Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
And as I stated in my previous thread: Dude, you've to be kidding me, Camp David was named after Eisenhower's grandson, in 1954,Quote:
1978 (Israel negotiates peace treaty with Egypt, thus freeing its forces to invade Lebanon)
The so-called "land for peace" deal, also known as the Camp David accords (nice tweak of the
nose to the Arabs; naming the camp after a Biblical character who massacred huge numbers of
Arab women and children).
Yes...we know...we read it in the other thread, ninny.Nixon wrote:I found this from Darth Wong's essay particularly ammusing:
And as I stated in my previous thread: Dude, you've to be kidding me, Camp David was named after Eisenhower's grandson, in 1954,Quote:
1978 (Israel negotiates peace treaty with Egypt, thus freeing its forces to invade Lebanon)
The so-called "land for peace" deal, also known as the Camp David accords (nice tweak of the
nose to the Arabs; naming the camp after a Biblical character who massacred huge numbers of
Arab women and children).
24 YEARS BEFORE THIS EVENT TOOK PLACE!
It doesn't at all. But the fact you atrtribute it to malice makes a petty hold for a claim of bias. It's not much and frankly not worth a new thread.Darth Wong wrote:Oh well, I guess I should have researched the background of Camp David. How does that affect my points regarding Israel in any way? Does the word "nitpick" come to mind, especially when "Nixon" thought it so important that he created an entirely separate thread to crow about it?
Wong's Contention seems to be that it was intentionally malacious toward Arab's / Muslims. It clearly wasnt, so as an aspect of bias against Arab's Muslims, it fails as a piece of evidence. Thus it is a red herring, and should be removed from Wong's piece. That is, assuming of course, wong's piece is meant to be based on evidence.Stormbringer wrote:It doesn't at all. But the fact you atrtribute it to malice makes a petty hold for a claim of bias. It's not much and frankly not worth a new thread.Darth Wong wrote:Oh well, I guess I should have researched the background of Camp David. How does that affect my points regarding Israel in any way? Does the word "nitpick" come to mind, especially when "Nixon" thought it so important that he created an entirely separate thread to crow about it?
All bow down to Vympel, the knee jerk palestinian apologist.Vympel wrote:Talk about picking the gnatshit out of pepper.....
this is Nixon's incredible argument ... all bow down before the knee-jerk Israel apologist ...
Pleae explain to us the criteria which you believe makes a topic 'worth a new thread' so we can be sure not to offend you in the future.Stormbringer wrote:It doesn't at all. But the fact you atrtribute it to malice makes a petty hold for a claim of bias. It's not much and frankly not worth a new thread.
Fuck you, you arrogant little dipshit. He makes a new thread to point out such a ridiculous little item, and you act like it's a 'discussion'.matus1976 wrote:
All bow down to Vympel, the knee jerk palestinian apologist.
Actually, for the rest of Nixon's arguments see the thread 'wongs isreal bashing'
One suggestion, try to make posts intelligent and constructive to the discussion.
Matus
Two words: nit pick. I think you'd also get a hearty fuck-you-too from Wong if because of one honest error (heaven forbid there be an error in an article written by a fallible human) you can assert that he's packed the article with half-truths and instead of being an error is a deliberate cheap shot at Israel.Moff Jerjerrod wrote:I think Nixon makes a valid point. If Darth Wong is supposedly writing an article about the "truths" in the Middle East, but then proceeds to pack it with half-truths that are nothing but obvious cheap shots at Israel, it serves to weaken his argument.
Better get that high blood pressure medication, jeez. Wongs article implies that Camp David was named so to offend muslims / arabs. When it was pointed that it was named after a previous presidents son, and not named only to offend, he responded only with "Oh well, I guess I should have researched the background of Camp David". Yeah, I guess he should of, if he is to make a claim like that, shouldnt it, at least in part, be based on fact? If he was so quick to disregard to the factual validity of this claim, one might wonder about some of his other claims. But the army of Wong yes men here are so ready to embrace any idealogy that coforms to their own that it is doubtfull anyone ever has.Fuck you, you arrogant little dipshit. He makes a new thread to point out such a ridiculous little item, and you act like it's a 'discussion'.
Man are they producing these dumb-fucks in a factory somewhere?
No thanks, Nixon has allready done so.If you want to try and justify Israeli oppression, occupation, and apartheid, feel free- I dare you to start a thread on it.
