07-04-2003 10:02									#211
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Gnu -

You constantly demand me to bring proof for my claims, with hardly ever proving your claims.

Almost all the claims you made to date are based on your own logic and lack of other information.

When I informed you of events when terrorists infiltrated houses you 'assumed' (without any reason for doing so) that they generally targetted the house, and didn't target kids.

When you make all sorts of sarcastic comments about Sharon and his intentions, you never bring a quote of him or any other source proving them.

Almost all of your arguements are based on some petty irrelevant examples like the smurf encyclopedia, or your own logic, which is quite twisted given according to it, every palestinian has the right to kill every jew living in Israel or the occupied territories with a rusty nail.

You quoted the EB once. You quoted the washington report once.

That's about all your sources.

Oh, and ofcourse you have a friend that once told you that some of the German newspapers are jewish, thus you immediatelly decided that Die Ziet is jewish and thus will lie and invent facts for Israel (why? because of it's target audience - the evil zionistic jews)

Funny you yourself claim that one can't rely on target audiences.

	07-04-2003 10:04									#212
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: So basically after much wordplay, you agree that the IAEA is not as reliable and exact as an intelligence agency, because it has a smaller mandate. This means, that while the IAEA is nice to have, the only people who can get credible and relaible and otherwise unattainable information - are the intelligence agencies, you so vehemently fight against.

you have an interesting logic: So Jimmy Carters declaration of the palestinian election as fair and democratic is unreliable, because ANOTHER UN agency cannot perform a task it is neither mandated nor designed to perform?

Wow. You often leave me stunned, but this one was good.

	07-04-2003 10:08									#213
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Well, I certainly hope so, since a newspaper actually isn't a primary source. Official state documents are, but you need to verify it's veracity, which is best done by referring to a official goverment website or a published scholarly work.

newspapers are a primary source when reporting about events that took place that the reporter wittnessed.

If the reporter quotes the police, then it's a secondary source for the info we get from that section.



As far as the discussions we had - I keep returning to them because they are still relevant.

My "sources" are newspapers. You've chosen to believe all of the israeli newspapers are based on some intelligence reports - fine.

The NYT which I quoted earlier also based itself on intelligence reports. I've also often quoted NYT articles based on Israeli intelligence reports.

I think you should start doubting NYT as much as you doubt the Israeli media. As far as you know - it might say the truth once, but lie another time. So very true.

	07-04-2003 10:11									#214
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: you have an interesting logic: So Jimmy Carters declaration of the palestinian election as fair and democratic is unreliable, because ANOTHER UN agency cannot perform a task it is neither mandated nor designed to perform? Wow. You often leave me stunned, but this one was good.

Oh please.

If you are so confused and can't argue about two points at once (the reliability of jimmy carter and his naivity / the reliability and effectiveness of IAEA) I think you should return to grammar school.

	07-04-2003 10:19									#215
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: I didn't say you should. I said I assumed they were true.

Tell me gnu, do you first assume that what you are claiming is right, and then use it to prove your point, or do you do it regardlessly?

	07-04-2003 10:22									#216
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You're again being a nudnik. Just because you fail to follow world news, doesn't mean that when arguing with you I'm going to do what you don't and constantly be busy bringing sources, while you constantly rely on your ignorance as a shield.

Ohh, another good one!!

quote: After a while I may decide you just don't have enough knowledgebase and awareness of world events for me to have a conversation with you.

Well, poor old me. I don't read enough Jerusalem Post to fulfill your standards? I'm going to cry myself to sleep over this one.

quote: As for jimi carter, he was and is a naive peacenik who always liked appeasing dictators instead of fighting them. IIRC he was the first person to speak to the PLO, when Arafat was a self-proclaimed "general" and dictator.

again, specifics? In the quote you posted above, could you provide the actual link, or the date it was printed? I searched for it on www.washtimes.com, but couldn;t find it.

The main reason I ask is becuase it doesn't appear to be a news piece, but an editorial.

quote: If you want to learn more - either research yourself, or ask straybow. He seems to be supportive of my judgement.

