|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
Current rating: 22 |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
04 Feb 2004
|
|
My parting shot after being banned from SF-IMC by nessie. He'll hide it there, but maybe the discussion can continue here. |
I've promised for the last year and a half -- every time nessie lost another argument and petulantly threatened to get Il Duce all over my ass -- that, should he one day carry through with his threat, I would make one last post here and then leave, my head held high, proud of my record here. I am now going to honor that promise. Presumably nessie will hide it instantly; he's that kind of guy. I will post another copy of it at my home IMC, www.ucimc.org; I invite SF-IMC posters to continue this discussion there, where nessie can't hide every third response because he disagrees with it.
It's long, natch, but I've broken it up into digestible little segments.
(1) "Racism" versus racism.
Nessie accuses me of racism. I am not a racist. The accusation is slander.
What I am is someone who believes -- and this is my sole crime in SF-IMC -- that Israel should continue to exist, and should work toward a peaceful coexistence, side by side with an independent Palestinian state, as has been the international vision all along.
To nessie, this is enough to scream "racism," and he claims "my fangs drip with blood" for it. It is my sole crime, but to nessie it's a banning offense.
I am not racist; I am "racist."
I am far from the only "racist." As demonstrated by a poll released last week, jointly sponsored by the Jewish organization Americans for Peace Now and the Arab American Institute, about three quarters of American Jews and about three quarters of Arab Americans support the principles of the Geneva Accord, which calls for the two-state solution. Only about two years ago the UN Security Council voted 14-0 for a resolution endorsing the two-state solution and referring to the nation of Palestine by name. This makes them all, by nessie's skewed standard, "racist."
By his standard, virtually every Jew in America is a "racist Zionist," and so -- even more remarkably -- are most Arab Americans. The same principle whereby nessie bans me would ban nearly every Jew in America, left, right, or center, because to disagree with nessie on merit of the one-state solution is to be a "racist."
Which would be okay, if he weren't at the helm of a website _founded on the principle of open publishing_ -- that is, founded on the principle that editorial censorship of the media for purely political reasons is an evil, and if he weren't using his editorial powers to enforce the nessie orthodoxy.
( 1a )
How extreme is nessie's position?
By his standards, the pro-Palestinian human rights organization B'tselem is "racist." Yesh Gvul -- the organization of Israeli "refuseniks" who won't serve in the West Bank -- is "racist." Peace Now, which has been pushing for a Palestinian state since, I think, 1967, is "racist." Israelis as far-far-far left as Uri Avneri are "racist." And, of course, the vast majority of Jewish Americans, Arab Americans, American Americans, and the entire UN Security Council are all "racist."
If fact, the only Jews who aren't "racist" are wingnuts like his Official Good Jew, Gilad "there's no such thing as antisemitism, but the Zionists killed Jesus anyway" Atzmon.
To nessie, "Zionists are all alike," and if you point to the rather obvious fact that there is an entire political spectrum on display in every election, the sort of spectrum that looks pretty appealing given the monochrome we're seeing here in the US election campaign, he will try to fob off the same tired Nazi analogy he uses every _other_ time someone has tried to get him to open his eyes on the topic. To him, anyone left of Atzmon is Kahane. Period, end of discussion, and if you disagree it's because you're "racist" "racist" "racist." (By the same reasoning, any crayon that isn't white must be black, since black isn't white.)
Of course, if I had ever posted anything actually _racist_, not "racist," nessie would have thrown me out long ago, and would be parading that post at every opportunity. He can't do that, though. Why? Because I'm not a racist.
But, again, the fundamental loonytude of nessie's stance wouldn't be relevant if he weren't using his power as an IMC editor to exercise a program of political censorship based on it.
(2) Why now?
If you believe that the timing of nessie's banning me last night has, at root, anything to do with his hyperbolic chants of "racist" "racist" "racist" hyperbollocks, you're being naive. It's personal. I'm banned because I have, using simple logic and commitment to the core values of the IMC movement, and maybe even the occasional flash of wit, dribbled him up and down the site like a basketball any time I wanted the exercise. He's gotten tired of losing at his own game, yet he couldn't ban me because I kept failing to turn into a fire-breathing raving loon the way Wendy Campbell did. So he just redefined "racism" instead, and what do you know, now Wendy and I are equally "racist" and can be banned simultaneously as an act of "balance."
It's also a petulant reaction to the spammer. He can't stop the spammer, but he can stop me, and he decided that's good enough for him. He _knows_ I'm not the spammer. He will, however, pretend here that he doesn't. He will tape that "Ee-e-evil Zi-i-i-ionist" mask over my face and then declare that "blood drips from my fangs," that I'm a paid agent of The Conspiracy, or that there are Zionist Mossad agents in his kosher cornflakes after all, or whatever other shriek!-shriek!-shriek! comes to his mind. After all, I am The Zionist, and no accusation or demonization can be too ridiculous against The Zionist. Slandering The Zionist is a good thing, not a bad thing, because The Zionist is ee-e-e-evil incarnate.
And, in particular, I am banned now because in the biggest long-standing argument we've had -- over the blatant antisemitism displayed by Wendy Campbell for more than a year and nessie's increasingly pathetic and increasingly inexplicable denial of same in light of the mountains of evidence I have amassed for him -- I was _right_. Turns out Wendy Campbell really _is_ a Jew-hating wretch after all, and really should have been banned from the ranch all along. That just burns nessie's ass intolerably: the Zionist was right. Nessie wanted to be able use my comments about Wendy as an example of "look how those Zionists are always screaming 'antisemitism,'" and then Wendy fucked it all up by being _exactly what I claimed she was all along_, a Jew-hating wretch. The timing of my banning at the very moment, the very instant nessie had to face his defeat on Windy Out Wendy is not a coincidence.
( 3 ) Interlude
For those who track trivia, I first started calling Windy Wendy Campbell "Windy Out Wendy" when she outed her antisemitism on what turned out to be the very same topic she ended up destroying herself with, the "Kosher Tax" canard. For nessie now to claim he's suddenly decided to "err on the side of caution" after letting Wendy shit in his birdbath for more than a year is downright Orwellian.
( 4 ) The pragmatic effect of the twisted quid pro quo
Despite being "banned," Wendy Campbell's already back on SF-IMC, using her own name but also using nonce nyms, pretending again just to be an ordinary anti-Zionist. I've spotted her five times already. From here on out, though, nessie, you'll have to watch for her yourself. You _can_ spot her, nessie, as she continues to poison your site with her "anti-Zionist" antisemitism, right?
Oh, what the hell, I'll give you one last one.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1675151_comment.php#1675709
But that's the last freebie.
In other words, the net result of your twisted quid pro quo is that Wendy's still there, quietly seeping her lunatic antisemitism into your site under her cascade of pseudonyms, and I'm not going to point her out to you any more. That's how you wanted it, isn't it, nessie?
(5) Enabling antisemitism
Note that, for all our scrapping, I have never accused nessie of antisemitism. I truly believe he is against antisemitism when he recognizes it. But the extremism of his political stance and the dogmatism by which he cleaves to it sometimes short circuit that recognition capability. That's nessie's major malfunction.
Actually, it's not that. It's that he doesn't care whether or not it's been short circuited, and rejects being told when it has. That's where the hypocrisy comes in.
What I _have_ accused him of, and accuse him of now, is _enabling_ antisemitism by turning a blind eye to it on SF-IMC. Yesterday wasn't Windy Wendy's first major antisemitic meltdown, by any stretch. But each time, nessie always found a way to pretend he hadn't seen it, or couldn't prove it, or to pretend it was really Zionist roorback roorback roorback roorback roorback, or to go strategically Alzheimers, or to suddenly become agonizingly, gut-wrenchingly preoccupied to the exclusion of all else with the epistological conundrum that he couldn't prove with absolute certainty that the antisemitic post in question _wasn't_ actually made by a contingent of Keebler elves gone rogue after an encounter with what turns out not to have been powdered sugar after all, posted from their underground bakery compound in Amsterdam. (I mean, how do you really _know_ it's not, and how can nessie possibly be expected to ban Windy Wendy without knowing for sure?)
Time after time, he found a way to excuse the inexcusable.
What, me worry about antisemitism?
( 6 ) Those Jewish genes of mine
Some of the mental ankle-biters on this site have tried, straining their already unsustainable Nazi analogies, to maintain that Gehrig The Zionist believes he is somehow genetically superior to the poor unfortunate gentile who hasn't got the good luck to be one of The Chosen People.
Heh heh.
See, the thing is, I was born 100% pure gentile. My mom, my dad, my sister, my brother, all my grandfolks, literally every single blood relative I know of (except my son, whose bar mitzvah is this April) -- not a Jew among them.
I converted to Judaism more than twenty years ago.
So you have no idea how heartily I've been enjoying it every time nessie or some other lamer has chortled to himself over the "blood and soil" argument or every time NSDAP Wendy has told me that I think that I'm superior to non-Jews and hate them, or that I use "goy" as a pejorative term, or that I'm too enamored of my own Jewish genetics. I haven't _got_ Jewish genetics. Non-Jews are literally my family.
Literally my brother. Literally my sister. Literally my father. Literally my late mother. All my grandparents, my aunt, my late uncle, their children, their grandchildren, my brother's children. And so on.
And the Joseph Heller fan in me is particularly delighted to hear that I'm being called a "racist" for my role in defending a group I have personally demonstrated for more than half my life -- by electively joining it -- can't _be_ a "race."
Chew on that one, nessie.
Heh heh.
( 7 ) Spam sermonette
Spam is bad, spammer. Don't spam. And especially don't spam _my_ stuff, whoever you are. True, it drives nessie crazy, but not nearly as crazy as I did by consistently refuting him, out in the open, until he could do nothing but repeat his bumpersticker mantra, "Zionism is racism, Zionism is racism, Zionism is racism."
( 8 ) Jewish sermonette
One of Job's "comforters" refers to God as "the maker of peace in the heavens" -- "oseh shalom bim'romav." This phrase was developed, in the Jewish liturgy, into the closing line of the full Kaddish. (The Kaddish is sometimes mischaracterized as "a prayer for the dead"; it's really more of a liturgical semicolon, recurring in different forms and marking the division between different liturgical sections in the worship service. But I digress.) "Oseh shalom bim'romav, hu yaaseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael, v'imru amen."
By a peculiarity of Hebrew verb forms, this can be read in two ways: either as a plea or as an affirmation. In other words, it means both "May the maker of peace in the heavens make peace for us and all the house of Israel, and we say 'amen'" and "The maker of peace in the heavens _will_ make peace for us and for all the house of Israel, and we say 'amen.'"
Bill Clinton said this line, in Hebrew, at the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin, and I wept. It is my favorite line in the liturgy.
In Leonard Bernstein's Third Symphony, "Kaddish," the speaker paraphrases it as follows:
"Great God / You who make peace in the high places, / Who commanded the mornings since the days began, / And caused the dawn to know its place; / Surely you can cause and command / A touch of order here below, / On this one, dazed speck, / And let us say again, Amen."
And I say, amen. Amen to the plea, and amen to the affirmation.
( 9 ) Secular sermonette
The little figure I sign my posts with -- every single post I will ever have made on SF-IMC, appearing here now for the last time below -- is a miniature caricature of the Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich.
Around the time I was born, Shostakovich went head-to-head with the politburo on the antisemitism issue. His Thirteenth Symphony was a setting of five poems by Yevgeny Yevtushenko, the first of which was "Babii Yar," which attacked -- poetically -- the Party's failure to address antisemitism within its own ranks.
The Party responded by doing everything in its power to stop the concert. Like nessie, they thought the fight against antisemitism was simply too insignificant when compared to the defense of the party line. Shostakovich was far too internationally famous to lock up (although they did send his buddy Mstislav Rostropovich, the dissident cellist for whom Shostakovich wrote those two brilliant concerti, to be a brick mason in the gulag later on). But the Party frightened away Mravinsky, the conductor of every Shostakovich symphonic premiere for the previous thirty years or so. And they frightened away, at the last moment, the bass soloist who was to sing Yevtushenko's words. And they did try to frighten Kondrashin, who took over for Mravinksy, into performing the work without the "Babii Yar" movement.
But Shostakovich stood up for what was right, and Kondrashin stood up for Shostakovich, and the concert went ahead.
Here are the closing lines of Yevtushenko's poem, the posting of which I dedicate to Shostakovich's heroism:
"When the last antisemite on earth
is buried forever
let the "Internationale" ring out!
In me there is no Jewish blood,
but in their callous rage, all antisemites
hate me now as a Jew.
For that reason
I am a true Russian!"
Compare that to the nessie version, which is not heroism but the sound of moral disintegration and invertibrate weaselry:
Antisemitism doesn't exist
And when it does
It's all the Zionists' fault
And if you point it out
It's only because you planted it yourself.
And if it's the real deal, who cares anyway
Let's just bash Zionism instead
What, me worry about antisemitism?
What a good boy am I!
( 10 )
So this is me, signing off.
To those who've given me some kind words and support for my efforts to demonstrate to nessie what's in front of his own two eyes but he can't let himself see, my thanks. I'm through tilting at this particular windmill.
Nessie, she's your problem now. Enjoy her presence, which you can no longer detect, as she seeps her poison into SF-IMC's ground water. She's the albatross you earned with your hypocrisy about antisemitism. That is, in the words of John Lennon, the sound of Instant Karma.
And, I said I would, I now leave SF-IMC with my head held high, singing the words my hero Yip Harburg wrote for a melody from my hero Dmitri Shostakovich:
Make way for the day called tomorrow; make way for the day that is new.
