Brit killed by IOF cluster bomb.

[Demosthenes]

Just in general, all assertions can be questioned, and all evidence offered can be defined as tainted.

Not providing evidence for a statement does not prove that the statement is false.

I would have thought the way to prove rachamim is making things up would be to find actual news reports from the days of the events he's said to be making up and show that on those days, in the mainstream publications that you'd expet to report them, there was no reference to the things he's talking about.

that would be pretty much irrefutable.. Or is it unrealistic to suppose that there is any reasonably neutral account of events in the region?

 

[laptop]

Not providing evidence for a statement does not prove that the statement is false.

No, you wazzock, it leaves its truth value undefined.

So making the assertion that a statement put forward without evidence is true, is a lie.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, you wazzock, it leaves its truth value undefined.

So making the assertion that a statement put forward without evidence is true, is a lie.

But it's not disproven, either.

 

[Demosthenes]

No, you wazzock, it leaves its truth value undefined.

So making the assertion that a statement put forward without evidence is true, is a lie.

As far as I can see, whenever you put a statement forward at all you claim that it's true, (or at least, by default, you're understood as claiming that it's true), or why would you have made it?

So, what you seem to be claiming is that all statements require evidence to be made at all.

This strikes me as quite odd, because, if you're right then the evidence that you produce is also going to require further evidence, to prove that it really is evidence, etc. And, as far as I can see, this process would result in posts going on for ever.

 

[laptop]

So in Demosthenes-world there are no truth-values at all. Can't be bothered to do an epistemology lesson at this time. All that remains is this:

Shut the fuck up, Demosthenes

 

[nino_savatte]

Maybe in your backward logical universe.

How so? R18 has made many claims, none of which he is prepared to back up. When asked for evidence, he makes excuses but he demands that others produce evidence when he demands it. I don't suppose you've spotted the hypocrisy in that.

 

[Demosthenes]

So in Demosthenes-world there are no truth-values at all. Can't be bothered to do an epistemology lesson at this time. All that remains is this:

Which is because of your profound intellect, is what you seem to say whenever you don't like what someone says, and have lost an argument.

When you're not busy talking rubbish, and misrepresenting the person.

As above. I didn't say there are no truth-values at all. You couldn't give me an epistemology lesson if you tried.

Let's have a quick look at the argument.

We moved from.

"... he couldnt provide the evidence to back up a claim he made. Therefore he has disproved what he has said."

To, "maybe in your backwards logical universe." &
"Not providing evidence for a statement doesn't prove that the statement is false. "

To you saying, the fairly ridiculous, "No, you wazzock, it leaves its truth value undefined.

So making the assertion that a statement put forward without evidence is true, is a lie." With the word, wazzock, probably the most intelligent thing you';re ever likely to say.

And me pointing out, that If you make a statement at all, you're usually understood as claiming that it's true. (which does tend to imply that in my world there are truth-values.)

Whereas you say, that if you put forward a statement without evidence, the most you can claim is that it doesn't have a truth-value. I have to say, this seems fairly ridiculous to me, most of the time people manage to get on fine, understanding that people mean what they say, and that when they say something they're claiming it's true, and they don't need evidence ad infinitum, to back up their claim. In general people do speak without evidence, and are still held to mean what they say, and to be claiming that what they say is true, rather than indeterminate.

The problem with you laptop, is that you talk
shit.
In fact, looking about the forum a bit, as far as I can see, what Nino says :

How so? R18 has made many claims, none of which he is prepared to back up. When asked for evidence, he makes excuses but he demands that other produce evidence when he demands it. I don't suppose you've spotted the hypocrisy in that.

seems to be true. R18 does repeatedly get asked for evidence for claims, and dI haven't yet found him to provide sources.

But, What claims is he supposed to have made up? Which of his claims are held to be lacking in evidence? I ahven't discovered this yet.