Why? You tried to refute my (sourced) claim with an unsubstantiated smear on the reliability of the observers. You only have two mature choices: To either back up your claim, or to retract.

	07-04-2003 10:24									#217
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

BTW, you might want to rethink using the Washington Times as a source all together. It is on the same level as newsmax, roughly.

	07-04-2003 10:32									#218
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: again, specifics? In the quote you posted above, could you provide the actual link, or the date it was printed? I searched for it on www.washtimes.com, but couldn;t find it. The main reason I ask is becuase it doesn't appear to be a news piece, but an editorial.

]

quote: Why? You tried to refute my (sourced) claim with an unsubstantiated smear on the reliability of the observers. You only have two mature choices: To either back up your claim, or to retract.

I'm casting doubt on the reliability of jimmy carter. According to what I posted, he's as naive as a little girl you can take candy from.

quote: again, specifics? In the quote you posted above, could you provide the actual link, or the date it was printed? I searched for it on www.washtimes.com, but couldn;t find it.

Awww, I sent little gnu to do some field work and he didn't like it.

Not surpring - he demands me to go out and find Kroeze's anti-semitic books in some israeli library, and then answer his silly claims. But for a gnu to use google? That's asking too much.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary...00251503154.htm

quote: The main reason I ask is becuase it doesn't appear to be a news piece, but an editorial.

How is that relevant?

Do you assume that the writer invented facts as he went along? If so -back this up.

If not - then deal with the facts.

What you are doing is evading. Remember? That's what you accused me with.

	07-04-2003 10:35									#219
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: BTW, you might want to rethink using the Washington Times as a source all together. It is on the same level as newsmax, roughly.

Really?

Gnu assumes it's unreliable?

why does gnu assume it's unreliable , when gnu just recently assumed that Kroeze's articles quoted from books published on a communist anti-semitic site are reliable?


I would think you would actually go and check the author's background, his knowing in politics etc.

Maybe you could find a single fact that he lied about.

But instead, you choose to... evade.

	07-04-2003 10:36									#220
	Got spare money?

Gnu, how about your post:

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.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...0&pagenumber=21

So a better historian uses drivel?

	07-04-2003 10:42									#221
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: The purpose of an intelligence agency is to provide as much as possible accurate and reliable information to the government at any cost.

Partly. But your answer is a good start. As you might see, there was no mention of "keeping the public informed" in there.

Furthermore, from the CIA webpage:
Providing accurate, comprehensive, and timely foreign intelligence on national security topics.

Conducting counterintelligence activities, special activities, and other functions related to foreign intelligence and national security, as directed by the President.


as you can see, there is nothing here either about "providing information to the public". Nor is there anything that requires them to tell the truth. The only directive of relevance here is the very last one: national security.

The purpose of the intelligence agency is to safeguard national security, in whatever way they think is best, working under the goverments directives. Consequently, lying to the press, lying to the public, inventing stories etc etc is all acceptable, as long as the goverment is being informed.

Consequently, using an intelligence agency as any kind of source is pointless: If it believes that the nation would be helped by lying, they would.

quote: The purpose of a newspaper is to provide relatively accurate and relaible information to it's readers, in a way that is profitable.

Exactly. Now, while some newspaper have the philosophy that if they are always truthful (to the best of their ability) about everything, that will attract the most readers. This is normally true. Examples would be the NYT or WP. Others believe that by angling their news and commentaries to a specific group, they will attract more readers from that group. This is, sadly, also normally true. Examples of this would be the JP or New York Post. Obviously, news papers from the second group can not be relied on.

quote: In any case - there is no significant difference. As far as I can tell - the NYT is unreliable, because as you said - just because they publish truthfull articles, doesn't mean that all thier articles are truthfull.

No, but we can expect that if they are not, it is not because the NYT has deliberately tried to manipulate the news. This is as far as I know the best we can ever hope for.

