--- Abe Sokolov <abesokolov(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
We want STALEMATED zero sum games, like a stalemate
in chess or the outcome of the Iraq-Iran War!
The one where the US gave munitions/technology to both
sides, killing a million people, and causing Saddam
Hussein to shut off ties to the US when he learned
they were playing both sides? Is that the war you are
talking about Abe???
This only happens when the
power, luck, and strategy
of both sides balances out!
I don�t favor �Wiki
Darwinism!�
I said Wiki "Social Darwinism" (if I didnt let me
restate it) its exactly what you are advocating, and
its mere gamesmanship--treating people like pieces on
a board. Its stupid beyond belief.
I only say that it�s acceptable in this context for
a number of reasons stated in the
earlier postings:
Yes, you say this because you
happen to have some
ethnic sympathies-- That is understandable. I
encourage you to consult your Faith, instead of
consult the history of US-Middle East foreign policy,
if your looking for metaphorical solutions.
it yields a unique perspective, it
yields NPOV by
stalemate,
And if RK leaves 'there be any NPOV' and nobody will
be left to take issue with the points I and others
might make?
Utter nonsense. I enjoy talking about and debating
those issues with several people on this list, most of
whom are Jewish, and none of whom ever were so
insecure as to feel they had to resort to RK's tactics
of disrespect, obfuscation, deception, and even
slander (as Brion pointed out.)
and we cannot expect anything else (BTW,
I provided an analysis
in an earlier posting illuminating why flame wars
are unavoidable for these
sets of articles).
If our goal is NPOV, we might also agree that
Again, your attempt to compare me to RK as his polar
opposite is insulting to the extreme. Im rude and
crude-- I never resorted to his tactics. The fact that
you wish to defend you friend, or ethnic relation is
understandable, but you cannot seriously advocate that
we need "Bull in China shop" type personalities to get
neutrality. Thats like "bombing for peace" or "fucking
for virginity."
Yes, there are some articles that are not the
product of conflict,
stalemate, and synthesis, but this cannot be
avoided.
An article on, for
instance, lists of Palestinian villages destroyed,
is inherently a
pro-Palestinian,
How is it pro-Palestinian? Does it simply say things
that are true that a particular POV would like to see
censored? Does it use racial epithets-- Remove them-
dont pretend that good people can't tell POV from
neutrality.
and an article on, for instance,
anti-Semitic statements
attributed to Palestinian figures, inherently the
domain of RK. However,
their tensions will check for accuracy, but not
change the orientation of
the article.
Bullshit -- these tensions make people ill-- and they
are not equal and balanced! Ive take far more heat
offlist and from more sides than RK ever had. The
only reason I'm still here ( "to offset the other
side"-- what a crapload ) is because 1: Im a tough son
of a bitch. 2. 'G-d' is on the side of those who
*keep* his word--doesnt he? 3: I know where the *line*
is and it is *respect.* Do you understand?
The *truth* is that you want RK around exactly for the
reason that he is disrespectful and uncivil, dont you
Abe?
It perhaps allows you to maintain your pretense of
"moderation."
~S~
31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, If
you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.
32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free.
33 They answered him, We are Abraham's descendants and
have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that
we shall be set free?
34 Jesus replied, I tell you the truth, everyone who
sins is a slave to sin.
--Ancient "anti-Semitic" text
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com