as the american hushing and denial goes - they also hush the fact they are doing bussiness with bin laden's family and that the saudis are doing bussiness with bin laden's family.
And there are al-qaeda in the PA in very small numbers, according to recent intelligence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
Siro, why don't you go back and read what I actually wrote?
in particular to this sentence of yours:
To assume that Jews are always pro-Israeli would be generalizing.
I figured I'd be nice and give you a chance to correct yourself before I point it out.
quote:
To generalize a race to a certain nationality or political view is to some extent racist, since you practically hold all the Jews responsible for the "crimes" of Zionism, even though many Jews aren't zionist and many are anti-zionist. |
No, siro. We are talking about a jewish organization (in this case a newspaper) that caters to a jewish audience. As such, it is almost certain to hold the same view as the general view of that audience.
quote:
The article talked about the camp in Lebanon. Just because several lebanese decided to say that there aren't any al-qaeda there and were quoted by the BBC, doesn't mean there isn't (or that there is). You believe there isn't - I believe there are. But you can't say one report is more sound than another.
|
So, just because there is no evidence for an outlandish accusation, that doesn't mean it isn't true, and since it might be true, you are going to believe it. Pray tell, what wouldn't you believe if Die Welt wrote it? Aliens landing and taking over the white house? Mutant goats eating australia?
quote:
And there are al-qaeda in the PA in very small numbers, according to recent intelligence. |
Would this be "undisclosed sources", also known as "the latest stuff the mossad comes up with to justify their budget"?
quote:
As far as the american hushing and denial goes - they also hush the fact they are doing bussiness with bin laden's family and that the saudis are doing bussiness with bin laden's family. |
Hushed? It has appeared in all american news papers, AFAIK, it is just that no one cares. Have you seen his family tree? It is hard to do business in Saudi-Arabia without doing business with at least one member of his family...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-12-2002 02:46
ACK!
|