	07-04-2003 10:50									#222
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Edan, :

quote: In the quote, maybe not (though if he was typing it instead of copying and pasting it, I might expect the occasional typo, but even so, the bibliographies are perhaps more instructive. They are exactly the same, down to each character. He uses the same abreviations as on the website. There is no publisher for any of the books, and no date listed with one source, just like the website. Do you really expect one to believe it's all just a crazy cosmic coincidence? ... Well, thats what he claimed.

I don't think we can get much further on this issue without hearing from Kroeze. should we postpone it?

quote: And using that logic, I could (and should) believe everything I read on the internet - I know I don't, I hope you don't.

No, because internet is not a primary source. (Well, there are a few journals that now only publish online, but these are exceptions).

quote: And apparently you do.

Well, I don't have a reason not to, so why should I?

quote: Should I point you to oa website claiming Santa Clause exists?

Hey, as long as the website quotes a primary source, I'll give it some consideration

	07-04-2003 10:53									#223
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Israel supporters aren't all Jews and evangelical christians. Soviet influence in the ME is nonexistent, so that reason is out. The three reasons you've listed that you believe in can't explain the millions of non-evangelical christians who support Israel.

Because of the memory of the holocaust, perhaps? Are you confusing the chicken with the egg?

Sleep well.

	07-04-2003 10:54									#224
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Do you have an issue with that?

It's called democracy. Why would anyone have a problem with it? Do you have an issue with Mexican Americans pushing for a blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants from thier country of origin? Were you up in arms when Arab-Americans convinced Candidate Bush to come out during the campaign against ethnic profiling in airport security?

	07-04-2003 10:55									#225
	Increase Your PM Length

Edan:

quote: And if the Papa Smurfs book doesn't exist, and since I can't prove it doesn't exist without examining every book on the face of this earth, should I assume the statement is true?

Every book that is published exists in the Library of Congress. If you can;t find it there, you can assume that it doesn't exist.

	07-04-2003 10:57									#226
	Support Apolyton

Dino: I don't understand you... Maybe you didn't understand me? I wasn;t trying to be confrontational, I merely wondered whether he didn't agree with the factual content of that statement.

	07-04-2003 11:02									#227
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Edan, : I don't think we can get much further on this issue without hearing from Kroeze. should we postpone it?

Well, given that he simply left when I brought it up, I don't see that happening...

	07-04-2003 11:03									#228
	Suffering from ads?

BTW: Can you people drop the hand bag fight over the quality of the others sources? It really isn't relevent (If your opponent's points are truely bollocks, refuting him/her should be easy without getting bogged down in minute details.) because we aren't writing a research paper and it bores the hell out of people like me who would like to read this thread.

	07-04-2003 11:06									#229
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

siro:

quote: Gnu - the fact that S Kroeze keeps quoting ready to copy and paste texts from anti-semitic sites doesn't make him look good. And it doesn't make you look good when defending him. If you want to go ahead and play ignorant as to how that's true, go ahead. If you or Kroeze had any idea in critical reading - you'd know that each book has a target audience. Furthermore, it has a circle of acceptance. If one quotes all the books that share a single circle of acceptance and a single target audience - that makes it very plausible that he shares the same views. If S Kroeze quotes tons of sources which are quoted by anti-semitic writers, and use the same arguements, one would reasonably assume that S Kroeze's thought is close to that of an anti-semite.

Actually, one cannot reasonably assume any such thing. Only by Kroeze's actions and statements can you base your opinion. That other sources, who happen to be anti-semitic, quotes the same sources proves absolutely nothing. Diddly/squat. Nada.

quote: You for instance, refuse to accept my sources, not becaue you know anything about them, but because you assume that since their target audience is Israeli, and they contain facts that you aren't aware of - they must be wrong.

The media of any part in a conflict, I will assume is biased. History shows that this is always true, no matter how good the media normally is. You can simply look at the US medias treatment of the war in Iraq for a good confirmaion of that.

quote: your gnu example is nice - but irrelevant, since history analisys is not exact science. Whether gnu's have legs or not can be verified. Whether all zionists are anti-semitic or not, can not be reasonably verified.