The thing is, from my point of view, looking at the way this forum operates as a whole, it seems just as possible to me that R18 doesn't provide any evidence because he knows there isn't any point in general, as because there isn't any.

In any case, I'm not sure what he's supposed to be providing evidence for, as I ahven't followed the arguments over many months/years.

 

[rachamim18]

Demesothenes: "Proving Rachamim wrong." See, that is the whole thing. I try to never use subjective expereinces that cannot be verified by mainstream accounts. I try to use things that were reported in English speaking Media instead of talking about Arab or Hebrew pages but t goes right over alot of peoples' heads.

I always have said that it would be oh so simple to prove me a fool. People would rather engage in ad hom nonsense. They make claims, I provide a different perspective and then the ad hom starts up.

"Asked for sources." Actually, I usually get asked to prove negatives. As in proving soemone did NOT say or do soemthing. That I am afraid is impossible. On things that can be proven, I am often called "cu@t." "babykiller," "shyyster," and even "Jewboy." With people ike that , I do not see a point in wasting my time providuind urls for things that can be easily found in a good minute on Google.

there are times though when I take the iniative and post all information relating to a claim. A case in point would be one thread currently on the board, and another in World Forum relating to Concentration Camps. I listed perhaps 20 well defined sources. Granted I did not include urls because to be honest, I do not feel it is a pissing contest.

If people reall care to know the truth, I provide more than enough infromation for them to find it without me holding their hand.

If this leads people to call me names, I see it as a problem on their end, not mine.

"What claims is Rachamim supposed to have made up?

I will offer just a couple.

there is one person on this forum who has been harrassing me for almost a year on 3 points. Everypost since their initial post in reply has been filled with ad homs. At best I am simply called liar boy," and more usually "cun$" and the sort.

The 3 points?

In the case of a Druse CO in the IDF who killed a 13 year old "Palestinian" girl who was running towards his position in a kill zone and matching the m.o. of a so called "suicide bomber"...This CO, called Captain R in the English media, brought a lawasuit against a tabloid tv show on our Channel 2. This show is called UVDA. UVDA producers had taken actual IDF tapes and edited them to present them as saying things they certainly did not. This caused alot of harm to Capt. R and he brought a libel suit,etc.


In the case, it was proven the UVDA had manipulated the tapes.

The poster here wanted me to provide a source for that.

One of the other causes the poster was up in arms about was my statement that the photos of Rachel Corrie, the America who died when an IDF D9 rolled over her during an IDF operation. had been doctored by ISM, the group she belonged to.

I then claimed that Reuters, which had distributed those photos did their own research (in addition to many other concerned groups) and found the pictures to have been doctored.

The poster wanted proof of that as well.

finally, I claimed that ISM issued an apology about doctoring the pictures and I was asked to provide that.

At the time I was int he middle if picking up Cluster Munitions in Galilee in the wake of our ast war (2006 Lebanon War). Most of my days were sepnt in labour and I really did not have time nor inclination to provide anything at that point BUT I did promse that I would do so at my earliest conveinence.

iImmdiately this poster began cursing me, following me from forum to forum and saying the same vile things in every thread I participated in. When I next was able to spend continuous time on this site, maybe 2 months later, the oster again started that garbage. I then told them that I was set to be cashiered out of the army in early March 07 and that at that time I would have alot of time on my hands and would be happy to oblige them IF they managed to stay civil. Alternatively I gave tyhem information on hos to search for the info on their own if they did not wish to wait the few weeks I had left.

As it was I was convinced to remain in uniform until this past Jnue because of lack of contingencies on Reserve Call Up in the wake of what we were told would be ian inevitable war this past summer. I agreed of course with an incentive (1 rank promotion just before cahsiering out and the pursyuant pay out).

When I finally had soem time, after being deployed to a less rigirous post I again began posting reularly and that poster would curse everytime I posted. I tod them that since they could not retain even a modicum of civility, they could find those 3 things out on their own. They are basic things, widely reported in my nation, and I did not feel like proving myself to an anonymous person online who tossed such bon mots as "fuc% yourself," etc. my way on a daily basis.