@%< |
Related stories on this site:
A quick note on SF-IMC
Two Peace Now Polls
I'm Banned from SF-IMC
| 
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Go To
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
04 Feb 2004
|
Hey Gehrig,
I just wanted to commend you and say thanks for all your hard work.
Thanks for working so hard to illustrate (what should be obvious to everyone but is apparently not) the hypocrasy of certain factions of the "anti-racism" when it crosses the line to blatant racism.
In the IMC world where anti-Zionist Israelis implore the IMC community to not use the term "Zionazi" as it's "unhelpful" to the cause - and those pleas are ignored; in the IMC world where merely being born Israeli is a crime; in the IMC world where all hints of any Palestinian or Arab ethnocentrism, nationalism, "racism," sexism, homophobia and Islamicism are ignored, denied, apologized for, minimized or even fully embraced while claiming that only Zionists are "racists;" in an IMC world where it is completely ignored that a majority of Palestinians do not want "one democratic state"; in an IMC world where it is imagined that there is no resistance in the Palestinian community for "one democratic state;" in an IMC world where religion is decried as evil and/or paternal, unless it's the "Judaism" of Nateuri Karta or certain people's naive and strange interpretations of Islam; in an IMC world where the term "racism" applies to almost all Jewish Americans and the great majority of Arab Americans - and even Palestinians, although they dare not call them that, that's just reserved for Israelis - well, it's a world full of contradictions and hypocrasies.
And any progressive willing to stand up to the fascism of ideas and "ideals" presented by that faction, well, I am grateful towards.
Despite the constant and predictable attacks you receive at the hands of nessie and Wendy and others, just know that you will be missed by some.
The hypocrites in the anti-war, "anti-racist" community are an embarrassment, politically, spiritually and emotionally. They have totally marginalized the "Left" and the new supposed "allies," be they the fascists of the Arab League (because they are also obviously anti-Zionist), or the far-right wingers that Wendy is (sadly somewhat successfully) trying to legitimize - well, some days it feels like there's no credibility left.
When it's routine to see far-right wing, psuedo white supremacist paleo conservatives like Justin Raimondo, Charley Reese and Joe Sobran articles routinely posted to supposedly "progressive" independent media sources, well, the most extreme of the extremists have won, and the notion of the political spectrum as political horeshoe has been realized. The fascists are running the shop.
Anyway, sorry for the speech.
Thanks again, you'll be missed.
I'll start checking out the ucimc, even though I've never been to Urbana-Champaign, just to see if the community here is any less hypocritical or fascist than my own.
Cheers,
G.T. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 3
04 Feb 2004
|
gehrig, dude, you rock.
peace |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
04 Feb 2004
|
Go To: "In the IMC world where anti-Zionist Israelis implore the IMC community to not use the term "Zionazi" as it's "unhelpful" to the cause - and those pleas are ignored"
I think you'll find that most IMCs are far less receptive to the sort of thing you describe in your paragraph than SF-IMC has been over the last two years. Please don't judge all IMCs by the mess created by nessie's blind eye. There are as many IMC worlds as there are IMCs. This particular one, here in my home town, is a gem that I am happy to support -- for its anti-nessie-ness.
Do some more poking around the network, and I hope you'll see that, although there are certainly some very strident anti-Israel voices, the sort of raving you see regularly on SF-IMC is the exception rather than the rule; they are the posts of those drawn to SF-IMC by nessie's "if you support the Geneva Accord, you're a racist baby-eater" editorial policy.
If I thought SF-IMC were the IMC gold standard, I wouldn't have a damned thing to do with it. Fortunately it's a rather infamous oddity.
@%< |
|
IMC: It's a Big Tent, So Don't Over-Generalize |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
04 Feb 2004
|
Go To,
I must say I agree with much of what you've said. It's real important to remember that you would have better stated your case by saying that it's an "SF IMC world"...
For whatever reasons, which may realistically include a real difficulty in coming to terms with overt anti-Semitism, SF IMC is more the exception than the rule within the Indymedia movement. Sure, it's embarrassing to say that we somehow have a very tangential relationship with SF IMC. But sometimes that's how the world works.
Indymedia reflects the way that the world really is, perhaps better than any other venue in the mass media. Along with most people in the world, who we know are overwhelmingly out to make the world a better place, you're going to inevitably find a tiny minority who are still stumbling around in a very sad and ridiculous place in the name of politics.
But Indymedia is still big enough to accomodate the truth. And you, the reader, still decide that. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Go To
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
04 Feb 2004
|
gehrig, you write: "There are as many IMC worlds as there are IMCs."
I know you're right about that.
The main/international IMC was another collective that was as nasty, anti-Semitic/racist and conspiratorial as some of the crowd at the SF-IMC.
And the last few weeks dealing with the SF-IMC mindset has just left me a bit sour, and as a Californian, rather embarrassed, to be honest.
Keep up the good work wherever you get the chance, and keep on championing peace.
Cheers,
G.T. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Go To
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
04 Feb 2004
|
ML:
I apologize - I didn't mean to generalize by saying "all IMCs" are like SF-IMC.
I meant to only refer to the "certain factions of the 'anti-racism' community" that are blatant racists (who I referenced in my first sentence) - and whereever they happen to appear on various IMCs, and in the "progressive" community at large.
I realize SF-IMC is not reflective of the larger IMC community, and just has a very high concentration of blatantly racist "anti-racists."
Again, apologies for being imprecise. |
|
Apologies Accepted |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
04 Feb 2004
|
Go To,
No problem, it's easy to get distracted from the forest by a particularly ugly tree.
You should also be aware that the old global IMC Newswire was turned into a wasteland by the same tiny faction that poisoned the well at SF IMC. I have nothing to do with the editorial policy at global IMC, but I think most everyone acknowledged it had likewise become an embarrassment to our movement.
When the global Newswire comes back, we can only hope that some measures are taken to address its misuse. In a certain sense, it has to be a place where the widest latitude is given to even the most extreme forms of speech.
But I really have to wonder why there is any reason to allow outright perversions of reality to co-exist with relevant and factual news from a diverse range of sources. There is no real need to allow a single viewpoint, and a largely discredited one at that, to somehow appear to represent what so many have worked so hard for, which is a wide range of opinion on subjects of concern, rather than a narrow, party-line of hate. |
|
Re:My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Mulberry Sellers
Mulberry_Sellers (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: 3
05 Feb 2004
Modified: 03:38:53 AM |
You know, Gehrig, your experience at the SF IMC is remarkably like what routinely happens to skeptics (i.e., people who expect that claims should be supported by evidence and that inferences should only be drawn which follow logically from true premises) who dare to challenge a cherished but unsupported belief on the wrong forum.
Nessie wasn't quite as quick on the trigger as the average proprietor of a Moon Hoax, Planet X or anti-immunization list, but in the end he wound up behaving in a very familiar way.
There isn't much point in dragging out the details, save to note that the syllogism
Zionism is racism
Gehrig is a Zionist
Therefore Gehrig is a racist
has exactly the same validity and lack of soundness as
All Greeks have beards
Phryne was a Greek
Therefore Phryne had a beard
Anyway, if a place where reasoned discussion about a wide variety of subjects takes place between people who manage to respect each other in the light of their differences appeals to you, let me recommend the Skeptic Friends Network at http://www.skepticfriends.org . There might be something to engage your interest in the Religion or Politics fora and an expert on Judaism could probably contribute some good insights to some of the religious history-related threads.
I'm known as Ktesibios over there (and on the BABB and the JREF fora). Drop by and have a look! |
|
May SF-IMC go the way of IMC-Pal or Radio Islam |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
05 Feb 2004
|
Gehrig,
I'm greatful for having had the honor of being on the side of anti-madness on SF-IMC with you, though we obviously differ in how we envision the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and several other issues.
I was equally appalled at how the evil scumbag a.k.a. nessie pulled a doozie on us all, pretending he banned the White Power Witch Wendy Klanbbell while he had no intention of so doing.
The totalitarian racist monster known as nessie will probably pay the ultimate price for his racist hypocrasy soon enough in that several individuals may take his (yes, it's literally his) ugly soapbox off the www. This is what originally happened to "Radio Islam", only that unlike in that case, it can be done on a regular ongoing basis.
You know what occurred to IMC-Palestine (which is now deemed dead for many intents and purposes). Perhaps that's the fate that will soon befall the most benighted IMC outlet nowadays, SF-IMC.
As you probably figured out long ago, I never stopped posting to that cesspool excuse for a site since. I've been posting under several aliases. I have considered the fight against anti-Semitism and mindless, one-sided hypocritical anti-Zionism too important to abandon, since I've been able - and I apologize to anyone who construes the imminent statement as a bid at self aggrandizement; that's not my intention - to make some very unique contributions to certain discussions, just as you, gehrig, made your own.
You may consider me a wacko on a par with whoever, and yet I think unconventional methods need to be employed in a forum that is "moderated" by some ogre who's actually not Il Duce-like, but a Stalin wannable who failed to rise to glory early on in his miserable life.
As for the ongoing spamming that occurs in the racist cesspit a.k.a. SF-IMC, I'd say this: however bad the phenomenon, at least it may be of value in getting that garbage site knocked off if and when professional attempts to do so are undertaken. Yeah, I know you'll retort that spamming is still bad. But then virtually every contributor and reader here agrees, don't they? |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by debate coach
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
05 Feb 2004
|
>exactly the same validity and lack of soundness as
>All Greeks have beards
This is bogus logic because it is not based on empirical data. In fact, all Greeks do not have beards. However, by definition, all Zionists *are* racists.
Aside from that, gehrig spams. Ergo, he abuses the Indymedia newswire. Ergo, he should be banned from *all* Indymedias. If UC-IMC fails to ban him, it will demonstrate that they disrespect all of Indymedia, and will strongly imply that they support the racist atrocity that is Nazism’s baby brother, Zionism. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
05 Feb 2004
|
Mulberry -- Hi! I'll check out your forum. I'm very much in the Shermer-Gardner-Randi fan club, and have even given a couple of talks debunking Michael Drosnin's "Bible Code."
If I have a specialization, though, it's the rhetoric of Holocaust denial; I did six or so years solid duty in alt.revisionism. (Just like in SF-IMC, I never made an alt.revisionism post I didn't sign with my own name and "@%<". If I'm not willing to sign it, I told myself, I shouldn't be willing to post it.)
This was the reason I first got involved with SF-IMC -- I was surprised at the number of Holocaust denial sites that were being quoted, and I started pointing them out.
Then something really weird happened, Nessie requested that I email the editorial list whenever I saw one, and then he would quietly remove it. Problem is, the SF editorial list is closed, in violation of the IMC principles of transparancy. (Transparency is a core IMC principle everywhere but SF-IMC; it's something UC-IMC does particularly well, I think.) So instead I would point them out by posting a follow-up. Nessie began to, in his inimitable paranoid way, decide that I was doing it my way instead of his way because I wanted to paint the site as antisemitic. Then he decided that I might even be the one posting the Holocaust denial links -- which by then had reached half a dozen or so -- and _then_ pointing them out. So whenever I'd mention that someone had posted a link to a website, in response I'd be told that the editors believed I'd planted it (with his usual link to a definition of "roorback"), and that I was probably a Mossad agent. Pretty soon, nessie was declaring that my planting the racist links was "the only possible explanation." (This is when I started referring to him as "Dumbfock Holmes.") Then he started repeatedly threatening to ban me if I ever did it again. I would nail him to the wall with the vacuity of such an act, and he would relent.
In the meantime, of course, Windy Wendy Campbell was getting more whacked by the hour, but without getting Mussolini'd the way I was because she was doing it under the cloak of "anti-Zionism."
So we had Windy Wendy's sanctioned bigotry being endorsed, her hate-site-link-of-the-month ignored, and my anti-bigotry being condemned. It was straight out of Joseph Heller.
Critical Thinker -- hi again!
It's true that we've got legitimate differences in how to bring peace to the Mideast. The sad thing is that nessie's mussolini-isms made it impossible to discuss such things in an environment of mutual respect necessary to bring the dialog past the empty platitude stage and into a being a real conversation.
However, I cannot and do not endorse any measures of any kind against SF-IMC except for what I have done: used its own idiocy to demonstrate its own idiocy. Please don't do anything more than that; it's counterproductive. I've been reading some of the journalistic commentary from George Orwell, and have tried to abide by the principles that seem to guide him: use nothing but truth, make your strongest argument and in your clearest voice, and -- occasionally -- have some fun with witty invective. I am proud to say that I held to those principles in my entire SF-IMC sojourn. That
If you do anything more that that, including cyberattack, you will accomplish exactly what the Knesset does every time it threatenes to expel Arafat: turn a pathetic pusbag into a "martyr of the Zionists." Even _I_ will defend SF-IMC against cyberattack.
Nessie's grip on SF-IMC is more than knowledge enough for me not to worry about how much longer it will have any value. The site has chosen its own self-destructive path. Let it sail that path unimpeded.
IMC-Palestine wasn't destroyed by external forces; it was destroyed by the internal forces that decided that they would no longer delete Holocaust denial posts and similar antisemitic material. What happened to the site afterwards, essentially, was irrelevant; the site lost any possible usefulness for the Palestinian people at that moment. The only thing that sustained, in half-zombie form, afterward, was solidarity against Zionist cyberattack. The only thing.
That's why it doesn't bother me to know that I'm never going to make another post at SF-IMC; I know that I don't _need_ to, and that it will sink under its own weight without my assistance.
