johnmarc wrote:cnorman18 wrote: Just an introductory word, DeBunkem. I hope you never leave this forum, and I hope you never get banned. I hope you're on here forever and that you keep doing what you do.
Thanks very much, and I mean that sincerely. As I say, please, DO keep trying; every time you post, I savor it like a good steak. I rub my hands together and say, "Aaah, another one!" Another chance to expose fake arguments and propaganda for what they are; another chance to hold you up to everyone as an example of what Israel is forced to fight against in order to survive. When I want to show someone the kind of tactics used, the kind of attitude held, and the kind of integrity shown by Israel's enemies -- and the weakness of their case, and the viciousness of their ultimate goals -- you are Exhibit A, and that does more for Israel than anything else on this forum
As I read this and the words sunk in, my mouth dropped open and I have yet to close it. This is the most demeaning, nasty, mean-spirited, attempt at the emasculation of anyone that I ever have read.
You must not get out much.
In context you are saying that you hope that Debunkem stays around forever so you can continually make him out to be a fool and display that foolishness for everyone to see.
Uh, no, I did NOT say that. I said what I said, and it speaks for itself.
Is Debunkem a human being deserving of respect regardless of what you think of him or is he a toy for you to play with---a rag doll that you can shake? Where is the civility of tone that this forum promises but exempts you from?
I called no names. I gave my opinion, which is addressed to DeBunkem's
arguments in every case and never to him personally.
If you think my post violated the forum rules, you may report it.
Hundreds of posts and dozens of points each and you have you have won every one. The score is now ten thousand to zero. That does not look like winning a debate, it looks like fanaticism. Has Debunkem ever stumbled accidentally over a sustainable point or backed into a valid proof? Ever? And yes, I know that I will be asked to count every post and count up every point and it will not equal ten thousand. I concede the point. It is just that if I said that it was unusually sunny and warm here today in the Pacific Northwest, you would ask me for a weather report to prove it.
I might at that; we don't commonly just take people's word for things here, if you haven't noticed. I understand that the Pacific Northwest tends to be rainy.
If you'll remember, I was perfectly willing to concede error in a statement that I made to you. Should I concede points about which I think myself to be right, in order to even the score so it looks less like "fanaticism"?
Sorry, but what this continuing debate "looks like" to you isn't my problem.
cnorman18 wrote: Define "too much."
You’re kidding, right?
That is a quote from another thread; if you want to continue with THAT thread, feel free, but let's not drag it in over here. Whenever you're ready...
Worse than that: Your Internet articles equal truth and everyone else’s Internet articles equal false. It is just plain ridiculous to play the dance of the Internet articles with you and that is the only game that you will play.
What dance? All I do is post links to sources, point out facts about them, and let everyone judge as they choose. I don't do the defining as "false" or "biased." I let sources speak for themselves. Care to give some examples of sources I've supposedly defined as "false" and back up the claim that they were unbiased, truthful and reliable? Go for it.
Take a deep breath, sip some wine. Just stay off the coffee.
Thanks very much, but one cup a day does it for me.
Israel will continue to win the important battles and will eventually win the war with or without you. Your private war with Debunkem serves no positive purpose.
I am on your side of this Middle Eastern conflict. What rattles around in my head is this:
(1) All of my friends and all of my church hold your position on this conflict (myself included)
That seems rather less than obvious.
(2) All of these folk have far more vested in the Sunday football game than in this conflict.
(3) Therefore none of these folk are searching rabidly through the Internet for disparaging articles about Palestine.
(4) But they all have disparaging opinions of Palestine.
(5) Therefore this anti Palestine and pro Israel slant that we all have must have come from the common media
(5) I believe that I can find that source.
"Source"? Singular? Care to speculate a bit about what that "source" --
singular -- might be? What would you CALL that "source"? If you didn't really mean that there was a singular source -- if that was another "metaphor" -- what did you mean by saying you believe that you can find it?
Whatever. You say you beliieve you can find that "source." Let's see you do it. I'm sure we're all eager to read your research and review your conclusions. Me, I can predict right now that all I will do is post links to your references and let them speak for themselves, as I always do.
You might consider this, though; something that's essentially
factual might not have to come from a single source. Most people also think that the deliberate mass murder of innocent and unarmed noncombatants is wrong, too. Does that opinion have to come from the common media and from a single "source"?
Sometimes when most people seem to believe something, it just
might be because the thing that most people believe is actually worth believing.
I would love to have that conversation with you, but you have already bitten my head off once and my head grows back rather slowly.
All of this rambling is to serve one purpose only. Granted, Debunkem probably isn’t doing his cause much good. But you are not doing your cause much good either.
I disagree. I don't care to let piles of horsefeathers remain on the forum uncontradicted. Whether or not I'm doing my "cause" much good I can't say, but I feel sure that wouldn't do any good at all.
I don't institute these propaganda attacks which consist of phony arguments and selective card-stacking of information (which is DeBunkem's own description of the technique); all I do is defend against those attacks by presenting facts and my own arguments.
I came into this forum with one sense of what a Jew is and now I have quite another.
Really? Please tell us what you think "a Jew" is now, and why you think there is such a thing as a typical or paradigmatic Jew.
I'll stand by every word I've said. If you disagree, feel free to debate me. Throwing a couple of rocks and then declining to have a conversation isn't a debate either.
Have a nice day.