Way to rationally pick apart what Matus was saying, Vympel. You question whether or not there is a factory mass-producing idiots, and yet you are the one wowing us with heady dialogue like "dumb-fucks" and "dipshit." Sounds like you're answering your own question, Miss Manners.Fuck you, you arrogant little dipshit. He makes a new thread to point out such a ridiculous little item, and you act like it's a 'discussion'.
Man are they producing these dumb-fucks in a factory somewhere?
If you want to try and justify Israeli oppression, occupation, and apartheid, feel free- I dare you to start a thread on it.
Nixon had already mentioned that error in the other thread he started.matus1976 wrote:Pleae explain to us the criteria which you believe makes a topic 'worth a new thread' so we can be sure not to offend you in the future.Stormbringer wrote:It doesn't at all. But the fact you atrtribute it to malice makes a petty hold for a claim of bias. It's not much and frankly not worth a new thread.
You really are a moron aren't you? Please explain the logic by which one minor error on the origin of a fucking name affects the credibility of the entire article?matus1976 wrote: If he was so quick to disregard to the factual validity of this claim, one might wonder about some of his other claims. But the army of Wong yes men here are so ready to embrace any idealogy that coforms to their own that it is doubtfull anyone ever has.
Gee, a coward, why am I not surprised. If you'd actually read that thread, you'll see that half of his 'arguments' were "surrounding countries are worse, therefore it's ok for Israel to oppress Palestinians too" and the other half were nitpicks that didn't add anything to the discussion.
No thanks, Nixon has allready done so.
And you can fuck off too. On this board users can swear as much as they like, and Matus fake, snide veneer of civility means precisely jack to me. I know when I'm being insulted:Moff Jerjerrod wrote:
Way to rationally pick apart what Matus was saying, Vympel. You question whether or not there is a factory mass-producing idiots, and yet you are the one wowing us with heady dialogue like "dumb-fucks" and "dipshit." Sounds like you're answering your own question, Miss Manners.
and I respond in kind. You'll find that most people on this board despise fake civility.One suggestion, try to make posts intelligent and constructive to the discussion.
An obviously moronic point. Because of one error you are now asserting the article is full of lies. This is the heart of a bullshit nitpick, and it is totally invalid. Trekkies like to try it on SW vs ST.Secondly, you seem oblivious to Nixon's point. If Wong is writing a piece that is supposed to be correcting the "myths" about Israel, and then proceeds to fill it with half-truths, is it not reasonable to question the validity of the rest of his argument?
No, it was an article nit-picking Wong's article, and did not state it's own position. The closest it came was the ludicrous assumption that because Israel isn't the most oppressive country in the region, it's alright for Israel to oppress Palestinians.And again, Nixon already started said thread supporting Israel's actions, so why should Matus be redundant?
Well, given the fact that NOBODY responded to his comment when he posted it in that thread, but people did here (including wong) then it seems it did require its own thread. Its clear that your opinion is that it did not require one, but it seems the fact that many people respoded indicates more people think it did. Now that I mention it, this seems the only individual point anyone took the time to respond to, It seems Nixon to combat the apparent attention deficit disorder that plagues posters on the board would need to start a unique thread with each individual disagreement (or nitpick if you prefer to call it that)Colonel Olrik wrote:Nixon had already mentioned that error in the other thread he started.matus1976 wrote:Pleae explain to us the criteria which you believe makes a topic 'worth a new thread' so we can be sure not to offend you in the future.Stormbringer wrote:It doesn't at all. But the fact you atrtribute it to malice makes a petty hold for a claim of bias. It's not much and frankly not worth a new thread.
The only reason he did it again was to furter nitpick an error.
A really Pointless and idiotic thing to do.
Excuse me? So you think all that 7 pages nothing was said at all? You must be blind. See Crowns, Sir Sirius, and Wong's posts. Nixon ran away quite quickly actually.matus1976 wrote: Now that I mention it, this seems the only individual point anyone took the time to respond to, It seems Nixon to combat the apparent attention deficit disorder that plagues posters on the board would need to start a unique thread with each individual disagreement (or nitpick if you prefer to call it that)
Matus
People ignored most of his nitpicks, I ignored his thread altogether. The reason why is very simple. Instead of starting a discussion, he posted an incredibly long post, full of nitpicks and repeating himself many times. Most people don't have the time or the will to engage such a lenghty post, specially if if having to consider all his minor points. It's not a good way to start a discussion.matus1976 wrote: Well, given the fact that NOBODY responded to his comment when he posted it in that thread, but people did here (including wong) then it seems it did require its own thread.