Nessie -- Hello! Too bad you're lying about the spamming.
@%< |
|
The Lies of Spamgeeks |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
05 Feb 2004
|
Critical Thinker (AKA DAN Disinfo),
You are surely one of the most ill-named posters we've had. Whatever your disagreements with SF IMC, spamming their site, especially with gehrig's posts, simply plays into the paranoid hands of nessie and the tiny clique that keeps him in power. There is no critical thinking dispalyed by supporting such nonsensical abuse of Indymedia..
Debate Coach (also AKA DAN Disinfo),
Your nymn is equally disingenuous. Your failure to demonstrate the basics of logic is blatantly apparent by your tautology briefly on display above. You've been seen reeking with the same hypocrisy on SF IMC.
The word around the IMC network is that both you and Critical Thinker are just two more nymns of the same spammer that spends his time jerking nessie's chain, when you're not too busy spewing anti-Semitic hate across the network to make it appear that Indymedia is a hotbed of ant-Semitism. Such fakery does nothing to advance any solution to the problems of Israel and Palestine. It only benefits the bloody-handed extremists on both sides, betraying the cause of the vast majority of people, both Israeli and Palestinian, who would be better off living in peace.
Now begone, DAN, in whatever guise you choose to take today and in the future. |
|
Re:My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Mulberry Sellers
Mulberry_Sellers (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: 3
05 Feb 2004
Modified: 02:24:35 PM |
"Debate Coach": Wrong.
All Greeks have beards
Phryne was a Greek
Therefore Phryne had a beard
is in fact correct logic: a valid categorical syllogism.
While it is valid, i.e., if the premises are true the conclusion must also be true, it is *unsound* in being based on a false premise.
The point of giving an example of a valid argument with an obviously false major premise (additional deliberate howler, thrown in for fun: Phryne was a woman) was to demonstrate that Nessie's characterization of Gehrig as a "racist" (and you can find the exact syllogism I used in exactly that form if you poke around the recently hidden files on SFIMC a bit) is *sound* only if the major premise (Zionism is racism) is true.
"Zionism is racism" is a claim; to use it as a premise in a sound argument its truth must be demonstrated. The argument "Zionism is racism by definition, therefore Zionism is racism" is *invalid* by reason of being circular, although it does have some value: pulling it out and parading it as a postulate demonstrates that we've left the realm of logic and reason and entered that of faith, AKA "believing something you know ain't so".
Hatefreakery is such a discouraging phenomenon. The way that the same tired old claims keep bouncing back no matter how thoroughly they've been debunked is enough to take the tuck out of just about anyone.
It took only four or five repetitions of posting links to Philip Graves' original exposure of the "Protocols" as a plagiarized hoax (now kept in a Notepad file on my computer for handiness) over on Godlike Productions along with an explanation of how the anti-Semites' fallback position of "it's all coming troo!" is an exercise in affirming the consequent to drive me to saying "let these goobers drown in their own sloppy thinking". Surviving six years on alt.revisionism without giving up on humanity altogether is hard to envisage.
It must have been quite a practical education in the stubborn non-logic of the Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist, which makes me wonder- Gehrig, didn't you realize that you were arguing with a professional PCT, which inevitably entails a dive through the looking glass?
It really is depressing- to see an endless influx of filth and stupidity and to lack the intellectual power to take it all out to the dumpster... |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
05 Feb 2004
|
ML -- I don't think "Critical Thinker" is Dan Disinfo, even though he is apparently threatening SF-IMC with a Dan-like spam attack. I certainly hope he isn't Dan Disinfo, and I certainly hope he doesn't spam anyone. Spamming is _always_ bad -- even when it goes to sco.com.
And "debate coach" is none other than nessie.
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by nessie
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
05 Feb 2004
|
>the paranoid hands of nessie
(1.) An ad hominem is not a rebutal.
(2.) By definition, it’s only paranoia if it later turns out I was wrong. Speculation beforehand is premature.
>Nessie -- Hello! Too bad you're lying about the spamming
Click here:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B2D665C47 |
|
Re: The Lies of Spamgeeks |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
05 Feb 2004
|
Dear ML, hello yourself.
Thankfully you had the grace to not attack me personally. That's the bright spot here, though you're painfully mistaken.
I guess you're alluding to Dan Elliot. I'm a totally different individual; my first name is a Hebrew one (not "Dan") and my family name is not "Elliot". I'm sorry to see you though I'm synonymous with "Dan".
I didn't claim I've been spamming SF-IMC. It's just that I didn't condemn it. I'm not the spammer/s that are jerking the monstrous nessie's chain.
You're entitled to your opinion about the cyber violence that's pounding SF-IMC. If you think cheering on a sustained heavy hitting cyberattack by professional hackers from the sidelines is antithetical to critical thinking, I beg to differ. I think that would be the best thing that can happen to Indymedia at large. And remember, I was supporting professional abuse of SF-IMC alone, whereas you're speaking of the whole IMC network getting abused, which was not the case.
In case you haven't figured out yet, "debate coach" is one of nessie's multiple nyms. Even in his own soapbox very few (if at all) are fooled into believing these handles represent different posters. Nor is anyone with a clear thinking mind fooled into a conviction nessie is a real debate coach.
Oh, I might add that I'm Jewish whereas nessie/"debate coach" isn't. I have never spread anti-Semitism in the real world or cyber world. Nessie would feel equally revulted at the suggestion I'm actually him.
In closing, I haven't spammed SF-IMC and do not intend to.
Hope you believe me and are able to shake off your suspicions about me. It would be sad to realize that you opt to descend to nessie's paranoid hangups.
Thank you. |
|
Sad, Very Sad |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
05 Feb 2004
|
If it wasn't so sad, it would be amusing that someone who claims to reject what he calls the "ad hominem" comments of another would also be the one to claim that gehrig is a "racist".
And the Stasi-like dossier you presented says far more about your practices than it does about gehrig.
nessie, your being jerked around by someone who is exploiting your prejudices, as well as your ignorance, in thinking that gehrig had anything to do with the flooding attacks on your site. We have seen the same pattern here, before gehrig probably even knew your site existed and it is the same one identified across the IMC network. And I know gehrig well enough to know that, whatever his disagreement with you, he's not the one who is doing that or attacking our site, too.
And I also have significant reasons to suspect that the person responsible is far closer to you than he is to us. Wallow in your ignorance if it makes you comfortable, but it's at variance with the facts. |
|
Re: The Lies of Spamgeeks |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
05 Feb 2004
|
Dear ML, hello yourself.
Thankfully you had the grace to not attack me personally. That's the bright spot here, though you're painfully mistaken.
I guess you're alluding to Dan Elliot. I'm a totally different individual; my first name is a Hebrew one (not "Dan") and my family name is not "Elliot". I'm sorry to see you though I'm synonymous with "Dan".
I didn't claim I've been spamming SF-IMC. It's just that I didn't condemn it. I'm not the spammer/s that are jerking the monstrous nessie's chain.
You're entitled to your opinion about the cyber violence that's pounding SF-IMC. If you think cheering on a sustained heavy hitting cyberattack by professional hackers from the sidelines is antithetical to critical thinking, I beg to differ. I think that would be the best thing that can happen to Indymedia at large. And remember, I was supporting professional abuse of SF-IMC alone, whereas you're speaking of the whole IMC network getting abused, which was not the case.
In case you haven't figured out yet, "debate coach" is one of nessie's multiple nyms. Even in his own soapbox very few (if at all) are fooled into believing these handles represent different posters. Nor is anyone with a clear thinking mind fooled into a conviction nessie is a real debate coach.
Oh, I might add that I'm Jewish whereas nessie/"debate coach" isn't. I have never spread anti-Semitism in the real world or cyber world. Nessie would feel equally revulted at the suggestion I'm actually him.
In closing, I haven't spammed SF-IMC and do not intend to.
Hope you believe me and are able to shake off your suspicions about me. It would be sad to realize that you opt to descend to nessie's paranoid hangups.
Thank you. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by nessie
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
05 Feb 2004
|
>f it wasn't so sad, it would be amusing that someone who claims to reject what he calls the "ad hominem" comments of another would also be the one to claim that gehrig is a "racist".
The difference is that I'm not paranoid, nor can it be demonstrated so. It can be easily demonstrated that gehrig is a racist. He repeatedly sticks up for Israel, a racist state. Only racists stick up for racists. Zionists are racist by definition. Gehrig sticks up for them. Ergo, gehrig is demonstrably racist. His own words brand him so. |
|
Spamming Is Evil (and Pointless) |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
05 Feb 2004
|
CT,
Anyone who even claims to support the attacks, even from the sideline, that have been perpetrated on SF IMC is simply not worth taking seriously. It is nothing but juvenile nonsense, whatever the disagreements that supposedly prompt and justify it. Those who engage in such practices are sick and pointless abusers of Indymedia. There is absolutely no justification, _ever_, for such bullshit.
And I happen to know that gehrig feels the same way, which is why I am ceratin that someone has nessie barking up the wrong tree.
It's true that SF IMC has suffered the worst from this crap, but it is hardly unique to SF IMC. Which is where I still happen to have a lot of sympathy for what nessie has to put up with, as a fellow IMC editor, however much I disagree with him on the issue at hand.
And the pattern is also one of the hallmarks of the actions of the person responsible for it. And it also happens to be pattern that has been characterized by being from the extremes on the question of Isarel and Palestine, not simply from a revaunchist Israeli perspective. It's hardly a preserve of exclusively anti-Semitic attacks. A look at IMC Palestine's downfall proves that. Either both sides employ the exact same tactics or it's really just the same person, jerking everyone's chain. And that indicates simple trolldom, which is what we've concluded here. It's less about a particular side that someone's sick fantasy of disruption and distraction.
With all the multi-nymism that this situation has created, whether you are this person or not is less important than your support of his tactics. In my book, that calls into question everything you say, starting with your support for hate-spamming. You are a sick fuck if you think _anything_ positive will come of such practices. |
|
Gehrig, fear not. |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
05 Feb 2004
|
I don't intend to actively attack SF-IMC, no. Besides, I don't have the requisite know-how to wipe that excrement excuse for a website off the web, let alone in an ongoing manner.
As for the Knesset deciding anything about Arafat's fate...to the best of my recollection it has been the Israeli government and/or Sharon himself that has reached decisions and issued empty threats to expel the arch-terrorist.
Btw, Peace Now wasn't established earlier than 1978. |
|
Re: More Postcards from Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
05 Feb 2004
|
Well, ML, what do you know. You were right -- Nessie _is_ gonna claim that I spammed SF-IMC.
And the evidence: over the last few days, somebody's spammed SF-IMC with lots of copies of two of my recent posts. And _therefore_...
Well, therefore ... what? State your conclusion in full, Il Duce. Tell us what's on your mind, in an honest and forthright manner. And, of course, your evidence.
Or do you now consider yourself ethically empowered to simply lie about me?
@%< |
|
What I Think of That |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 6
05 Feb 2004
|
Well, nessie, Chicken Little just ran by squawking "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" and I don't believe that either.
Your simplistic conflation of racism with nationalism would be problematic if you were one of my history students. Life is rarely that simple and it definitely isn't in this case, unless that is simply what you choose to believe, in spite of empirical evidence that clouds the picture considerably. |
|
Gehrig, fear not. |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
05 Feb 2004
|
I don't intend to actively attack SF-IMC, no. Besides, I don't have the requisite know-how to wipe that excrement excuse for a website off the web, let alone in an ongoing manner.
As for the Knesset deciding anything about Arafat's fate...to the best of my recollection it has been the Israeli government and/or Sharon himself that has reached decisions and issued empty threats to expel the arch-terrorist.
Btw, Peace Now wasn't established earlier than 1978. |
|
Gehrig, fear not. |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
05 Feb 2004
|
I don't intend to actively attack SF-IMC, no. Besides, I don't have the requisite know-how to wipe that excrement excuse for a website off the web, let alone in an ongoing manner.
As for the Knesset deciding anything about Arafat's fate...to the best of my recollection it has been the Israeli government and/or Sharon himself that has reached decisions and issued empty threats to expel the arch-terrorist.
Btw, Peace Now wasn't established earlier than 1978. |
|
Gehrig, fear not. |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
05 Feb 2004
|
I don't intend to actively attack SF-IMC, no. Besides, I don't have the requisite know-how to wipe that excrement excuse for a website off the web, let alone in an ongoing manner.
As for the Knesset deciding anything about Arafat's fate...to the best of my recollection it has been the Israeli government and/or Sharon himself that has reached decisions and issued empty threats to expel the arch-terrorist.
Btw, Peace Now wasn't established earlier than 1978. |
|
CT, Would You Mind Turning Off The Spamware? |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Feb 2004
|
|
Besides, it's a dead giveaway you're not our friend. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Feb 2004
|
ML, sorry.
I didn't mean to spam. For what's it's worth, I tried to refresh the webpage several times to see if comments had ben added, but somehow this inadvertently produced duplicate posts.
My apologees for the inconvenience.
I'm off to work for today. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
05 Feb 2004
|
nessie: "It can be easily demonstrated that gehrig is a racist. He repeatedly sticks up for Israel, a racist state. Only racists stick up for racists. Zionists are racist by definition. Gehrig sticks up for them. Ergo, gehrig is demonstrably racist. His own words brand him so."
If you've taken nessie's leap of faith, that is, and you accept as axiomatic a statement that any stance on Israel other than the call for its immediate dismantling is "racist."