So? This is not about gnus. This is about the treatment if information and debate.

quote: Furthermore, you have no way of knowing that S Kroeze didn't change the original writing of the books "he" supposedly quotes (or mis-quotes).

Exactly. Which is why you should check his source if you have doubts about the veracity of his statement. But the instinctive screaming of how the sources are crap is useless unless you actually back it up.

quote: An Israeli historian has proved for instance, that alot of pro-palestinian israeli historians have infact distorted quotes, and using their pre-face and explanations of them, together with changing the wording and omitting parts, completely changed their meaning to their liking.

Well, if Kroeze ever quotes one of those historians, you should counter with a relevant publication by the historian you mention.

You realize, of course, that this ONLY applies to the historians mentioned, and that it is contingent on whether the first one is right or not.

	07-04-2003 11:15									#230
	Put an end to popups!

quote: You constantly demand me to bring proof for my claims, with hardly ever proving your claims. Almost all the claims you made to date are based on your own logic and lack of other information.

Ask, and thou shalt recieve. It is not my fault if you never ask for a source. I have yet to deny you either a source or a retraction.

quote: When I informed you of events when terrorists infiltrated houses you 'assumed' (without any reason for doing so) that they generally targetted the house, and didn't target kids.

So? This is not something that requires a source, I never claim it to be a fact. It's a plausible assumption.

quote: When you make all sorts of sarcastic comments about Sharon and his intentions, you never bring a quote of him or any other source proving them.

Not sure if you knew this, but the world seldom works like in the movies. Real life villains seldom declare their evil intentions to the world - you have to infer from their actions or lack thereof.

	07-04-2003 11:21									#231
	Remove this text

Seriously, you really don't understand the difference between a claim and a logical conclusion?

Let's try a simple example:

It is raining outside - Claim.

If I go outside, I will get wet - If uttered without any prior information, a claim. If uttered right after the previous statement, a logical deduction.

And to extend: My neighbour was out in the rain. He must love to get wet. Claim, followed by logical deduction.

[i]the neighbour might have had an important errand that forced him out in the rain[ii]. Refutation of the previous logical deduction by showing that the previous logical deduction does not automatically follow the previous claim.

	07-04-2003 11:25									#232
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Almost all of your arguements are based on some petty irrelevant examples like the smurf encyclopedia, or your own logic, which is quite twisted given according to it, every palestinian has the right to kill every jew living in Israel or the occupied territories with a rusty nail. You quoted the EB once. You quoted the washington report once. That's about all your sources.

Again, I have to ask about your dimension. Do you percieve colors as we do in our dimension? What color is the sky?

quote: Oh, and ofcourse you have a friend that once told you that some of the German newspapers are jewish, thus you immediatelly decided that Die Ziet is jewish and thus will lie and invent facts for Israel (why? because of it's target audience - the evil zionistic jews)

As I said, I refuse to believe any media targeted to the participants in a conflict.

	07-04-2003 11:29									#233
	Got spare money?

quote: newspapers are a primary source when reporting about events that took place that the reporter wittnessed. If the reporter quotes the police, then it's a secondary source for the info we get from that section.

I'm sorry, I thought you and Kroeze were discussing history. In history, a current newspaper article is not a primary source.

quote: The NYT which I quoted earlier also based itself on intelligence reports. I've also often quoted NYT articles based on Israeli intelligence reports.

What quote was this? And when the NYT quotes Israeli intelleligence, doesn't it say "Israeli intelligence sources say"? I'm assuming that the NYT is telling the truth (i.e. that Israeli intelligence sources really has said what the NYT claims they said), but that does not in any way imply that the Israeli intelligence sources aren't lying.

quote: think you should start doubting NYT as much as you doubt the Israeli media. As far as you know - it might say the truth once, but lie another time. So very true.

Why?