No, he could analyse a few at the time, giving others the chance to produce an argument without wasting an hour during the procedure.It seems Nixon to combat the apparent attention deficit disorder that plagues posters on the board would need to start a unique thread with each individual disagreement (or nitpick if you prefer to call it that)
You can call me a moron if it makes you feel better about yourself, I dont really care. I would hardly consider it a minor error, but it is an error, and is still present in Wong's essay. It was cited as evidence to the bias against arabs / muslims, and it was completely off base and unfounded, and Wongs only response was 'I should have researched it more' (paraphrasing). Though I am sure Wong is a busy guy arguing with fundies and rapid trekkies, I have yet to hear any acknowledgement that he will remove it from his essay.Vympel wrote:You really are a moron aren't you? Please explain the logic by which one minor error on the origin of a fucking name affects the credibility of the entire article?
I did read that entire thread (probably one of the very few people who actually did) and I did not see that most of his arguments were "surrounding countries are worse" instead they seemed to be "Arab nations have a track record of wanting to wipe isreal off the face of the earth, and continue to try, and have little to no interest in any resolution beyond the cesation of isreal" but it did seem that Wong's and everyone of Wong's army of Yes men's stance was "Some of what Isreal did was morally wrong, So ALL of what Isreal does is immorral" Why else would wong keep making emotional appeals to 'shooting kids' while the fact that PLO TARGETS kids and civilians garners little mention.Gee, a coward, why am I not surprised. If you'd actually read that thread, you'll see that half of his 'arguments' were "surrounding countries are worse, therefore it's ok for Israel to oppress Palestinians too"
One mans nitpick is another mans disagreement and valid objection.and the other half were nitpicks that didn't add anything to the discussion.
Oh wow now he's turned into an indignant defender of truth and justice. Would you like him to bow down on his knees and profusely apologize, would that make you happy? Some people ....matus1976 wrote: You can call me a moron if it makes you feel better about yourself, I dont really care. I would hardly consider it a minor error, but it is an error, and is still present in Wong's essay. It was cited as evidence to the bias against arabs / muslims, and it was completely off base and unfounded, and Wongs only response was 'I should have researched it more' (paraphrasing). Though I am sure Wong is a busy guy arguing with fundies and rapid trekkies, I have yet to hear any acknowledgement that he will remove it from his essay.
Learn to fucking argue. If you cannot see the problem with using one error to dismiss an entire argument, instead of dealing with each point on its own merits, you are truly intellecutally handicapped.Btw, how many errors must one find before the credibility of the entire article is brought into question? 1? 1%? 10%? 50%? Just curious.
Really, I must have missed that part ... good that you've finally decided to propose your bullshit views. Please explain what surrounding Arab nations have to do with the oppression of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Dumbass.I did read that entire thread (probably one of the very few people who actually did) and I did not see that most of his arguments were "surrounding countries are worse" instead they seemed to be "Arab nations have a track record of wanting to wipe isreal off the face of the earth, and continue to try, and have little to no interest in any resolution beyond the cesation of isreal"
Oh look, another dumbfuck perpetrating the idiotic strawman that we say that Palestine is morally flawless. It ain't. The article says that. Have you read it? I doubt it, because if you have, you obviously can't read very well. Additionally, please explain the morality behind shooting a child who throws a rock, and what the fuck that has to do with the terrorists on the other side doing the same?but it did seem that Wong's and everyone of Wong's army of Yes men's stance was "Some of what Isreal did was morally wrong, So ALL of what Isreal does is immorral" Why else would wong keep making emotional appeals to 'shooting kids' while the fact that PLO TARGETS kids and civilians garners little mention.
They've already been made- if you had actually read the entire 7 pages you'll notice that Nixon's "arguments" were smashed to bits, and that Nixon promptly ran off and didn't respond to any rebuttals, only to return and post his little nitpick in a new thread.If you have arguments against nixons statements make them. If you want to call me a coward for letting someone more knowledgeable than me head the argument up, go ahead, but Ill just call you a coward for not posting your own 'Middle east rant' essay, and instead just appealing to Lord Wong's essay.
Only when you don't know how to debate, you little shit.One mans nitpick is another mans disagreement and valid objection
