IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month

[CyberGnu]

Ming, so what is the procedure for DL's? Do I lodge a formal request when I suspect someone of being a DL?

There certainly is a pattern of pro-israeli posters appearing, spamming for a month or so, and then disappearing. Most recently we had musex and mandarin.

I don't know where you got the idea that someone would be a DL because they disagree with me. It's when someone appears, posts pointless and often inflammatory remarks, only to be of no substance and eventually disappears. You can't deny that it has happened in the past, and why should we thus not expect it to happen in the future?

[Ming]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ming, so what is the procedure for DL's? Do I lodge a formal request when I suspect someone of being a DL?

You procedure for a DL is to do NOTHING. Not your problem or your call.

There certainly is a pattern of pro-israeli posters appearing, spamming for a month or so, and then disappearing. Most recently we had musex and mandarin.

So... Maybe it's because more people are pro israeli and get as annoyed as most pro isreaelis do when they read your stuff.

It's when someone appears, posts pointless and often inflammatory remarks, only to be of no substance and eventually disappears. You can't deny that it has happened in the past, and why should we thus not expect it to happen in the future?

Gee... I have a mailbox full of complaints about someone who posts pointless and often inflammatory remarks, and you are the person they are complaining about

So again folks... Keep it chilled... and no personal crap.
There will be no more warnings in this thread. And "he started it" won't be an excuse. And that doubly includes you CyberGnu...

[mrmitchell]

Can someone give me a summary of this thread?

I am a fat lazy American, and don't feel like reading 421 posts.

[CyberGnu]

You procedure for a DL is to do NOTHING. Not your problem or your call.

Does this mean that you guys are doing continuous monitoring of IP's, or just that you don't care?

So... Maybe it's because more people are pro israeli and get as annoyed as most pro isreaelis do when they read your stuff.

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.

Gee... I have a mailbox full of complaints about someone who posts pointless and often inflammatory remarks, and you are the person they are complaining about

Intruiging. Would you mind forwarding one or two of these complaints (anonomously, I guess). I'm curious as to the content.

So again folks... Keep it chilled... and no personal crap.
There will be no more warnings in this thread. And "he started it" won't be an excuse. And that doubly includes you CyberGnu...

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? "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.

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...

[CyberGnu]

mrmitchell, the debate is whether the palestians protesting peacefully would lead to a palestinian state (a la the Tom Clancy book which title eludes me).

The argument in favor seems to be the hypothesis that the only reason the IDF is in palestine is because of the violence.

The counterarguments are both historical (the palestinians DID try to protest peacefully, in 1990, but we all know how well that went. The very reason the first intifada escalated to violence was the IDF's crackdown on protestors.) and conjectural (the hypothesis that the IDF are fomenting the violence as an excuse to retain their presence, instead of the other way around).

[Ming]

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
mrmitchell, the debate is whether the palestians protesting peacefully would lead to a palestinian state (a la the Tom Clancy book which title eludes me).

Sum of All Fears. The whole point according to the story, is that, Israel had always been seen as the victim, but when a peaceful protestor was shot, they became the aggressor, on the world stage.


ACK!

[CyberGnu]

Ming, considering something to be spam is one thing, showing something to be spam is another.

When people accuse me of lying, spamming or just not knowing what I talk about I ask them to point out one single instance. In the very few cases where the accuser has stepped up to base it resulted in the accuser apologizing.

Accusations are easy. Proving your accusation is much harder.


BTW, you never actually answered my question. Confirming that it is "your call" doesn't provide any new information...

I'll happily edit my reply to Edan to "whatever, spamboy" if you think that is better.

[CyberGnu]

Tuberski, thanks

[Ming]

Call somebody spamboy, and you will be restricted.

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR TO YOU...

It's NOT your call to determine spam... Your opinion on the subject DOESN'T MATTER.

Got it...

[Sirotnikov]

When people accuse me of lying, spamming or just not knowing what I talk about I ask them to point out one single instance. In the very few cases where the accuser has stepped up to base it resulted in the accuser apologizing.

*cough* *cough*

What about "Jerusalem Post invents stories in Die Welt"
and later "Die Welt must have invented that story! I know there are many newspapers run by Jews in Germany!"