To you, these two statements are morally equivalent:
(1) "I believe that both the Jews and the Palestinians have the right to self-determination, and I support the principles of the Geneva Accord."
(2) "I've just joined the KKK. I'm gonna go shoot me some n------s."
That's just pure rhetorical monkey business, nessie, no matter how earnestly you believe it, no matter what bromides and chop logic you bring to it.
AS YOU KNOW, I have never made a racist post on SF-IMC. In order to ban me for "racism," you had to monkey with the definition of "racism" until it was _so_ broad, _so_ wide open, that you'd have to ban 99% of all Jewish posters and 90% of Arab American posters if you were going to be consistent in your enforcement of your dogma.
I've counted four posts so far today from Windy Wendy on SF-IMC, by the way. Seep seep seep goes the unchecked antisemitism into SF-IMC.
CT -- I am glad to hear that you don't plan to participate in a cyberattack on an IMC site. I'll admit having a good laugh when I found out how MyDoom was cyberbombing SCO, but ultimately I have to side with Orwell. It was by openly and publically playing by nessie's rules that I demonstrated how stupid they are. In the end, the truth is always the best move.
You're right on the date of the founding of Shalom Achshav, by the way. But I do seem to remember that the Knesset voting to approve an administration proposal to evict Arafat about two years ago.
@%< |
|
Re: To Mulberry |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
05 Feb 2004
|
Mulberry --- sorry, missed your post earlier.
"Gehrig, didn't you realize that you were arguing with a professional PCT, which inevitably entails a dive through the looking glass?"
To tell you the truth, that's part of the interest. I've always been fascinated by the border between sense and nonsense, and especially the cross-border sorties -- the "Bible Codes" unsuccessfully disguising hysteria as "math," the Holocaust deniers unsuccessfully disguising antisemitism as "historical revisionism," and so on.
Going in the other direction -- that is, disguising sense as nonsense -- was one of the central ideas of my MA thesis, on a kind of satire ("Menippean satire") that deals with philosophical issues in an intentionally nonsensical way -- _Candide_, _Tristram Shandy_, the _Alice_ books, and so on.
And my experience with the paranoid conspiracy loons of alt.revisionism is what let me spot Wendy long ago as someone who wasn't what she pretended to be.
Again, I don't think nessie's an antisemite, but the depth of his demonization of anything remotely resembling anything less than 100% hystrionic condemnation of the Eeee-vil Itself sure has something of the conspiracy loon flavor to it.
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by nessie
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
06 Feb 2004
|
>Your simplistic conflation of racism with nationalism
I am not conflating racism with nationalism. Zionism is not “nationalism.” It is *ethnic* nationalism, ie. racist.
>To you, these two statements are morally equivalent:
This is a straw man, typical of gehrig’s debate style. Stop putting words into my mouth, gehrig. It’s rude. It’s dishonest. It’s very bad form.
> both the Jews and the Palestinians
Gehrig own words betray his racism. He speaks of “the” Jews and “the” Palestinians, as if each were a monolithic group. This is racist reasoning at its very essence. This is how Nazis think.
The conflict is not between “Jews” and “Palestinians,” let alone between “the” Jews and “the” Palestinians. Palestine, by definition, reaches from the river to the sea. Everyone who lives there is, by definition, Palestinian. Who their mothers were, and what name they use for deity, is irrelevant. The conflict is between one bunch of Palestinians and another bunch of Palestinians. With typical manipulative cynicism, Anglo-American imperialists have backed one side against the other. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Go To
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
06 Feb 2004
|
nessie writes: "Palestine, by definition, reaches from the river to the sea. Everyone who lives there is, by definition, Palestinian."
Nessie, in case you come back:
What is the name of the country you live in?
Is it the country that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, roughly midway through what is now known as North America?
And assuming that you do live in that country, what's the name of the Nation it just illegally invaded? Mesopatamia? Sumaria?
How do you feel now about the country known as Persia? The political entity in mid-Europe known as the Holy Roman Empire?
What are your thoughts on Prussia?
The Soviet Union?
Non-Slavic Macedonia?
The Ottomans?
You are the racist. You have fixed your point in time and refuse to look backwards or forwards, and your nationlistic adherence to the Roman Empire given name to a region, that must be always called that region for time immemorial is not only quasi-racist, it's somewhat freakish.
By the way, the country known as Jordan, formerly very recently Transjordan, was also part of Roman Palestine. Why the hell aren't you screaming about the British Hashemite puppets changing that country's name?
Let me guess: you've found your fun little meme, and refuse to apply it consistently - but just use it to bash something you hate.
Very hypocritical. Very sad. No wonder you need to revert to totalitarian, fascist tactics to run your shop.
Open your mind. Pretend that history matters for more people than just your favorite pet projects.
G.T. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Go To
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
06 Feb 2004
|
Oops, sorry about the double post. Feel Free to delete one.
Oh, and nessie, when you figure out the name of the country in which you live, which by the way has only been named that for about 230 years, do you think you should:
a) find out what it used to be called
b) start a petition to see if you can change the name back?
c) admit you're quite the hypocrite, and continue insisting on your own personal world view, despite the huge inconsistencies
d) ignore, ignore, ignore (kind of a subset of choice "c").
Cheers.
G.T. |
|
Re: Another Telegram from Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 10
06 Feb 2004
|
nessie: "This is straw man, typical of gehrig’s debate style. Stop putting words into my mouth, gehrig. It’s rude. It’s dishonest. It’s very bad form."
What a sick joke for _you_ to say that to _me_, Mussolini. My irony detector is off-the-scale.
How many times have I explicitly said, in as many words, that I don't consider legitimate criticism of Israel to be antisemitic, only to have you, two posts later, bleat: "Gehrig sez criticism of Israel is antisemitic"?
You have done that to me again and again and again on SF-IMC, so frequently that I coined the phrase "strategic Alzheimers" to describe your mysterious but undeniably strategic inability to comprehend such a simple statement said so plainly and so frequently. Whether it's simply bouncing off your reality-deflection-field or whether you _choose_ to strategically Alzheimer's, well, I'll let the readers judge for themselves.
_Especially_ when you consider that there's an SF-IMC poster/persona who does _nothing but_ straw man after straw man in every single post -- the dude who calls himself "A Concerned Zionist" and then satirically pretends all Zionists are Kahanist loons who only stop worshiping Ariel Sharon when it's time to worship Baruch Goldstein instead, constantly issuing the most repellent statements, each and every one of them in straw man form? He's been doing that for a year now. And your response is, natch, what, me worry?
Have you ever _once_ complained about that, even though _every single post of his_ is a straw man? No, you've been too busy saying "what a good boy am I" and saving all your complaints for those you disagree with politically.
Again, the fact that your biases are a mile wide wouldn't be a problem, if you weren't engaged in the systematic violation of core IMC principles by enforcing them through your political censorship of your sandbox SF-IMC. _That_ is your failing. _That_ is how you are harming the IMC movement.
And it is a devastating failing.
nessie, straining ever so hard to "prove" I'm a "racist", and still failing: "Gehrig own words betray his racism. He speaks of “the” Jews and “the” Palestinians, as if each were a monolithic group. This is racist reasoning at its very essence. This is how Nazis think."
First, you can jam that Nazi analogy right up your Mussolini cannoli-channel, nessie.
Secondly -- why look, there's another one of nessie's straw men. Funny how many scarecrows he carries in his _entourage,_ ain't it.
I didn't say either the Jews or the Palestinians were a monolithic group. Know why? Because I don't believe it. But that doesn't stop you from trying to jam your words into my mouth when you find it politically convenient, now does it.
nessie: "Palestine, by definition, reaches from the river to the sea."
And part of Syria, bits of Lebanon, and all of Jordan. You know the old maps as well as I do; you just conveniently forget stuff like that when you decide -- well, when you decide to lie to your readers.
Just as you have lied about my supposedly having spammed your sandbox. What a joke _that_ one turned out to be.
nessie: "Everyone who lives there is, by definition, Palestinian."
Doh. For someone who makes such a fuss about rhetorical logic, you really aren't very good at it, are you.
Here is your exact same argument, applied to a different subject. "It's wrong to speak of a red crayon as being 'red' or a green crayon being 'green,' when they are in fact by definition all just 'crayons.' To call a red crayon 'red' rather than 'crayon' is to reveal yourself to be as Nazi as Goebbels."
You know, let's run with that "definition" bit for a minute. If you want to play vapid word games, let's run with that.
I've just gotten out my Oxford English Dictionary. It gives two definitions. Definition A: "Of, pertaining to, or connected with Palestine." Definition B: "A native or inhabitant of Palestine in biblical or later times."
Let's take a look at the first two usage examples for definition B.
1905: "Territorialists ... flooded the hall with pamphlets declaring that 200 Russian Palestinians were illegally present."
1909: "Those who are for a mass return to the country of their origin ... are termed 'Palestinians.'"
And did you catch that last one? The word "Palestinian" used to mean what we now call "Zionist"!
Now, pragmatically, what does that _mean_ to this debate? Exactly zilch. It's as pointless as the "why does 'antisemitism' not mean anti-Arab too" word game. And it is as meaningless as the word games you must resort to in order to classify me as a "racist."
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by nessie
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
06 Feb 2004
|
>Nessie . . . What is the name of the country you live in?
Earth.
Now I have a question. If dialoging with Gentile supremicists is wrong, what's right about dialoging with Jewish supremicists? Zionism is, by definition, Jewish supremicism. It's stated purpose is that Jews, and not all of it's inhabitants, rule the land of Palestine. This is not one iota different that the Nazi's stated purpose that Aryans, and not all of it's inhabitants, should rule the land of Europe. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Go To
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
06 Feb 2004
|
me: "What is the name of the country you live in?"
nessie: "Earth."
Really? Are you registered to vote there? Did they issue you a passport?
And if your country has no name, and is only defined by the planet, then why do you INSIST that the land between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan is called PALESTINE and only Palestine?
Is that not also simply called "EARTH"?
Strange contradictions, yet again. You are descended from Colonialists. So instead of saying you live in the U.S.A, you only live in "Earth." But you apply a different standard to "Palestine" and Palestinians yet again.
Or wait? Perhaps it's just that in your attempts to be clever, you've just unveiled another hypocrasy.
you write: "Now I have a question. If dialoging with Gentile supremicists is wrong, what's right about dialoging with Jewish supremicists? Zionism is, by definition, Jewish supremicism. It's stated purpose is that Jews, and not all of it's inhabitants, rule the land of Palestine. This is not one iota different that the Nazi's stated purpose that Aryans, and not all of it's inhabitants, should rule the land of Europe."
Nessie, the Nazis stated purpose was that Aryans should rule the land of Europe and also KILL all of the Jews, anywhere and everywhere.
Your perception of Zionism is, unsuprisingly, completely false. Zionism is not "Jewish Supremacism." That definition could rightly apply to many right-wing Zionists, but it does not apply to the moderates or the left-wing one bit. (And I know, you'll never change your perception, so it doesn't matter).
Arabic is an official language of Israel. There is an Arab on the Israeli Supreme court. There is an Arab clerk on the Israeli Supreme Court. There are about 15 Arab Members of Knesset. Arabs serve in the army if they wish. In fact, the bloke that shot poor Tom Hurndall was NOT Jewish. One of the dead soldiers that Hezbollah sent back last week was NOT Jewish. (I'm sure the Nazis were equally accomodating to their minority citizens, especially their Jews, right? - Yep, Zionism is just like Nazism. Sheesh).
"Zionism" can more closely be compared ot the phenomenon of Arab and Muslim countries. There are also 21 Arab countries who define themselves by their ethnicity as such. There are 35+ Muslim countries that define themselves by their religion.
And there is ZERO outrage on the part of nessie and the SF-IMC that such countries exist.
All those countries are part of the "Arab League" and the OIC. But you won't see someone at SF-IMC saying that since Arab countries call themselves Arab countries, define themselves by their ethnicity and promote regional, ETHNIC cooperation. And that we wouldn't dialogue with the European Union if they called themselves the "White Union" and we shouldn't dialogue with Arab countries who are members of the "Arab League."
The most one ever gets from SF-IMC is a weak admission that yes, all nationalism is bad. But there are no full scale attempts at demonization and comparisons to Nazism, with one tiny exception. Quelle surprise.
It's not nationalism or "ethnic nationalism" that seemingly bothers people. It's Jewish ethnic nationalism. If that wasn't the case, there would be at least equal amounts of whinging and crying about Arab nationalism, which is a far more widespread phenomenon. But, in fact, there is next to none.
Quelle surprise, again. |
|
Re: More from Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
06 Feb 2004
|
nessie, still scrambling to label me a "racist": "Zionism is, by definition, Jewish supremicism."
By definition in the Il Duce lexicon of official unquestionable dogma, perhaps.
But out here in realityland, things are a little different.
Here's the July 2003 Zogby poll results.
Question: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that Israelis have a right to live in a secure
and independent state of their own?
Question / Jewish Americans / Arab Americans
Strongly agree / 95.3 / 79.1
Somewhat agree / 4.2 / 16.1
Somewhat disagree / .2 / .4
Strongly disagree / .2 / 1.4
Not Sure / .1 / 3.0
Add it up, and you'll see that nessie believes that 99.5% of American Jews are "racist," and that 95% of American Arabs are "Jewish supremicist."
Is that true, nessie? Are 95% of Arab Americans "Jewish supremicist"?
@%< |
|
Re: a little sample, by the way |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
06 Feb 2004
|
If you haven't been fortunate enough to encounter the inimitable prose stylings of Wendy Campbell, by the way, here's an example from SF-IMC today.
