rachamim18 said:
Panda: "Cun%." It is there for the owner and anyone else who cares to look. I have better things to do then dig it out. In any event, it is moot...
No it isn't. You've made an accusation, it's incumbent on you to either substantiate it or to apologise for making a false claim.
...since EVERY OTHER POST TO ME, by THAT PERSON, consisted of vile garbage of the same caliber. Calling me "F" this, MF" that is no different than calling my mom a sexual name. You argue semantics as if it matters all the time.
If Grandma Death used remarks "of the same caliber" in "every other post" then you should have little difficulty in substantiating your claim that he did so, should you?
If a person calls you "Fuc&ing As^hole" everytime they pop up what does it matter what they call your mom. I used it as an example because it was one that stood out because she/he focused on someone close to me as opposed to just me. I am sure that the "owner" saw this when looking because they never again touched on it.
If someone calls me a "fucking arsehole", a "cunt", a "motherfucker", a "shithead" or any of hundreds of other epithets, that's
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to them calling my mother a "cunt". The former may be due to disagreement, the latter would be spite.
Like I said, you should have no difficulty substantiating your claim, if examples abound.
You should spend less time trying to uncover me, a person you do not know, as a liar and more on real isssues.
I don't need to "uncover you" as a liar, Rachamim, neither do I need to "spend time" doing so. Most of your falsehoods are so anile that they require little or no extra effort or time to expose.
What I do or do not do is not going to matter one iota if a person actually cares about a political issue. Too many like you see it as a personal contest. I do not. I do see it as a search for truth (if a bit corny on phrasing) and that does not require any personal evaluations of a person I have never met.
Requirement doesn't have anything to do with it, neither does viewing debate as a "personal contest". The issue reduces to: "ideas have effects in the real world. Honesty is required, propaganda is not". You sow propaganda, others choose to refute your propaganda. I've been doing the same thing with fascists and racists in the UK for 30 years.
My complaining about the lack of civility is my trying to pain myself as a victim? Pretty ridiculous Panda. By your way of looking at things one complaining of being shat on from a dog is just portraying themselves as victim. Panda, get off it. It is not about you, nor me. If you managed to display such an impressive grasp of English than surely you have realised that little kernel of truth soemwhere along the way?
What a fine analogy, except that it misses it's mark by a mile.
This isn't merely about your whining about discourtesy, it's about the way you manouvre your posts so that any argument against your thesis is seen by you as an attack on your character rather than your arguments. If someone calls you a liar it isn't because they believe that you lie in all things, it's because they believe you are lying about the issue under debate. Incivility is occasionally used to
emphasise a sense of disgust.
"Claims about ISM. " Have to refresh my memory on those eince there is so much to talk about with them. Here are a few though, tell me if they ring a bell:
I) The group is a terrorist haven.
II) the group claims to stand for peace but supports the use of violent terrorism.
III) the group serves a well defined political agenda irrespetive of their supposed anarchist leanings.
IV) Shapiro, the group's cofounder isa liar.
V) The group has purposely fabricated photos on at least two occasions and admitted one of them at least, in relation to Reuters who caught them and admonished them publicly.
Want more?
Yeah, why not, let's have some more
unsupported and
unsubstantiated claims about ISM
"Talking about the ACTUAL definition of the word." And you yourself admitted that "progeny" means what I said it did, and? Just more pointless quibbling.
No, you made an argument that the definition
extended into side-branches of the extended family. If you'd bothered to read my original post on the subject properly you'd have seen that I'd already, before you even mentioned it, acknowledged that the word meant "lineal descent from".
"Many politicians and commentators have specialisations outside of politics." Yep, but they work in th field, devote their lives to it as opposed to specialised and atrocious agendas . You love peace? Admirable but peace involves @ PARTIES. Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Shahak before them are just stooges. Fine and dany but anyone latching onto a stooge because they match their political orientation when trying to discuss multi faceted issues is a stooge themself.
It is as if I sat here quoting Rav Kahane all day. Or alternatively the IMFA, or AIPAC, or ADL, or JDL, or JDO, and so on. It is pointless. You and others seem to think Chomsky,etc. are the cat's meow because they say things you agree with and their only real qualification is being Jews...and that of course would mean I am the oracle of truth as well.
Except, of course, that few threads contain references to Chomsky or Finkelstein and their work (it's unnecessary to do so when the state of Israel exposes to the world it's egregious behaviours so often), so your analogy (as before) misses it's mark.
"Verification that Shahak, Finenkelstein, and Chomsky denigrate Israelis as a whole." Sorry, since you quote them verbatim
Ah, another claim you can't substantiate.
Do you know why? Because I've never quoted Chomsky on these boards (although I posted a link to an "anti-Chomsky" site because it's poor scholarship had high comedy value), and the only item of Finkelstein's I've ever quoted was a set of figures for reparations made by the German auto-industry.
yuo are well aware on that one. Do not wate wither of our time. Were it another who does not know of the 3, fine.
One problem with your "thesis", Rachamim, I've never read anything by Shahak, and I've never posted either a quotation or a link to his/her work.
You are merely , as usual, just trying to be antognistic. TRhen you top it off with "mom is cu%t" again just perfectly illustrating that your point is to inflame and villify as opposed as actual, perish the thought, discourse.
YOU were the party that brought up the "your mother is a cunt" issue again, Rachamim. No one else.
Your sentence reads as though you're now you're claiming that
I'm calling your mother a cunt too.
Are you really that piss-ignorant?
