|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 269 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 225 of 269:
| 
May 23 17:44 UTC 2002 |
No, the question on the table is the one I asked, *first*. Are you going to
answer, or keep evading?
|
lk
|
|
response 226 of 269:
|
May 23 19:40 UTC 2002 |
What part of my response in #211 did you find insufficient?
How can something you claimed you did not "attribute" to me be, as you
previously claimed, an "interpretation" of what I said?
Scott, do you have a purpose here other than to heckle and harass me?
|
lk
|
|
response 227 of 269:
|
May 23 19:42 UTC 2002 |
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=165651&contrassI
D=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0
Syria is pressing Hamas and Islamic Jihad to renew their suicide operations
against Israel, contrary to Saudi Arabian demands on Yasser Arafat and
Palestinian organizations to desist from such attacks.
Security sources say Saudi pressure on Hamas to halt suicide bombings had led
to bitter internal debate in its leadership. While continuing to deny Saudi
pressure in public, it is known there are some in the local Hamas leadership
who say it would be best to comply with the Saudi request, which would be
temporary and tactical.
Previously it was known the Saudis were helping Hamas with funds and helping
to support families of suicide bombers, as emerged from many documents
confiscated by the IDF in Operation Defensive Shield.
Syria has promised Hamas financial aid if it renews suicide bombings.
On the one hand, Damascus fears direct military confrontation with Israel and
has responded to demands by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to restrain
Hezbollah. On the other hand, Damascus maintains its aggressive posture
against Israel.
Syria is assumed to be coordinating its efforts with Tehran. Internationally,
this has created the unusual situation of a state sitting on the UN Security
Council making clearly aggressive moves.
|
scott
|
|
response 228 of 269:
|
May 23 20:03 UTC 2002 |
Leeron, 211 is essentially these things:
1. Throw in a useless factoid to look more informed
2. Attempt to mis-interpret my question as something other than what I asked
3. Answer the "question" you put into my mouth in #2
4. Start trying to put other words into my mouth to create a new question
you can pretend I never answered.
So, Leeron, we're still way back at you claiming I approve of certain
behavior, but being unable to state where I'd supposedly said it.
|
aaron
|
|
response 229 of 269:
|
May 24 00:38 UTC 2002 |
scott, something surprises you about Leeron's fabricating past "unanswered
questions" while refusing to answer present, clear, unambiguous questions?
Do you think Leeron's conduct is sincere, and not an attempt to avoid
addressing the facts?
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=165091
|
lk
|
|
response 230 of 269:
|
May 24 01:49 UTC 2002 |
Scott, nice of you to conveniently ignore my statement in #211:
| All that I said, based on your repeated failure to condemn such acts (and,
| to the contrary, to seemingly rationalize/excuse/justify them for various
| reasons) was that it APPEARS as if you condone this. I'm glad to hear
| that you do not.
So now will you finally quit being a hypocrite and answer the question:
How can something you claimed you did not "attribute" to me be, as you
previously claimed, an "interpretation" of what I said?
|
scott
|
|
response 231 of 269:
|
May 24 03:24 UTC 2002 |
Answer my question, Leeron. I *did* ask it first. But since you've tried
to push it off to more nebulous things than something I actually said, does
that count as a "I was wrong"?
|
lk
|
|
response 232 of 269:
|
May 24 05:42 UTC 2002 |
How can something you claimed you did not "attribute" to me be, as you
previously claimed, an "interpretation" of what I said?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 233 of 269:
|
May 24 08:42 UTC 2002 |
Dunno, don't care. It just seems to me that there is fundamentally
something wrong going on when children even think about becoming
'suicide murderers' and the IDF shoots children and the parents on
either side allow such insanity.
|
scott
|
|
response 234 of 269:
|
May 24 12:37 UTC 2002 |
Answer the question, Leeron. Are you now admitting to have falsely put words
in my mouth? OK, so you only did it because I failed to loudly support
everything you claim.
But answer the question before you go off on another red herring.
|
lk
|
|
response 235 of 269:
|
May 24 14:30 UTC 2002 |
Grow up, Scott. I didn't put words in your mouth. I said that it APPEARED
as if you supported such acts since you justify/rationalize/excuse them
but never (not just not "loudly" enough) condemned them. (Original in #202,
explained in #211 and 2-3 times since.)