(Wait, I hear you say, wasn't she banned from SF-IMC the same time I was? Yes, but nessie can only remove the posts of hers he recognizes, and he's not as good as recognizing her as I am.)
Windy Wendy: "Jewish fundamentalism is much more dangerous than any other kind of fundamentalism at this point in history because not enough people realize it exists AND therefore it is literally getting away with MURDER of Palestinians and other Arabs, and people like Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall, James Miller, even Yashik Rabin, USING OUR US TAX $$$$! This in NOT in the best interests of the American people, nor any other people, to serve the Jewish fundamentalists-Zionists' imperialistic desires! Anyone who supports the racist, apartheid state of Israel is party to this madness. The Zionist-Jewish fundamentalists war machine is the MAIN thrust behind the "war on terrorism" which is actually the Zionists' war on the world just BEGINNING with the Middle East, using American tax dollars! This is the truth of the matter and we must not avoid it, but confront it NOW before it goes any further. SPREAD THE WORD before it's too late! Spreading the word is the first step!"
See why she and nessie get along so well, except for the bit about posting Nazi URLs?
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Go To
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
06 Feb 2004
|
gehrig,
"If you haven't been fortunate enough to encounter the inimitable prose stylings of Wendy Campbell, by the way, here's an example from SF-IMC today."
And there I go responding to her.
Not surprised one bit that her "banning" has been more of a "banning" than an actual banning.
The most racist "anti-racist" woman in California...
You deserve a medal for standing up to her, and shining the light on her hatred.
Thanks again.
G.T. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
06 Feb 2004
|
GT: "Not surprised one bit that her "banning" has been more of a "banning" than an actual banning. "
Oh, I think nessie would delete her posts if he could recognize them. I could give you a list of things to look for. It's not that hard.
But nessie can't do it, and he chased away the guy who _can_. And he did it with the absurd argument that my stance -- which is, as I demonstrated, held nearly unanimously by _both_ Jewish Americans _and_ Arab Americans -- is somehow morally equivalent to the ranting squirrel-chewing ngah-ngah-ngah yammity yammity yammity of Wendy Campbell.
Remember, this is the Wendy Klanbell (was that your coinage? I'm jealous!) that nessie said I was "way more racist than," simply because I'm with all those Jewish Supremecist Arabs.
And the result is that Wendy Campbell is still in his precious sandbox, leaching her toxic wastes into his groundwater, and he can't do a damned thing about it. Seep seep seep goes the Wendy; invisibly, Wendy still goes seep seep seep.
@%< |
|
Hey, Go To, isn't nessie funny when he's claiming to be "logical"? |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
07 Feb 2004
|
Poor nessie's in denial again. Or he's pretending to be.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=1676366
Nessie, at SF-IMC: "Also, you "called Wendy" when there is no proof it was her. This is tantamount to ..."
"Tantamount to." Wave those hands around a little more, nessie; you might be able to take flight.
nessie: "... equating all anti-Zionists with one anti-Zionist."
... if, of course, you're doing it for the reasons that nessie wants to impute to you. Which you aren't. But that's okay; nessie will pretend that it's an established fact that you are.
Of course, in realityland, you're calling her Wendy because she obviously is. If nessie wants proof, let him ask me for it, and I will provide it. If he asks nicely and I am in a charitable mood.
In the mean time, seep seep seep goes "banned" Wendy Campbell's antisemitism into SF-IMC's groundwater. Seep seep seep. And nessie's helpless to prevent it. Seep seep seep.
nessie: " Not only is this a type of logical fallacy (called a "category error"), but it is also Zionist propaganda. "
If it's bad, it _must_ be Zionist too -- you know, just like the 95% of Arab Americans who are actually Jewish supremecists.
nessie: "It is as inherently racist as equating all Jews with Meyer Lansky. "
And there's that "racist" bit again. Disagree with nessie? You're a "racist."
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Go To
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
07 Feb 2004
|
gehrig: "Wendy Klanbell (was that your coinage? I'm jealous!)"
Yep, that was me. It suits her nicely, I think.
And yeah, the SF-IMC powers that be will probably always be accepting of "healthy" amounts of anti-Semitism laced in with their ardent anti-Zionism. (Reminds me of Michael Neumann and his pronouncement that he'd lie and even foment rabid anti-Semitism if he had to, to support the Palestinians. That is, until he had his run in with pure anti-Semitism at Wendy's favorite Jewish Tribal Review site... or did Neumann maintain his position even after that run-in? I forget).
When someone takes the postition that Jewish nationalism = Jewish Supremacism = White Supremacism = pure evil, but also feels that Arab nationalism = perfectly natural expression of self-determination, well, then there's not much room for honest debate and there's no surprise that some are forgiving of hate links.
Their worldview is already so warped already.
I don't know how you dealt with it for so long, but I'm impressed.
G.T. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
07 Feb 2004
|
go to: "I don't know how you dealt with it for so long, but I'm impressed."
Really, it was two things -- knowing that nutbars like Wendy Campbell eventually out themselves, given enough rope, and that the best way to refute nessie's rules was to play by them.
With Wendy, I knew that if I gave her enough bait, sooner or later she would take it. She'd had some SF-IMC posts deleted on the "Kosher Tax Scam" before, so when I dropped a hint that she should tell us what she feels about that particular issue, she did the most spectacular self-demolition I've ever seen on any SF-IMC. So spectacular that nessie couldn't play his usual strategic Alzheimers game, knew he was backed into a corner, and was forced to lash out childishly at me instead for having had the bad taste to be right.
At any rate, SF-IMC is already taking in enough water below the waterline. Take a look at how many new feature articles have shown up on SFBay IMC, over the last week, and then compare it to SF-IMC's lone effort -- an interview with the Official Good Jew Gilad "There's no such thing as antisemitism" Atzmon.
And in the meantime, nessie's turning a blind eye -- which is what he does best -- to Wendy's continued posting in SF-IMC. "What, me worry?"
Incidentally, nessie doesn't hold to the Neumann-Klanbell theory that "a little overt antisemitism may be necessary to defeat Zionism." He believes that antisemitism exists in principle within the anti-Zionist movement, but no specific example that can actually be pointed to really _is_ antisemitism. In other words, yes, there are things called "birds," but this particular item I have in my hand, with wings, chicken-like feet, reversed knees, and birdseed on its beak -- well, how do I know it's not really only a Zionist in disguise doing an exercise in black propaganda?
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by nessie
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
07 Feb 2004
|
>And there's that "racist" bit again. Disagree with nessie? You're a "racist."
There goes the straw man defense again. I have never said any such thing. If you disagree with me about most things, you’re probably just wrong. However, if you disagree with me about this particular thing, then yes, you are a racist.
It is nothing short of appalling that UC-IMC, or *any* IMC would permit dialog with racists. Indymedia would never permit itself to be a forum for debating whether or not white people should rule the world. Yet here, it seems permissible to debate whether *some* white people should rule a *part* of the world. In short, UC-IMC is enabling a racist agenda.
For shame, UC-IMC, for shame. You sully the honor of every IMC volunteer on the entire globe.
See also:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/01/1667580_comment.php#1669719 |
|
Re:My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville :Through the Looking Glass |
by Mulberry Sellers
Mulberry_Sellers (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: 7
07 Feb 2004
Modified: 09:52:07 PM |
Oh, the sheer joy of reading ex cathedra pronouncements of how if one disagrees with Nessie on either possible solutions to the Israeli/Palestinian troubles or on the beliefs and motives of some "anti-Zionists" as deduced from their behavior, one is necessarily a racist.
This is oddly familiar territory. When someone is reduced to claiming that something is so "by definition", instead of providing a rational argument in favor of that claim, it brings to mind an old favorite:
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.'"
In the Humpty universe, Jewish aspirations to a nation-state are "ethnic nationalism", which is, by definition, a BAD THING.
On the other side of the looking glass, the modern concept of the nation-state has been almost universally linked to ethnicity and the very word "ethnic" derives from the Greek for "nation", making Humpty's definition of "ethnic nationalism" both an exercise in redundancy and an example of happily ignoring the decided non-singularity of that which he chooses to define as singular.
Fortunately for Humpty, the looking glass keeps such unpleasant inconsistencies out of the Humpty world and away from his inalienable right to issue definitions however he chooses.
Unfortunately for Humpty, all the King's horses and all the King's men have a prior engagement. |
|
Nessie, why are you here? |
by DOL
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
07 Feb 2004
|
You have banned Gehrig from SF-IMC. You stated he and others like him were not welcome there. He has not posted anything there since his last farewell post. Yet you have followed him over here and are continuing to quarrel with him. Why? You say that you have banned Wendy Campbell, yet I see she is continuing to post there under her own name. Why?
Nessie, I am not going to say you are not welcome here, because this isn’t my site so I don’t have the right to say that or speak for these people here. And I believe in the First Amendment and the freedom of speech it gives us. So I don’t think you should be censored or banned. But why do you come here and expect this freedom when you deny it to Gehrig and others on your IMC? |
|
Nessie, do you think UC-IMC will censor this post? |
by DOL
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
07 Feb 2004
|
Nessie, for about a month I attempted to participate in your SF-IMC. At first I thought it would be a good way to get another point of view and participate in some sort of on-line news/information format. I assumed that the free flow of ideas would be accepted and celebrated. In retrospect, I realize that was not to be on SF-IMC, your IMC. I soon discovered my posts were being deleted/edited/censored. (You choose whatever term you feel like.) Some of them were _really_ controversial, like the one where I said that Universities should be for the free flow of ideas. In another I made the apparently forbidden comment that a Jew was free to go to Temple here in the U.S. and that was good.
I read the editorial rules SF-IMC had and could not figure out how I had violated them. So I e-mailed SF-IMC with my questions about what I was doing wrong, and why my posts were getting deleted. And I received no reply. And then you posted the following when you banned Gehrig.
“If you defend Zionism here in any way whatsoever, or say anything at all in favor of Israel, it will be removed.”
I replied (in a poorly written response I might add) with the following posts. They were quickly censored from your IMC.
This is dedicated to the memory of Mr. David Gehrig
by DOL • Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 09:58 PM
To the World at Large:
On Tuesday, February 03, 2004, at 08:53 PM, one of the editors published a post called “non sequiturs”. It had the following words in it. “Zionism is racism. Racism may not be defended on this site, by anyone, at any time, for any reason. If you want to defend Zionism, do it on some other site. If you defend Zionism here in any way whatsoever, or say anything at all in favor of Israel, it will be removed. If you do it twice, you will banned. If you post again after that, I’ll remove everything you ever posted.” This ultimatum has made my decision very simple. If sides must be chosen, then I will choose.
I SUPPORT ISRAEL.
If saying anything in support of Israel makes you a Zionist, I AM A ZIONIST.
Sincerely:
DOL
Bring back gehrig
by DOL • Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 10:01 PM
To the editors of sf.indymedia:
If Wendy Campbell is back posting, then I see no reason why gehrig should not be allowed to post.
Sincerely:
DOL
Nessie, can you explain why the above posts were so worthy of being censored? |
|
Re: Meanwhile, in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
07 Feb 2004
|
nessie: "There goes the straw man defense again. I have never said any such thing. If you disagree with me about most things, you’re probably just wrong. However, if you disagree with me about this particular thing, then yes, you are a racist."
See how it works, folks? "How dare you say I say 'disagree with me and you're a racist'! And by the way, disagree with me on this and you're a racist."
Really, nessie, you're just too transparent. To everyone but yourself, that is.
So you're really actually comfortable calling 95% of Arab Americans -- who agree that Israel has the right to exist -- racist? If someone had ever posted the statement "95% of Arab Americans are racist," you'd have banned them in a flash. Are you now agreeing to the same statement? Are 95% of Arab Americans racist, nessie? For some reason you keep finding yourself unable to answer that question.
nessie: "yammity yammity for shame for shame yammity yammity"
Yeah, that means a hell of a lot coming from someone who can use the phrase "kosher food tax" and mean it.
For shame, for shame, UCIMC isn't banning someone for holding the same stance as 95% of Arab Americans and 99.5% of American Jews.
Now, as to your link about JA, the Tourette's case who did that long cloying pas de deux with Drama Queen Angie in SF-IMC -- what concern is it of mine, or of UCIMC? Be specific. Do not use innuendo to make your case. Be forthright. Speak plain.
And try to be more successful than you were on that "gehrig is a spammer" accusation, which was quite rightly laughed off.
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
07 Feb 2004
|
DOL, to nessie: "You have banned Gehrig from SF-IMC. You stated he and others like him were not welcome there. He has not posted anything there since his last farewell post. Yet you have followed him over here and are continuing to quarrel with him. Why?"
I don't object to his coming here to UC-IMC to show how he thinks. It's rather amazing how small he appears, isn't it, once you take away his power to censor the procedings.
And notice that this thread is now getting near the fifty post mark, and _not a single one_ has been pulled. When was the last time that happened on SF-IMC, where there SF-IMC's Chief Inquisitor won't allow the conversation to go to places he finds awkward?
DOL: "You say that you have banned Wendy Campbell, yet I see she is continuing to post there under her own name. Why?"
Well, most of her posts since her "banning" haven't been under her name, but nessie can't spot them, and I'm no longer going to point them out.
By the way, again, thanks for your kind words on my behalf. Yes, nessie banning me from SF-IMC for such transparently stoooopid reasons _was_ a shitty thing for him to do. But shitty is as shitty does, and so we had to bring the conversation somewhere he couldn't remake it in his own image.