Curently there are two issues in the same vein.

One is my claim that Arabs did not appear in history until 700 years prior to the Common Era/BC. I listed the exact date, the historical artifcat on which it is listed, the Arab chieftain's name, the context of the listing, and the other nation involved.

It seems at that point the poster backed off that one.

One currently was my post in this thread. Told how terrible Israel is for employing Cluster Munitions in the last war, I pointed out that not only was Hzbollah the first entity to use them in that war, but that they did so in an entirely illegal fashion, as opposed to Israel's legal right to use them.

The poster took issue only with my claim that Hezbollah used them first. I have since provided the date, the operation, the target, and type of munition used by Hezbollah. I have also pointed out the International criticism of Israel for Israel having began using them so late in that war proving my case I would imagine.

That poster had also claimed that Cluster Munitions could only be delivered by air. I proved that one as well and the poster seems to have backed off of it.
"No point in providing evidence." Well, sort of. I personally see no point in trying to find urls for things that can be found easily. I also see it as pointless to engage people who use the most vile insults against me.

 

[Spion]

/\/\/\ does anybody ever read this shit? Your presentational skills are as bad as your marshalling of evidence, Rach. IE, non-existent

 

[Grandma Death]

Where to begin? Rach I am always amazed at your propensity to add things on or make things up and even downright lie. Once again I find myself in a position of exposing this with great ease.

"What claims is Rachamim supposed to have made up?

I will offer just a couple.

there is one person on this forum who has been harrassing me for almost a year on 3 points. Everypost since their initial post in reply has been filled with ad homs. At best I am simply called liar boy," and more usually "cun$" and the sort.

Its good to see that you have finally stopped parroting the claim I denigrated your mother. It took several posts by myself to hit the point home that the claim was simply untrue. However thats not enough for you. You now have to keep bleating the same thing over and over-this ad hom theory. That is all I have done is attack you and not the message. Again I refer you to this post:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6654354&postcount=194

Stop repeating this line. You are showing yourself up even further. Its a weak defence mechanism of yours-several posters have noticed it. It weakens your case rach-because generally it simply isn't true. You cannot bail out of providing evidence to your claims by the ad hom defence-it smacks of throwing your toys out of the cot for absolutely no reason at all. Even if it were true (and I openly admit that I have on occasion lost my rag because I was fed up of your excuses) what about Cyber Rose. Is your memory that bad that you have forgotten that they also asked you to provide the evidence. What is your excuse there then? Did she/he call your mum a cunt as well?

And what about the repeated promises to this forum and myself that you would provide the evidence when you had the time-that your busy schedule wouldn't allow you to provide the evidence but, however, in time you would provide the evidence? I put it to you that you span the ad hom line when you realised that I was not going to go away and realising that your claims were indeed incorrect the best line of defence was accusations od ad homs (one of which was non existent)

The 3 points?

In the case of a Druse CO in the IDF who killed a 13 year old "Palestinian" girl who was running towards his position in a kill zone and matching the m.o. of a so called "suicide bomber"...This CO, called Captain R in the English media, brought a lawasuit against a tabloid tv show on our Channel 2. This show is called UVDA. UVDA producers had taken actual IDF tapes and edited them to present them as saying things they certainly did not. This caused alot of harm to Capt. R and he brought a libel suit,etc.


In the case, it was proven the UVDA had manipulated the tapes.

The poster here wanted me to provide a source for that.