On the other hand, Scott repeats his (by now smelly) red herring and doesn't
even attempt to address the question posed to him about what he said in #201,
about which I inquired in #202 (so even Scott's immature "I asked first" is
not true.)
The irony is that Scott's irony is that he's arguing that I'm as guilty as
he himself is. But whereas his #201 was either putting words in my mouth or
a non-sequitur, in #202 I said that it APPEARS he supports something and
am able to state why that is so. Is it any wonder that Scott must clutch
to his argument that I'm "guilty" and ignore all this? Otherwise he's the
one "guilty" of his own accusations!
Since Scott can't explain his behavior, his own words, can anyone else?
How can something Scott claimed he did not "attribute" (#207) to me be, as
he previously claimed, an "interpretation" (#205) of what I said?
|
scott
|
|
response 236 of 269:
|
May 24 14:37 UTC 2002 |
"Attribute to Leeron", in this context, means "Claim that Leeron actually said
this". I *never* claimed you said that.
Perhaps there was some confusion over the word "attribute". In this case I'll
take your policy on resolving disagreements: I'm right, and you're lying.
|
mdw
|
|
response 237 of 269:
|
May 24 18:23 UTC 2002 |
Devolution of the discussion stream. Tempers flare. Words crumble and
dribble like dry crackers, after being flung like dead horses from
catapults of tall shaky logic piled up tier upon tier. Semiotic
wanderings on the void of cyberspace.
|
lk
|
|
response 238 of 269:
|
May 24 22:50 UTC 2002 |
Scott, if you agree that I never said something (you did not "attribute"
it to me), then how can it be (as you claimed in #205) that your statement
was an "interpretation" of something I said? How can you "interpret"
something you now admit I never said? Isn't the logical conclusion that
you either interpreted something I did not say or that you MIS-interpreted
what I did say?
|
scott
|
|
response 239 of 269:
|
May 25 05:27 UTC 2002 |
Perhaps the problem is that you assumed something (about my comment) which
wasn't true.
|
lk
|
|
response 240 of 269:
|
May 25 06:20 UTC 2002 |
Perhaps the moon is green cheese.
What are you assuming I assumed about your comments...?
More likely, perhaps you cannot explain the inherent contradiction of your
own comments and thus the run-around of the last 38 responses.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 241 of 269:
|
May 25 07:54 UTC 2002 |
re#237: Damn. What you on. Care to share same?
|
oval
|
|
response 242 of 269:
|
May 25 16:02 UTC 2002 |
237 rocked.
|
lk
|
|
response 243 of 269:
|
May 25 18:20 UTC 2002 |
Yeah, mdw should keep coming with these responses -- they make a heck
of a lot more sense than what he was saying previously.... (:
|
other
|
|
response 244 of 269:
|
May 26 05:34 UTC 2002 |
<forget>
|
bdh3
|
|
response 245 of 269:
|
May 26 06:14 UTC 2002 |
re#243: Be nice. At least he has an open mind.
|
russ
|
|
response 246 of 269:
|
May 27 04:09 UTC 2002 |
Re #216: Scott's implicit approval of homocidal bombers can be
read from his refusal to condemn the bombers or the organizations
which indoctrinate, train and equip them. He apparently rates the
morality of the homocidal actions of Hamas etc. as greater than
the defensive actions of the IDF (or he considers Hamas as beyond
redemption and a waste of his time, but continues to condemn the
IDF for the only possible response to Hamas' actions).
Leeron is not the only person to get this distinct impression,
which Scott could easily dispel... but apparently cannot without
reversing his politics.
|
scott
|
|
response 247 of 269:
|
May 27 04:13 UTC 2002 |
I think suicide bombing *sucks*, Russ. That clear enough for you?
That being said, I can't fathom why Russ seems to implicitly approve the
occupation and illegal settling of non-Israeli territory. Unless you want
to follow Leeron's racist opinion that the Arabs are just evil by nature,
*how* did they get to the point where they'd strap on explosives and set them
off?
|
mdw
|
|
response 248 of 269:
|
May 27 05:14 UTC 2002 |
It worked for the IRA.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 249 of 269:
|
May 27 07:05 UTC 2002 |
No it didn't. The IRA didn't use suicide bombers, for the most
part the IRA is Roman Catholic.
|