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
07 Feb 2004
|
Since nessie is now at the point where he'll jump on anything -- including, as he showed above, the word "the" -- in hopes of scoring a fraction of a point, let me clarify something. A post or two in this thread _has_ been hidden, but only when it was a duplicate post.
Imagine -- just imagine! -- if that were the case at SF-IMC. What a different world that would be.
@%< |
|
FM JA!!: GEHRIG IS *LEAVING*!? TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE!! |
by ***JA***
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
08 Feb 2004
|
The Bay Area can't be *THAT* BLESSED!!!
Surely this is a **CRUEL**, **CRUEL**, **CRUEL**, ***HOAX***!
(You know, like that fake pro-Zionist letter the Zionists forged as MLK's.) |
|
WE WON'T HAVE GEHRIG TO KICK AROUND ANYMORE! |
by ***JA***
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
08 Feb 2004
|
JUST LIKE NIXON, ONCE!
GOOD ***RIDDANCE***! |
|
Why's nessie so obnoxious against Zionism and its supporters? |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
08 Feb 2004
|
Some folks - especially here but also the newbies to SF-IMC - may have been unaware of the root cause for nessie's hyper rabid anti-Zionism loonitude. It's illuminating for one to become familiar with the origin of his malady. So let's narrate it the way nessie himself has been telling it every 2-3 months in his own disgusting soapbox, every time he appeared to have let his "guard" down and seem human:
When nessie was a child, he was an avid Zionist. He mowed lawns so he'd afford purchasing a tree and airfare and a trip to Israel. Pretty soon after arriving in Israel, he planted the tree with great passion. At the time he fervently believed that the Israelis are a nation of peace seekers and peaceful farmers.
With the passage of years, nessie says, he has discovered that he had been lied to big time. He claims "the Israelis" "let him down"! And for that he will never forgive all the Zionists...
One can forgive an intelligent and sensible individual for arriving at and believing unfounded sweeping convictions (like that all Israelis were peaceful farmers and peace seekers) during his childhood and teenager period.
But since then, nessie has gone to the other absolute extreme, as if to "atone" for the "sin/s" he had committed by supporting Zionism and Israel at an earlier time in his meager life.
When such points were brought to nessie's attention, he deleted the comments lest his personal problem got too much exposure. It's fair to assume he was afraid that the driving force behind his parially racist hatred for Zionism would get discredited. |
|
Re: Finale |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
08 Feb 2004
|
So, one is wrong to think nessie only suffers from paranoia where mental afflictions are concerned.
In sum, the man has issues. |
|
SPEAKING OF SOMEONE WITH DEEP PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS: CRITICAL THINKIFIER. |
by JA
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
08 Feb 2004
|
WHY DON'T YOU TELL US, "CRITICAL THINKIFIER", WHY YOU WOULD ATTACK A WOMAN POSTER (ANGIE FROM CANADA), YOUR EMPLOYING NUMEROUS ALIASES/A.K.A.'s, AT SF-IMC, WITH SEXIST, PORNOGRAPHIC AND MISOGYNIST INVECTIVE AGAINST HER?
ARE YOU ALSO, LIKE GEHRIG, POSTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO AND URBANA-CHAMPAIGN NIGHT FROM ISRAHELL? |
|
Re: Folks, meet JA, confessed IMC spammer. |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 4
08 Feb 2004
|
Well, folks, meet Joseph Anderson, the JA I referred to earlier. He was banned from SF-IMC maybe six months ago for having had a spat with nessie -- whom JA called a Zionist -- and then spamming their newswire in a fit of rage. He continues to consider that act of spamming justified.
He's not DANSPAM, but he's a self-confessed spammer. Here is his confession:
http://sfbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1669658.php
In short, I was banned from SF-IMC for doing what was right; JA was banned from SF-IMC for doing what was wrong.
As far as JA's intellectual capacities, well, I'll let you judge that for yourself, seeing how he's claiming above that I post from Israel.
@%< |
|
Re: and... |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
08 Feb 2004
|
And here is JA forging posts in my name on SF-IMC:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=1676583
As you can see, he's quite the dee-e-eep thinker.
@%< |
|
Banned Sycophants, etc. |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
08 Feb 2004
|
No doubt the main reason JA is here is to kiss up to nessie in hopes that his posting privileges will be restored by nessie on SF IMC. They're a cute couple who have their differences. Good luck on making it work, though...
As for nessie's assertions about the reputation of UC IMC, it's pointless to argue with simple-minded fools. They only want to bring you down to their level. I think it is important to note that no one uses SF IMC as a yardstick to measure anything except how NOT to run an IMC. |
|
Bizarre Machinations of SF IMC Editorial Policy |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
08 Feb 2004
|
gehrig's farewell to SF IMC has now been reposted there after his personal banning and the original hiding of the post as he orginally made it (by someone calling themselves "pointer"), moved up by editors there to their Global Newswire.
See:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1676531.php
So its OK for people to use his post to incite the usual dregs of SF IMC to come here and it's OK to delete and/or hide many of the comments made to the original post at SF IMC as well as hiding it, but gehrig is prohibited from posting his own words on SF IMC. Orwell must be up to about 600 rpm in his grave by now.
It does make you wonder if gehrig or anyone else except nessie-approved commetors will be able to post comments to it like they do here at UC IMC?...naahhhhh. |
|
Re: all we need now is Rod Serling |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
08 Feb 2004
|
ML: "gehrig's farewell to SF IMC has now been reposted there after his personal banning and the original hiding of the post as he orginally made it (by someone calling themselves "pointer"), moved up by editors there to their Global Newswire."
By golly, you're right, it's on their global newswire now. Probably a mouse-slip on the part of the editorial board. Although, since I've never used the admin tools of Dada -- not being part of the newswire editorial board -- I don't know whether such an act would be the mouse equivalent of what old-timers like us would call the "Rose Mary Woods stretch."
ML: "So its OK for people to use his post to incite the usual dregs of SF IMC to come here and it's OK to delete and/or hide many of the comments made to the original post at SF IMC as well as hiding it, but gehrig is prohibited from posting his own words on SF IMC. Orwell must be up to about 600 rpm in his grave by now."
This really gets to the heart of my stance for the last year on SF-IMC. I knew that, sooner or later, nessie would find a way to compromise IMC principles enough to ban me, and that my posts themselves would have to stand on their own there.
It hadn't occured to me that, after I left, someone would spam my posts there, and I wish they'd quit it. I'd assumed all along that if Wendy Campbell were banned, she would just show up again under her usual bag of nyms, and she has.
Anyway, if my farewell sonata has been promoted to the "Global" section on purpose, which I doubt, it may be that nessie is trying to save his "case" that I'm a spammer, or that I'm still posting there after being banned. Which would come down to nessie's credibility versus mine.
Frankly, given the state of nessie's credibility, I'd like that outcome just fine.
ML: "It does make you wonder if gehrig or anyone else except nessie-approved commetors will be able to post comments to it like they do here at UC IMC?...naahhhhh."
No, that would smack of -- you know, vox populi and independent thought and all that stuff.
At any rate, I have no intention of posting anything of any sort at SF-IMC. As I promised, that post last Wednesday was my last one. I still read the (increasingly insular) site -- including the posts from Wendy Campbell appearing there regularly -- but my comments appear here alone.
@%< |
|
Re: undoing the oopsie |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
08 Feb 2004
|
The post is hidden now. I didn't think he'd had a change of heart; he'd need a heart first.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1676531.php
nessie: "And not just any person, either, but a liar, a spammer and a racist. Good riddance."
Ain't the man sweet to attack me in a forum in which he knows I can't respond? Doesn't that give you a nice warm feeling about his Mussolini tactics? And ain't it just like him to do it with three, count 'em, three lies?
Like I said, if it comes down to my cred versus his -- well, that sounds just fine by me.
And notice that nessie no longer joins us here? He can't handle himself in a conversation he can't control.
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Go To
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
08 Feb 2004
|
You get all kinds here at Urbana/Champaign.
An visit from an actual Nazi (stunning how they're always on the side of the militant, hypocritical anti-Zionists, eh) - and someone who's inability to locate the "Caps Lock" button is clearly the least of his problems.
But he's got his "Caps Lock" button set for "Psycho" anyway.
See, this is why I wish there was more support for Dennis Kucinich, and we could get going on universal healthcare. That way, "JA" could get the medication he is so obviously badly lacking. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
08 Feb 2004
|
Jack Ass: "I KNOW YOU *PROMISED* -- EVEN ONCE BEFORE(!) -- TO LEAVE SF-IMC..."
I said I was going to take a break. I did, for about three weeks. Then I came back. Sorry if you read something more into it, but reading has never been your strong point.
This time, I'm not taking a break; a horse's ass name nessie has banned me for ridiculous reasons, any fool knows it, and I'm perfectly willing to let him look like the goofball martinet he turns out to be.
As to why so many copies of my last SF-IMC post were spammed to SF-IMC in the middle of the night, well, you'd have to ask whoever is doing the spamming. I don't know who it is and I wish he'd stop. The one copy that _I_ posted -- the sole SF-IMC post of mine after nessie's stunt -- was sent around 10PM Urbana time, and is timestamped somewhere around 8PM on SF-IMC.
And, no, JA, I don't stoop to what you and Wendy and nessie do, inventing name after name after name. Every single post I made at SF-IMC, I signed with my own name. It's called honor. You should try it.
Go To -- well, see what I was saying above about Tourette's syndrome, as associated with a certain poster?
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by a fan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -5
09 Feb 2004
|
>nessie no longer joins us here
Because he has the honor and integrity not to dialog with racists and their supporters. |
|
Re: JA's perpetual and bottomless meltdown |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
09 Feb 2004
|
Beyond the fact Just Ass (JA) tried to stir the conversation to an irrelevant topic (and leveled pretty dishonest allegations, btw), I have no intention of answering his questions once he derided my alias. Time and time again this mental case, JA, has proven he isn't worth conversing with in a respectable forum such as this one.
P.S.:
just in case anyone hasn't noticed..."a fan" is a seemingly newly coined handle nessie invented. The quotation style is unmistakably nessiesque.
Needless to say his assertion is hollow bulls##t sloganeering.
But the funniest part is that he seems to have started to ape his heroine, Windy O. Wendy Klanbell by referring to himself in third person. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
09 Feb 2004
|
CT: "just in case anyone hasn't noticed..."a fan" is a seemingly newly coined handle nessie invented. The quotation style is unmistakably nessiesque."
Yeah, that was my impression too. Except that, given that he's slandered me as (1) a spammer, (2), a liar, and (3) a "racist," I'm not sure he could type the word "honor" without his keyboard exploding out of the force of sheer irony.
Nessie, you'll note, never bothered to address the substance of my charge -- that, by his standard for what constitutes "racism," even 95% of Arab Americans are what he'd call "Jewish supremicists." He ran from that point every time. For a simple reason: because it demonstrates how absurd his stance is.
At any rate, I think we've had a nice little discussion here, but I think it's gone its course. Nessie came, saw, and failed to conquer; his demigogmatic assertions were correctly recognized as simply his assertion of demigogma.
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gamer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
10 Feb 2004
|
bfd,
What's a gubmint g-man? Is that like the g-man in the game half-life? There can be no half-life 2 for me cause at the end of the first game I refused to cooperate with the g-man. Me no like g-man. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by nonanarchist
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
11 Feb 2004
|
Gehrig, I have followed your efforts at sf-imc for a few months now, and have been amazed at your perseverence and tolerance. I couldn't have done the yeoman's work you have done, mostly because I have little patience for anti-Zionism...which, I have found, is very often a thin disguise for outright Jew-hatred.
I mostly visit la-imc to make fun of the Communists and the anarchists. It's a target-rich environment. Soon after I started visiting sf-imc, I came to the conclusion that nessie and Wendy, and most of the other "anti-Zionists", were merely Jew-haters, and worthy of no further attention. Suchlike folks deserve no attention from civilized people, yet you certainly fought the good fight. God bless you for your patience and your resolve. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
11 Feb 2004
|
non-anarchist: Thanks for the kind words. From what I've seen of your posts, you might be a hop to the right from where I sit, which is labor/lefty, but I think we share the same admiration of the US Constitution and its basic confidence in the wisdom of the people (when the people are given the straight dope, that is).
I think that there are many legitimate criticisms that can be made of Israel's policy under Sharon -- even Sharon is now embarrassed by the path of the security fence, for example -- but that's a way different thing than "I think Israel should be dismantled." I think that there are principled anti-Zionists, but I think there is also no shortage of antisemites posing as anti-Zionists, and it's embarrassing to see folks on my end of the spectrum running interference for them the way nessie did.
Incidentally, apparently even nessie is now learning to recognize that distinctive squirrel-chewing prose style of Windy Out Wendy (who keeps trying to post on SF-IMC under nyms), since he deleted this one:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=1677958
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by nonanarchist
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Feb 2004
|
"...but I think we share the same admiration of the US Constitution and its basic confidence in the wisdom of the people (when the people are given the straight dope, that is)."
Indeed we do. I have served my country for 13 years now, and will serve as long as I can. I have sworn to defend with my life the rights of those such as nessie and other Jew-haters to voice their opinions, even though I virulently disagree with them.
I sometimes ask, "Would you do the same for me?" from those with whom I disagree. All I get in answer is the sound of crickets. That alone speaks volumes of the minds of these people.
Certainly, there are abuses on both sides of the wall in Israel. But until we see condemnations of the Arab /Muslim world's offences (which are by far more egregious) as violent as the condemnations of Israel from these so-called "progressives", they announce their position quite clearly: the total destruction of the state of Israel, disguised as concern for an "oppressed" people.