Right. Again I see your selective amnesia is at work again on point 1. You need to be a bit more specific-have you already forgotten? With me asking you consistently for 10 months you'd have thought your claims and my requests would be seared onto that brain of yours. Anyway-just to remind you this was your original claim:

Thenn, go to Wikipedia and see where Capt "R" sued the shit out of the provider of those transcripts, the gossipy shown on Israeli channel 2. He won

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5368026&postcount=17

For 10 months now I have asked you for evidence that the litigation by Captain R had finished and he had indeed won. I have found no evidence to suggest that was the case. However not content with one inaccuracy you then go on to claim:

They were concoted by the producers ommitting relevant passages, juxtaposing others, and so on. The court ascertained, well actually the producers admitted it, that it was pure fantasy.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5377990&postcount=37

Not only have I been unable to ascertain that the trial was over I have found nothing at all to suggest the producers of the show admitted in court that their section on Captain R was 'pure fantasy'

One of the other causes the poster was up in arms about was my statement that the photos of Rachel Corrie, the America who died when an IDF D9 rolled over her during an IDF operation. had been doctored by ISM, the group she belonged to.

I then claimed that Reuters, which had distributed those photos did their own research (in addition to many other concerned groups) and found the pictures to have been doctored.

The poster wanted proof of that as well.

Erm no I didnt. I wanted proof for this claim:

Do I have proof they were doctored?Well, the organisation admitting it aside

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5339572&postcount=25

finally, I claimed that ISM issued an apology about doctoring the pictures and I was asked to provide that.

Again this is not true. I wanted proof that the ISM leadership admitted to doctoring the photos of corrie as you claimed above. I know that its hard for you but please-stop muddying the waters rach.

The scenario here is one that is simple for everyone to see. Either you:

Make exaggerated claims to bolster your case.

or

You blatantly lie to bolster your case.

The fact you have consistently weaved out of providing that evidence for nearly a year speaks volumes rach. You've been caught out. Admit you were wrong or lying. You have nothing left now.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Poor Rachamim, hoist by his own petard again.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I proved that one as well and the poster seems to have backed off of it.

no you see the optimium proof isn't more of your continuously self obbsessed ramblings unless you are willing to beleive that your own words can be offered as primary evidence to support your other words, testimony aside it's not historically admissable, at best what you have is possibly if it was recorded at the time and could be cross refferenced with other thigns to asusure it's accuracy secondary evidence which without supporting evidence becomes nothing short of hearsay....

So surrently you have proved nothing zip buggerall...

And i'm glad that in this one sentence alone you are more than painfully aware that the burden of proof is on you.

Essentially, you agree to the propostition as phrased and now you are merely haggling over price.... (to quote jack sparrow)

well here's the price Rach; you need to pay it in order to be taken seriously as an informed poster of any worth or conversely of any value to the ME forums. We do things the old school way here love, we required the burden of proof to fall heavliy on those making claims.

All points will be considered, discussed, debated provinding there's a stable and reasonable premise from which to work on.

Refusing to provide evidence and then pretending that you are in some way punishing those posters who dare to ask for it by not providing it isn't any reflection on them nor is it an issue of refusing to debate ad homiens or other hidden agendas. It is the only way forward to clearn and informative debate.

So either retract the claim if no evidence can be forth coming or provide the evidence, as in real verifiable primary evidence not your consistant secondary (if it can be called that) evidence.

 

[Spion]

Yep, Rachmamim and evidence aren't close acquaintances it seems.

Rach, do you thnk you do your cause a good service by being called on lies and exaggerations so often?

 

[invisibleplanet]

Poor Rachamim, hoist by his own petard again.

This seems to be the source of the doctored foto claim.
http://www. stoptheism.com/Default.asp?M=24&T=126

 

[ViolentPanda]

This seems to be the source of the doctored foto claim.
http://www. stoptheism.com/Default.asp?M=24&T=126

If anyone is fucked up enough in the head to believe any of that arse-clenchingly cringe-making rant, with it's loud echoes of the kind of anti-Communist rhetoric prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s USA, then I humbly submit that they should do the world a favour and read more challenging and accurate material, say some "Janet and John" books.

 

[rachamim18]

Spion: If you do not want to read what I post, don't. However I would have to ask you to stop wasting everyone's time with your criticisms and instead concentrate on the thread. I know it is difficult but I am sure you can accomplish this.