	07-04-2003 11:32									#234
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: as you can see, there is nothing here either about "providing information to the public". Nor is there anything that requires them to tell the truth. The only directive of relevance here is the very last one: national security. The purpose of the intelligence agency is to safeguard national security, in whatever way they think is best, working under the goverments directives. Consequently, lying to the press, lying to the public, inventing stories etc etc is all acceptable, as long as the goverment is being informed. Consequently, using an intelligence agency as any kind of source is pointless: If it believes that the nation would be helped by lying, they would.

That would be nice if we were discussing info provided by CIA.

However when we are talking about info I'm talking about - Israeli newspapers rely on leaks either from idf intelligence, or from senior commanders.

The IDF's intelligence corps job description as you can read on the IDF site, is to provide intelligence and keep sensitive intelligence in israel (as in, stop people from blurbing out sensitive details). period.

no counter intelligence, no special services, no psycho warfare , nothing. that is all a function of the mossad and shin bet.

the IDF intelligence cropse is purely informational.

quote: Exactly. Now, while some newspaper have the philosophy that if they are always truthful (to the best of their ability) about everything, that will attract the most readers. This is normally true. Examples would be the NYT or WP. Others believe that by angling their news and commentaries to a specific group, they will attract more readers from that group. This is, sadly, also normally true. Examples of this would be the JP or New York Post. Obviously, news papers from the second group can not be relied on.

Who is exactly to say that WP and NYT are objective while the JP and NYP are not?

You are taking your own assumptions for facts, and then you can't understand how can I argue against it.

Maybe the NYT and the WP look objective to you, because they have bias which fits your point of view?

quote: Only by Kroeze's actions and statements can you base your opinion. That other sources, who happen to be anti-semitic, quotes the same sources proves absolutely nothing. Diddly/squat. Nada.

his actions: quoting anti-semitic sites.

quote: The media of any part in a conflict, I will assume is biased. History shows that this is always true, no matter how good the media normally is. You can simply look at the US medias treatment of the war in Iraq for a good confirmaion of that.

The US is not part of the conflict? It doesn't have pro-jewish and pro-palestinian groups? Media is always biased.

But you can't equate bias with propoganda and lies, like you do when you automatically assume the JP and the NYP are lying.

quote: So? This is not about gnus. This is about the treatment if information and debate.

There are different kinds of information.

There are facts and there are opinions. S Kroeze's articles skew facts in order to support opinions which they present.

quote: Exactly. Which is why you should check his source if you have doubts about the veracity of his statement. But the instinctive screaming of how the sources are crap is useless unless you actually back it up.

His sources are crap. I've backed my claim by information from the israeli law book and the israeli statistics agency.
He demanded to see a secondary source, god knows why.

quote: Ask, and thou shalt recieve. It is not my fault if you never ask for a source. I have yet to deny you either a source or a retraction.

you get around that:

quote: So? This is not something that requires a source, I never claim it to be a fact. It's a plausible assumption.

It's also plausible to assume that the terrorist did target kids - as terrorists are like that. brutal and all.

You just assume all you want, and negate the rest as evil JP propoganda.

quote: Not sure if you knew this, but the world seldom works like in the movies. Real life villains seldom declare their evil intentions to the world - you have to infer from their actions or lack thereof.

You have yet to prove that Sharon is a real life villain, which you must do before you attribute villain like sayings to his character.

	07-04-2003 11:43									#235
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: If you are so confused and can't argue about two points at once (the reliability of jimmy carter and his naivity / the reliability and effectiveness of IAEA) I think you should return to grammar school.

Nah, I might end up in the same class as you, and that would just be awful.

Do you really not know what you are arguing, or are you again trying to weasel your way out of admitting you were wrong?

If the first, let me refresh your memory:

quote: posted on 03/04/03, 14:40 Gnu:The question was whether Arafat was democratically elected. Jimmy Carter, as head of the the UN election observers, declared that the election was fair and democratic. Good attempt of weasling out of admitting you were wrong though. Not succesful, but good. If I remember correctly, in the original thread you just disappeared...

Your answer:

quote: Yes, we know how very reliable they are. Both the UN and Jimmy Carter. Do you recall the time in 1990 when UN inspectors declared Iraq had no nuclear program? It so happenned, that following the Allied invasion, it was discovered they were very wrong, and the nuclear program was quite advanced.