Luckily for Israel, the "progressives'" voice, while strident and annoying, is in the distinct minority and easily discounted. |
|
I humbly beg to differ |
by Mulberry Sellers
Mulberry_Sellers (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Feb 2004
Modified: 03:04:32 AM |
IMHO, characterizing Nessie as a "Jew-hater" is unfair, particularly when it's done without presenting evidence in favor of that claim.
On the basis of what we can observe on this thread and the history of SF-IMC, I think that it would be defensible to claim that he has displayed certain attributes:
An ideological rigidity, authoritarianism and self-aggrandizing tendency to see enemies under every bed that would have been ideal qualifications for a job with Joe McCarthy,
A serious lack of critical reasoning skills, coupled with a lack of knowledge of how logic works,
An absolutely tin ear for language, as evidenced by the way in which posters who are in fact making anti-Semitic arguments can get away with it at SF-IMC until they start firing off flares to draw attention, i.e., posting links to obviously neo-Nazi sources,
And, if some speculation above regarding personal history and motive are correct, an example of what Orwell called "the idealist whose opinions change to their opposites at the first touch of reality".
But in all the time I've spent reading the IMC network, which daily routine has always included a look at the trials and tribulations of the SF site, I can't think of anything that gave me the impression that I was seeing editing done by a genuine anti-Semite, or other variety of ethnic hatefreak.
Fair's fair, lads. Though someone else might treat you unfairly, ditching one's own intellectual integrity is never a useful or proper response.
This should be the 80th comment attached to this article before it slips off the bottom of the newswire. I wonder if that's a site record. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by nonanarchist
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
13 Feb 2004
|
Very well; I retract the "Jew-hater" label.
Instead I will apply the "Israel-hater" label. That is applicable to many more IMCers than is "Jew-hater".
These are the people who say "Zionism is racism", without acknowleding the fact that saying the Palestinians also deserve a homeland is also racist using their "logic".
These are the people who give Arab/Muslim countries a free pass and condemn Israel for actions committed in far, far more outrageous fashion by those Arab/Muslim countries.
These are the people who blindly swallow any bit of anti-Israel propaganda, no matter how ridiculous. If it bashes Israel, it is by definition "the truth".
Not all Israel-haters are Jew-haters...but I submit it's a high percentage.
After all, what is so different about Israel? What sets it apart? Is it the perceived "genocide" of it neighbors? No, there are other countries engaged in very real genocidal activities. Is it human rights violations? No; again, there are far worse violators. Is it because of the support of the US? Partially, perhaps, but that's not what defines Israel.
What sets Israel apart is it's full of Jews.
I say again: Until progressives condemn other countries for the crimes of which they accuse Israel, their motives are suspect.
And I will not hesitate to call them on it. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Feb 2004
|
Mullberry: "Fair's fair, lads. Though someone else might treat you unfairly, ditching one's own intellectual integrity is never a useful or proper response."
Well, I hope I've made it clear that I don't think nessie is an antisemite, and I don't accuse him of antisemitism. But I do accuse his politically blinkered eye for _enabling_ antisemitism, and the bad faith he fairly oozes on the issue doesn't help anything -- and acts as spammer attractant.
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Feb 2004
|
On the other hand, there's no doubt that Windy Wendy's an antisemite:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1678339.php
Ngah ngah ngah goes squirrel-chewing Wendy. And remember, this is the person nessie's been defending for a year against that bad evil liar gehrig and his strange insistence that Wendy's got maybe a problem on the Jew issue...
@%< |
|
Re:My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Mulberry Sellers
Mulberry_Sellers (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Feb 2004
Modified: 11:14:14 PM |
Gehrig- agreed on both points. I was in fact commenting on Nonanarchist's post.
Looking over SF-IMC today, I see that a "kosher food tax redux" article has hit the hidden bin, but the "supporting the existence of Israel is wrong", "Zionism (and only Zionism) is ethnic nationalism and therefore racist" and "all the sites troubles are the work of Zionists" dogmas are still in full swing on the newswire.
There are days when I actually hope for an outbreak of rationality and good will in this world (probably just a symptom of my incipient senility).
There are also days when I despair of anyone ever learning to listen and to think. After making the IMC rounds for today, this is definitely a Type 2 day. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
15 Feb 2004
|
But the compensating factor is that nutjobs out themselves. Look, for example, at Dark Billy -- one of those "those Zionists are always tactically whining 'antisemitism'" types -- speaking out in defence of David Irving:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=1678807
Now, if nessie really _meant_ it when he said, "only racists defend racists," then Dark Billy would be gone from SF-IMC. But nessie clearly _didn't_ mean it; it was clearly just the nearest rhetorical device he used to condemn those poor, sick, deluded souls who dared disagree with nessie's stance on the two-state solution and take my side -- on the open publishing issue, not necessarily the two-state issue -- against his. UCIMC is anathema. Dark Billy is still there. See how it works in nessieland?
Again, isn't amazing how small nessie really is once you take away his big stick?
Speaking of nessie's blatant hypocrisy, there's an interesting sorta-behind-the-scenes story on the IMC mailing lists. When SF-IMC split, Portland IMC decided to drop SF-IMC from its links list, because it didn't consider SF-IMC legitimate. (The continual violation of IMC principles at SF-IMC isn't only noticed by UCIMC.)
Nessie replied that NO NO NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT, that the IMC list is sacred and set by consensus, and every IMC should have the same list of IMC site links for the rest of the network, as defined by network consensus.
Now, the list that all the IMC sites use presently includes two San Francisco sites -- SFbay, the real one, where the talent is, and then the ghost of SF-IMC.
Guess which site is _not_ listed on the IMC network links on SF-IMC? Indybay links to SF-IMC. Not vice-versa. And SF-IMC has decided, as a policy decision, not to list Indybay as part of the IMC network.
For some reason, nessie's reaction isn't NO NO NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
Gee, wonder why.
@%< |
|
Re: no comment nessie-sary |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Feb 2004
|
A comment was removed because
by one of the editors Saturday February 14, 2004 at 12:16 PM
it appeared to defend Israel. You cannot defend Israel here. You can defend Israelis, but that’s a separate issue. If you intend to defend Israelis here, you must be specific which Israelis you are defending and why. You can, and should, defend the right of righteous Israelis to live in peace, unmolested by their neighbors. You may not defend the right of unrighteous Israelis to lord it over non Israeli Palestinians.
You may also defend Jews, as long as you are specific as to which Jews you defend, and why. You may, and should, defend righteous Jews, though not solely for their being Jewish. You may not excuse the unrighteousness of those Jews who are unrighteous, solely because they are Jews. All ethnic groups are to be held to the same standards here, because anything else is racist. Jews are no exception. Neither are Arabs, Assyrians, Albanians or Anglos, nor Finns, Formosans, Fijians or Fomoreans. There are no exceptions. None. Zilch. Zip. Zero. Nada. Capiesc’?
Neither may you claim that anti-Zionism is, per se, anti-Semitic. It is not. We are fully aware that a minuscule handful of anti-Zionists are, in fact, also anti-Semitic. You may not point that out here, not because it isn’t true, but because it has already been pointed out here, repeatedly, thousands of times. We heard it already. Now let’s get back to the topic.
These are the parameters of the the discourse on the subject of Israel when it is being conducted on SF-IMC. If you wish to discus the subject outside of these parameters, feel free to do it on another site. We will not interfere.
add your comments
Another comment was removed because
by one of the editors Saturday February 14, 2004 at 08:29 PM
it defended Israel. It also criticized our editorial policy in an inappropriate place. If you want to criticize our editorial policy, do it here:
[[ nessie's memory hole URL snipped ]]
If you do it anywhere else, it will be removed.
add your comments
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1676007_comment.php#1678872 |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Go To
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Feb 2004
|
Question:
Does anyone know if nessie is pro-affirmative action, or anti-affirmative action?
nessie, if you're still checking out this thread, by any chance, could you tell us?
Cheers. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by ANGEL
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
16 Feb 2004
|
gehrig, Sorry to hear you were banned from SF Indy, I do not believe you ever said anything that should have caused you to be banned.
I am probably banned also but for a different reason, Certains persons who do not like my point of view posted hate-filled comments in my name.
I am not anti Semitic and only wish for a Just Peace in the Israel-West Bank-Gaza Region.
As you know what is occurring right now is not causing Peace in the Area anytime soon.
The holocaust was real…
Adolph Hitler was real and was a truly evil man…
The evidence is all there…
But the Palestinian People that are suffering under the Brutal Israeli Occupation and Oppression had nothing to do with that Holocaust that was Real…
Being against the atrocities of the Israeli Government is not being Anti-Semitic, everyone knows that there are good Jewish People the World Over. Many who know and agree to the fact that what Israel is doing in the Occupied territories is wrong…
We are in modern times now, the World Population has grown so large that the era of colonization is over. If we are to have Peace we need to learn to accept and live with one another.
So if we do not want this conflict to continue forever we need to face the facts.
There are 4,000,000 or so Palestinians in the Area in Question. Most if not all were born in the area in question.
For there to be Peace and for there to be a reason for the Palestinian People to stop their fight for Freedom:
We need a Palestinian State with Reasonable Border NOW, If the Road Map that is backed by the U.S., U.N., E.U., and Russia is to work...
Send in a Joint, U.S., U.N. Peace keeping Force to the West Bank and Gaza for the sole purpose of trying to avoid conflicts between the Palestinian and the settlers..
Then have the Biased (biased because they will always be on the side of the settlers) Israeli Military retreat to the pre 1967 Israeli Borders, They can then concentrate their effort on guarding this Border..
Example of a possible solution:
SET THE BORDERS BACK TO 1967...
In return the Refugees have no Right of Return inside the 1967 Israeli Borders..
One complaint that Israel has is that the Right of Return will result in two Palestinian States, (The Right of return is almost impossible any way because the land and homes they lost are now built up with Jewish homes businesses etc…)
The Refugees can be compensated and helped to settle somewhere in the new Palestinian State..
The Settlements are now part of Palestine...
If the some 300,000 Israeli Settlers living in Palestine do not like living there, they can move to Israel...
If the 1,000,000 or so Palestinians who now live in Israel do not like living in Israel, they can move to Palestine...
If 1,000,000 or so Palestinians can live in Israel, then some 300,000 Israeli Settlers can live in Palestine if they choose to stay..
If you take Israel, West Bank and Gaza, West Bank and Gaza is only 22% of the total area in Question, This small amount is not too much to ask for millions of Palestinians who must have their freedom to have a peaceful life.
If this solution was implemented there is a good chance the so called terrorist (seen as freedom fighters by the oppressed Palestinian People) would stop their fight, if not they would be very foolish because then Israel would have a just cause to fight back and the U.S. would have a just cause to help Israel fight back.
Otherwise we will continue to have:
Israel: We have to confiscate Palestinian land and demolish Palestinian homes because there are suicide bombers???
Palestine: We have to defend ourselves because Israel is slowly confiscating all our land and demolishing our homes. We have no military to defend ourselves and our land. If we do nothing, we will soon have nothing at all???
The era of colonization is past,. We can not expect to oppress millions of Palestinian People and still have peace.
West Bank and Gaza are only 22% of what is TODAY, Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
PLEASE LOOK AT THE MAP IN THE FOLLOWING WEB PAGE:
The Orange areas are Israeli settlements in the already small 22% that is West Bank and Gaza. What kind of carved up mess will the Palestinian State be unless all the settlements are removed (which will probably never happen) or just make the settlements part of the New Palestinian State (which can happen right now)??
CLICK HERE > http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/artoff3260.jpg |
|
If ANGEL's an angel, I'm definitely a critical thinker |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
16 Feb 2004
|
I have learned from past experience - my own and other debaters who have had differences with ANGEL - that trying to engage in an intellectual discourse with ANGEL is futile more often than not, so I won't be addressing him/her below.
Why does ANGEL keep reminding anyone who cares to read his/her spammed messages that the Palestinians had nothing to do with the Jewish Holocaust that was real? Is that his/her way of lending them an aura of innocent victimhood (which they overwhelmingly are undeserving of)?
More importantly, why does ANGEL *almost totally* disregard the evil deeds from the Palestinian side and portray the Israeli side as the sole aggressor and offender on a constant basis?
Why does s/he keep branding the Israeli occupation/administration of the disputed territories "brutal" and calling things that Israel commits there "atrocities" in a blanket manner, and yet barely ever even admits that Palestinian terror and violence against Israeli Jews is indeed brutal?
Above all else, why can't s/he admit that the Israeli occupation could have ended in 2000 had Arafat accepted Ehud Barak's offer of Palestinian statehood, and that the present occupation is a consequence of Arafat's abandonment of the negotiation table that year and the launching of the intifada?
What's up with issuing cute sounding cliches such as "we are in modern times now", "the era of colonization is over", "If we are to have Peace we need to learn to accept and live with one another"? Does ANGEL mean them all in a bi-partisan manner? And does s/he even recognize that had Arafat agreed to Barak's offer, the Jewish "colonization" would have been virtually over 3 years ago? Would ANGEL make a fuss about Arab/Palestinian colonization within Israel proper (a real phenomenon which has been realized in the form of illegal infiltration of Palestinians from Judea and Samaria into Israel proper to the tune of more than 300,000 people)?