Panda: Just want to remind you, YOU "never use ad homs against " me, right?

"Commie rant,blah,blah, and more blah, ad hom, ad hom, bell, whistel, blah": You ask for proof, ANOTHER person tries to bolige you (probably because they are tired of you anf others monopolising relevant threads with nonsense) and then you haughtily dismiss it as unworthy of youer eminence's consideration. got it, thanks for the heads up. Damn! ?Why did I NOT spend more of my time looking for ways to please you?

Garfiled: "Price to pay." Funny, there are perhaps 8 people here who continually denigrate me, and much more than that sending me emails weekly on issues like this and encouraging me to continue posting. Most do question why I persist and still they thank me for doing so. Either way though, what would ever make you imagine that I care at all about how you or anyone else perceive me?

Most of what you do, and the other 8 or so posters I just mentioned, is simply curse people and otherwise insult them. You bring nothing to the table, and then you imagine yourself to be soembody important. "Take you seriously." That is just amazing. I wonder how you mamange to survive like that. this is not reality Garfield. In life we do not have carry the names of cartoon kittycats, or bamboo eating Chinese mammals.

in reality, people must deal with facts, not hide behind coimputer screens luanching clever salvos of nastiness. Oooohhhhh....you mean you will really take me seriously? Give me a break.

You are using the same wording that you used in the thread you imagined would get me banned. Seems like you have delsions of gradeur among other things but far be it from me to waste my time trying to analyse you. Live your life. If you do not like what I say, let me live mine. Time to grow up.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

<inconisquental and irrelivent nonsese removed for breverty>

in reality, people must deal with facts, not hide behind coimputer screens luanching clever salvos of nastiness. Oooohhhhh....you mean you will really take me seriously? Give me a break.

really these are corroberateable, verifable, independantly refferenceable non biased facts are they?

good good glad you agree, so in the real world we require evidence and proof of these facts.

If you were and engineer buildign a bridge would you expect me to take your word that the birdge could hold the weight of a tank or would you expect to have to come up with something to support that assertation. Why then is it that in your real world your reality that people must deal with facts yet you are unwilling to coroborate any of your missives by providing the evidence which would establish and enshirne those facts as truth.

surely it's in your intrests as your reality insists on deaing soley with facts.

so please now you really have hung yourself you insist that the world relies on these facts yet are unable to support your facts.

Can you not see the hypocrasy in that.

btw if you'd like to point out where i curse at you, or am nasty at all. I think you'll find that pointing out the flaws in your logic is being neither. Saying that you have a stark choice between taking on the appearance of liar or revealling the truth and soruces for you claims yet you seem to have vested intrests in further discreidting yourself and your claims by making up parts where i have cursed you (the term is used vulgar language at btw i'm not into voodoo or witchcraft so can't have cursed you and haven't sworn by anything heavens earth sea or sky and there fore not sworn either).

So in this regard you dislike my choice of vulgar langauge and see it as a personal attack... I see your misinformation and utter reufseal to ever post any eveidence of the so called 'facts' you post vulgar. In fact i'd go so far as to claim that a group doctor photogrpahs of someones murder in order to forward their own political aims is about as offensive as one can get short of wheeling in your grandmother and shitting in her mouth...

Now you have made several claims and in reality we deal with facts as you love to say...

So where are your facts.

You are using the same wording that you used in the thread you imagined would get me banned. Seems like you have delsions of gradeur among other things but far be it from me to waste my time trying to analyse you. Live your life. If you do not like what I say, let me live mine. Time to grow up.

tha's right although again you'd have to learn to establish the facts, my thread as stated wasn't about you, it was about the process of having evidence based threads and the abiltiy for people who continued to disrupt being reffered to that thread and a post number to resolve their issues there rather than spoling thread after thread as currently happens at present, it was also an attempt not just to ask you to prove you comments but also to get other spatting posters to be more civil.