So the question remains: Why do you think that the IAEA's failure to perform a task they are not mandated or designed to do has any bearing on the trustworthiness of the UN observers (headed by Jimmy Carter).

And do you have any ACTUAL points to make regarding the UN trustworthiness, or is it time to be a man and admit you were wrong, again?

	07-04-2003 11:44									#236
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Tell me gnu, do you first assume that what you are claiming is right, and then use it to prove your point, or do you do it regardlessly?

?

	07-04-2003 11:53									#237
	Got spare money?

quote: I'm casting doubt on the reliability of jimmy carter. According to what I posted, he's as naive as a little girl you can take candy from.

Well, the next time I believe a an editorial in a right-wing newspaper about a very leftist political figure, that would be the first.

quote: Awww, I sent little gnu to do some field work and he didn't like it. Not surpring - he demands me to go out and find Kroeze's anti-semitic books in some israeli library, and then answer his silly claims. But for a gnu to use google? That's asking too much. http://www.washtimes.com/commentary...00251503154.htm

Well, apparently the website was down when I looked for it, and the first time I clicked on your link. This is the answer I got the first time:
We can't find that page,
but here are some tools to find it


SEARCH THE SITE

You can search the previous seven editions of The Washington Times Online for free. For an advanced search with more options, click here.

We post about one-third of the original content from the daily print edition on our Web site. Please search our Long-Term Archives if you can't find what you're looking for. Searching and viewing the article summaries are free, and you can retrieve the full articles for a modest fee.

However, the second time it worked.

And my suspicion was confirmed: It is an editorial, in a right wing newspaper, by a right-wing activist.

So the only thing it proves is your utter inability to understand the concept of reliable sources.
*sigh*

quote: How is that relevant?

Because an editorial is not news. I think that should be readily apparent in the division of newspapers into "news" and "opinion". I really don't care what this guys opinion is, since he doesn;t provide sources either. All it does is to extend the sequence on step further...

For the almight umbaas sake, think!!!!! "I base my opinion on this other guys opinion". It sounds ridicioulus!

quote: Do you assume that the writer invented facts as he went along? If so -back this up. If not - then deal with the facts. What you are doing is evading. Remember? That's what you accused me with.

Evading? Would that be posting an editorial, and then whine when I won't accept it as news?

	07-04-2003 11:54									#238
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Really? Gnu assumes it's unreliable? why does gnu assume it's unreliable , when gnu just recently assumed that Kroeze's articles quoted from books published on a communist anti-semitic site are reliable?

Because it is a right wing newspaper.

If you have any real information on the authors of Kroezes books, feel free to share.

	07-04-2003 11:56									#239
	Remove this text

Edan: As I said before, we won't know until we hear from Kroeze.

As you might have noticed, I seldom overlap with him. We normally debate different issues.

	07-04-2003 12:02									#240
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Edan: Every book that is published exists in the Library of Congress. If you can;t find it there, you can assume that it doesn't exist.

While I don't accept that the existence of a book equals the accuracy of quotes - one could pick an obscure book for which there are only three copies, and make it up - but you do have a good suggestion.

I looked up Lowenthall, Marvin at http://catalog.loc.gov/ , and came up with the following books (only listing duplicates once):

Montaigne, Michel de, 1533-1592.
Jews of Germany; a history of sixteen centuries. With a pref. by M.J. Bonn.
World passed by; scenes and memories of Jewish civilization in Europe and North Africa
Jews of Germany; a story of sixteen centuries
This was New York, the nation's capital in 1789
Memoirs of Glückel of Hameln
Henrietta Szold, life and letters.
Proposed roads for American Jewry; a symposium

Note that none of them are "The Diaries of Theodor Herzl". A search on that title turns up nothing, as does a search of the other two authors. So I think it's safe to disregard the quotes given (but then, I've been doing that ever since I saw that they were copied and pasted from that site...)