For the new comers: Cyber was trying to argue that all Israeli media are lying and as trustworthy as say... Syrian newspapers, based on his "proof" that he couldn't find an article in Die Welt, to which the Jerusalem Post referred.

When I shoved it in his face, he began muttering about Jews controlling German newspapers.

[CyberGnu]

*sigh*

Would you mind telling me what you think is a proper response, then?

[CyberGnu]

Siro, I conceeded that you were right about the story. I also showed that the reason for me not finding the story was a search enginge problem (it was caps sensetive).

The "muttering about Jews controlling German newspapers.", however, only occured in your head.

[Sirotnikov]

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.

[CyberGnu]

So? I posted something that was common knowledge, and the first two google hits on the subject.

When you whined about it I backed it up with the actual quote from Jimmy Carter.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...rt#post1424028

I figured this was part of your usual tactic on harping on inconsequential details instead of dealing with the actual issue.

I also think this view was confirmed by the fact that you disappeared from the thread when you couldn't fault the sources anymore.

[Ming]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
*sigh*

Would you mind telling me what you think is a proper response, then?

Yeah... ignore it...

because if you lob a personal insult at somebody, you will get restricted.

[CyberGnu]

As I said, even though silence is an implicit agreement?

[Ming]

Only in your warped perception of reality.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ming
Yeah... ignore it...

because if you lob a personal insult at somebody, you will get restricted.

Dear Sir,

Perhaps it would be nice when you as moderator would also keep away from insulting people. To my knowledge you are the only poster on this Forum who has ever insulted me more than once.
Afterwards I discovered you do so frequently on these pages.
I might add that it is not my habit to abuse other posters. I do not like double standards.

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

[Ming]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Perhaps it would be nice when you as moderator would also keep away from insulting people. To my knowledge you are the only poster on this Forum who has ever insulted me more than once.
Afterwards I discovered you do so frequently on these pages.
I might add that it is not my habit to abuse other posters. I do not like double standards.

You are welcome to your opinion... even when it's incorrect...

If you have a problem with the moderation, contact the management via PM or email... don't spam threads with it.

Now get back on topic.

[CyberGnu]

Well, you are the moderator.

I have never reported a post to a moderator, but I guess I shall have to learn the habit...

I do expect you to uphold the same rules for pro-israelis, of course. "Anti-semite", for example, is an insult.

[CyberGnu]

To get back on topic:

Ned: (reposted from page 21)

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]

Now this took me AEONS to find. Apparently the ******** search feature only goes back to 24th of october.... this is from 11th :

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...74#post1360274

If you bothered to read the previous thread, you would see that I never condemned Die Welt. I said [u]they either made up or failed to check one particular story[u]. I also wondered whether Die Welt is a jewish magazine. I know one of the major german language papers is a jewish publication, but I'm not sure which one it is. I asked for information regarding this.

Of course, all this fits in the 'facts' category, which you so vehemently object to.

Why would you see to check if the newspaper is Jewish? Would it then somehow rationalize the fact it lied?

Why would you begin to wonder if Die Welt is a Jewish magazine, if not as a reason to explain it's "unreliability" or even "lies"?

Why would what you think is "unreliability" or "lies" (as you said) a trait that seems to belong to a Jewish newspaper?

Are you suggesting that unreliability or spreading lies is a ... Jewish trait?

I bet If you would have discovered it was Jewish, you would have made a histerical allegation like that German Jews are inventing propoganda against Palestinians.



Waiting for an evasive explanation and an accusation of being a zionist propogandist.

[Sirotnikov]

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

[CyberGnu]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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"?

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...

[DinoDoc]

Would someone care to fill in the peanut gallery what the spat over Die Welt is about?

[CyberGnu]

The JP posted a headline story about al-quida operating in palestinian camps. The story was referenced to "die Welt". Initially no refernece to the story could be found on the die Welt homepage, which turned out to be because the search engine was case sensitive.

The story is made up, the only real difference is who made it up - the buck was passed from the JP to die Welt. Even american intelligence has said the accusations are false...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
The JP posted a headline story about al-quida operating in palestinian camps.

Is this about the gun battle in a refugee camp in Lebanon or another story altogether?