So kindly don't beleive your own hype. I have not asked for you to be banned by thread or by name. Continued reliance on these tiny distoritions of the truth will no doubt lead to people wondering what else you might lie about....

 

[Grandma Death]

Garfiled: "Price to pay." Funny, there are perhaps 8 people here who continually denigrate me, and much more than that sending me emails weekly on issues like this and encouraging me to continue posting.

You have people that think your wonderful. Great have yourself a gold star. But it doesn't detract from the fact that you have, on several occasions, posted what you claim are facts without in anyway substantiating them. As far as I'm concerned you can have a million e mails of support-fuck all will change that .

"Take you seriously." That is just amazing. I wonder how you mamange to survive like that. this is not reality Garfield. In life we do not have carry the names of cartoon kittycats, or bamboo eating Chinese mammals.

FFS please stop parroting on about the names people log on with. Do you think the fact you use your real name is like some sort of badge of honour? That somehow this makes you appear to be a purveyor of truth?

in reality, people must deal with facts, not hide behind coimputer screens luanching clever salvos of nastiness.

No....in reality-on a political forum people make claims and when asked-they back them up. Call me old fashioned like. Not sure how things work in your world-because often what you post sounds like a thinly veiled excuse to hide your dishonesty.

Time to grow up.

No rach. Time to provide the goods-its gone on long enough. People are starting to notice your posting style-this wont go away.

 

[rachamim18]

Garfield: Good, you focus on what you wish but leave me out of your expletive laden rants. Obviously, as one can see in this very thread there ar eplenty of other fixated and obsessive types to pal around with. You asked for info, I gave you dates and ordance. What you do with it is all up to you. In the end you are able to search the info I gave you and either find conflicting info pointing to my being a liar or that I am right, in which case am quite sure we will never hear the issue again because you will never admit to that possibility.

One other thing...You are correct, this IS a political forum. Politics, like religion, is contentious enough without having to drag a bunch of pseudo personal nonsense into the mix. If you even knew me it would not belong here. The fact is though that you have not a clue about me although I have certainly revealed quite alot here.

 

[Grandma Death]

although I have certainly revealed quite alot here.

Ad infinitum.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Garfield: Good, you focus on what you wish but leave me out of your expletive laden rants. Obviously, as one can see in this very thread there ar eplenty of other fixated and obsessive types to pal around with. You asked for info, I gave you dates and ordance. What you do with it is all up to you. In the end you are able to search the info I gave you and either find conflicting info pointing to my being a liar or that I am right, in which case am quite sure we will never hear the issue again because you will never admit to that possibility.

One other thing...You are correct, this IS a political forum. Politics, like religion, is contentious enough without having to drag a bunch of pseudo personal nonsense into the mix. If you even knew me it would not belong here. The fact is though that you have not a clue about me although I have certainly revealed quite alot here.

sorry is that aimed at me?



I mean it's got my name on the start of it as though you were intending to write me a message, but alas it appears your mind has wandered before expunging the note for me and has wandered down a flight of metiflious whimsey which bears me no releation what so ever.

Come again caller, those soruces those links you are going to provide, to get to the FACT the bear heart of the matter.

If you would be so kind and cease your infernal waffling until such time as you can funish us all with them.

Just get on with it...

 

[Grandma Death]

Ignore everyone rach. You carry on love. Post what you want when you want. Don't worry about piffling little trivialities like sources-who needs them. This is the ME forum where nobody needs to qualify there claims least of all you rach eh

 

[rachamim18]

Lobster: "Were Rachamim's words meant for Lobster?": Absolutely, If you wish to fixate on parts of my personality, please do so at your leisure, away from me.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Lobster: "Were Rachamim's words meant for Lobster?": Absolutely, If you wish to fixate on parts of my personality, please do so at your leisure, away from me.

ooo your back hello love...

can you post up your sorces now please...

we have wait so pateintly...