As for creating a Palestinian state NOW per ANGEL's plan, it's not feasible. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to arrive at this conclusion; all one needs to be armed with is solid information and a fair-minded outlook about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (not that these requirements can be scoffed at; too many people have neither of them in sufficient volume. Most appear to lack both.)
ANGEL makes a few assumptions that aren't supported by reality on the ground. The reasoning s/he summons to articulate why his/her plan can succeed stems right out of his/her own wishful thinking and little more ("If this plan was implemented there's a good chance the Palestinian terrorists would stop their fight, if not they would be very foolish because...").
Isn't it cute that ANGEL can't bring him/herself to refer to the Palestinian terrorists as just that ("the so-called terrorists...")? I had debated ANGEL on IMC-PAL and SF-IMC and have found that to a large extent s/he is a Palestinian terror apologist. S/he expressed horror a the Jerusalem bus bombing last year but hasn't done the same with, nor condemned, other acts of Palestinian terror.
Note how ANGEL first approves of the presence of Jews in the disputed territories, but eventually complains that a future Palestinian state's territory would look like be a Swiss cheese if the Jewish settlements remain. S/he has been asked if s/he'd accept a solution whereby the settlements are relocated to one or a few blocs within Judea & Samaria near the Green Line, but has never answered. So, why should ANGEL's closing complaint be taken seriously by any reasonable individual?
In closing, if ML could look askance at my alias having read what I thought is a desirable act to be employed against SF-IMC, I can certainly cast heavy doubts on ANGEL's angelic qualities, having read his/her posts over the past 10 months now. One thing is for sure: ANGEL is not the innocent non-partisan peace activist, nor does s/he fit that image s/he painted for him/herself. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
16 Feb 2004
|
Angel -- hi!
I think both you and Critical Thinker are trying to be fair, which is a lot more than you can say for nessie, who is now on record as saying SF-IMC policy is now, simply, flatly, "You cannot defend Israel here."
By nessie's standards, both you and I are "racists" for supporting the two-state solution. Isn't that ridiculous?
I do hope you'll do me the favor of not posting the same text as many times as you have on SF-IMC. We don't get the same amount of traffic, so you won't need to repeat it.
@%< |
|
Re: Judea and Samaria |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
16 Feb 2004
|
CT,
"Judea and Samaria" are not part of Israel. They're the Occupied Territories. If you really do support giving up land for peace, you wouldn't be referring to "Judea and Samaria" unless you're a Sharonist (or worse.) |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
16 Feb 2004
|
ML, it's not quite that simple -- last night listening to the BBC, I heard the announcer refer to the Falklands, even as everyone else in the story was referring to the Malvinas. It's not only the "Greater Israel" set who refer to the areas as Judea and Samaria. Names stick, and in a place that's had as many names, I try not to get too hung up on what people call it. Even the name "Palestine" begs more questions than it answers.
@%< |
|
CT Hopes for Uncritical Readers |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
16 Feb 2004
|
Using the term "Judea and Samaria" doesn't automatically brand someone a Sharonist in my mind, but taken together with the rest of CT's screed, I have a hard time concluding that it was an innocent way for CT to describe what most of the world considers to be the Occupied Territories. I agree that ANGEL is a flake, but in my book, CT is in pretty much the same category.
Take this for instance:
"...why can't s/he admit that the Israeli occupation could have ended in 2000 had Arafat accepted Ehud Barak's offer of Palestinian statehood..."
Sorry, but the Barak plan called for a fractured Palestinian state that STILL would have been strategically occupied by Israel. Arafat was right to reject the plan, but certainly wrong to crank up the Intifada. Both parties should have returned to the table and kept negotiating. It simply wasn't a viable plan. Even if Arafat had accepted it, it would have nurtured the same elements that bedevil the situation today. That is no solution for progress. Unfortunately, then Sharon moved in, but this is still no excusing Barak's non-viable plan nor should it have required unconditional acceptance by Arafat just to avoid an even worse deal under Sharon.
Then:
" the present occupation is a consequence of Arafat's abandonment of the negotiation table that year and the launching of the intifada?"
I suppose the "present occupation" is different than the one that started in 1967? I don't think so.
It goes on:
"Would ANGEL make a fuss about Arab/Palestinian colonization within Israel proper (a real phenomenon which has been realized in the form of illegal infiltration of Palestinians from Judea and Samaria into Israel proper to the tune of more than 300,000 people)?"
OK, assuming this statistic is true (which I have serious doubts about) this means:
A. Building a wall only locks these people INTO Israel proper.
B. If Palestinians are really so dangerous and unable to live with Israelis, then you would have, not the occasional and still evil suicide bombings, but bombs going off every hour of every day.
C. I doubt that any Palestinian thinks of themself as being resident in "Judea and Samaria" in the first place, whatever the supposed innocence of CT's use of the term.
It goes on:
"As for creating a Palestinian state NOW..."
Well, if not now, when? It is nonsense to think that things will get better with further delay. Peace is always risky, but it's no riskier than war. Admittedly, ANGEL's motivations are not benign when s/he says that, but neither are CT's.
The one good (and ultimately probably necessary) idea that ANGEL has is:
"Send in a Joint, U.S., U.N. Peace keeping Force to the West Bank and Gaza for the sole purpose of trying to avoid conflicts between the Palestinian and the settlers...."
but it is rejected out of hand by CT, who seems to prefer a state of permanent war to even an uncertain peace.
CT prattles on:
"S/he has been asked if s/he'd accept a solution whereby the settlements are relocated to one or a few blocs within Judea & Samaria near the Green Line..."
Reality,which CT seems to have a real hangup about, would seem to indicate that there is no viable future to Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories. ANGEL should have graced the question with an answer, but the only realistic answer is a trade of land for peace. There's still plenty of space in Israel proper and any other solution relies on a continuation of a state of war. Of course, for CT, this seems preferable, as well as does the idea of an expansionist Israel based on conquest. I know that some assert that Israel is somehow "entitled" to the Occupied Territories by virtue of claims that Israel was attacked in 1967. The problem is that the idea of settling international problems by territorial aggrandisment is only a recipe for perpetual war. The history of the 20th Century pretty much proved that and anyone that thinks differently is only ignoring the reality that this will only guarantee perpetuation of war, however justified they may feel about what sparked 1967.
No, ANGEL is clearly not an "innocent non-partisan peace activist" but then neither does CT appear to be one either. |
|
"one of the editors" Encouraging False Flag Attacks on SF IMC Newswire? |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
16 Feb 2004
|
Just one more page in the bizarro world of SF IMC.
The nightly attacks spamming the SF IMC Newswire full of copies of gehrig's final post continue. Obviously, they are not from the original author, who has publicly washed his hands of the affair here, as the poster is always listed as "pointer," an apparent reference to the idea that those few who still bother reading SF IMC should somehow take the rather obvious staged false flag spamming of the the SF IMC Newswire as a cue to come to UC IMC, where the original author is not banned, and rail against the multiple copies (which, no doubt, originate much closer to SF than to UC).
And once again, all of the spammed posts are hidden, EXCEPT for one that is moved up, by "one of the editors" no doubt, to the their Global Newswire. It appears the few fish left in the pond are mostly not biting on this rather transparent bait, however.
My conclusion: It would seem nessie seems to enjoy, encourage, or be conversant with the person doing the spamming, which he no doubt would publicly attribute to the "evil Zionists" that he blames every mis-step of his own on.
If it wasn't so pitiful, it would just be sad. |
|
For ML and CT |
by ANGEL
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
17 Feb 2004
|
""Sorry, but the Barak plan called for a fractured Palestinian state that STILL would have been strategically occupied by Israel. Arafat was right to reject the plan, but certainly wrong to crank up the Intifada. Both parties should have returned to the table and kept negotiating. It simply wasn't a viable plan. Even if Arafat had accepted it, it would have nurtured the same elements that bedevil the situation today. That is no solution for progress. Unfortunately, then Sharon moved in, but this is still no excusing Barak's non-viable plan nor should it have required unconditional acceptance by Arafat just to avoid an even worse deal under Sharon.""(by ML)
Barak's non-viable plan is Exactly as I see it. I have never been a fan of Arafat and CT will have to give me that much. I do not believe that what he does is in the best interest of most of the Palestinian People, but what the Israeli Government is doing, such as land confiscation, home demolitions and the destroying of Palestinian Olive and Fruit Trees which is needed for their livelihood does not help the situation.
“”S/he has been asked if s/he'd accept a solution whereby the settlements are relocated to one or a few blocs within Judea & Samaria near the Green Line, but has never answered. So, why should ANGEL's closing complaint be taken seriously by any reasonable individual?””(by CT)
If you are going to go through the trouble of relocating the settlements, why not relocate them inside Israeli Proper since Israel proper is not that much farther away and it would cause less Problems in the small 22% of the Area left for a Palestinian State.
But 300,000 thousand Jewish People is only the size of many large cities so if they chose to stay where they are I see no reason why they cannot since 1,200,000 (a more recent number I came across, correct me if I am wrong) or so Palestinian can continue to live inside Israel.
Almost every nation on Earth has more then one Religious or Ethnic group, so why not in the Country of Israel and the Future Country of Palestine, that the Road Map calls for.
If Israel and Palestine were at Peace instead of never ending conflict there is no reason why the Jewish people in Palestine cannot continue to live where they are if they choose to stay there, as they can also choose voluntarily to move to Israel Proper if they do not like living in the Country of Palestine.
The same would of course go for the Palestinian People living in Israel.
The important thing right now is that we have the Borders set for the Country of Palestine so that the Palestinian People can set up a decent Government, rebuild their infrastructure, (That I am sure many nations would be willing to help do if it was know it was for the State of Palestine instead of an Occupied territory) and an international Airport where Business People could freely come and go without the approval of the Israel Government.
I have said it before and I will say it again I am not anti Semitic I am well aware that the majority of the Jewish People are good moral People (including gehrig as I just found out he is a Jewish convert). I would just like to see peace in the Holy Land.
The untimely death of any human being is wrong especially innocent children both Israeli and Palestinian, I do not like to see suicide bombing, so please remove the reason for them so they do not have to occur.
Who has died and how since this Intifada began in Sept. 2000?
CLICK HERE > http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html |
|
ML hopes for uninformed readers who buy into his orthodoxy |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
17 Feb 2004
|
Hey ML! Glad to see you have retracted your statement that if I support a land-to-peace deal, I must be a "Sharonist (or worse)" having used the names Judea and Samaria. Only it's unfortunate that gehrig's interference was required to get you to rethink your initial simplistic assertion. You do seem like a simple minded fool, not only for making that assertion, but for additonal unfounded observations you've made.
You really thought I hadn't known Judea & Samaria aren't part of the State of Israel? Come on now.
Having said that, I'd like to know: what the heck is a Sharonist anyway?
As long as the current state of affairs in the PA continues whereby Arafat pulls all the strings and no democratic Palestinian leadership can emerge that would except Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state within any kind of borders, dismantle the terrorist infrstructure - strating from confiscation of all illegal weaponry, through arresting *all* the terrorists (including the Arafatian ones), arraigning them and dispensing them actual penalties, and most importantly: revamping the whole Palestinian educatonal curriculum so as to root out all the hatred being taught there and starting educating children and youth toward peaceful co-existence instead, purging the media an the mosques from anti-Semitic and virulent anti-Israeli hate - I will not support a land-to-peace pact in the disputed territories.
Israel took a huge gamble in the Oslo process and lost. I won't endorse another unjustified risk taking just so Arafat and his fellow Palestinian terrorists use the nascent state as a launching pad for another intifada against Israel.
The name "west Bank" was given to Judea & Samaria by the Jordanians after they illegally occupied and annexed this territory. Their occupation was certainly illegal per international law and the name they assigned to the territory in question lingered on, as gehrig estalished. I collectively refer to all the territories in question (ncluding the Gaza strip) as disputed territories since that term suits their actual international legal status more than any other term, "occupied territories" included. These territories were an integral part of the whole land during the Ottoman Turk occupation and the British Mandate Rule's occupation of the historic Land of Israel. I'm not under any obligation to call the Holy Land "Palestine" just because it happens to be in nearly exclusive usage in your circles, or is called so by most people worldwide. The Romans coined that name in 135 AD (feel free to do a small research to find out why), the country was called the Land of Israel (well, from about 142 BC to 135 AD it was known as "Judeah") and I don't have to adhere to usage of the name "Palestine".
ML babbles: >>"Sorry, but the Barak plan called for a fractured Palestinian state that STILL would have been strategically occupied by Israel. Arafat was right to reject the plan...It simply wasn't a viable plan."<<
Wrong, pal. I don't believe you're deliberately lying and misleading, but you've been disinformed.
ML said: >>"Even if Arafat had accepted it, it would have nurtured the same elements that bedevil the situation today. That is no solution for progress. "<<
I concur, but for reasons opposite than ML's. Truth of the matter is that Barak's plan didn't offer serious mechanisms to ensure anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli incitement be ended and the terrorist infrastructure/s be dismanteled.
I said before: the present occupation is a consequence of Arafat's abandonment of the negotiation table that year and the launching of the intifada.
ML babbles: >>"I suppose the "present occupation" is different than the one that started in 1967? I don't think so."<<
What I was alluding to is the presence of Israeli forces in portions of the disputed territories they were absent from from summer 2000 until the intifada's outbreak.
Ealier I asked: would ANGEL make a fuss about Arab/Palestinian colonization within Israel proper (a real phenomenon which has been realized in the form of illegal infiltration of Palestinians from Judea and Samaria into Israel proper to the tune of more than 300,000 people)?
ML yacks: >>"OK, assuming this statistic is true (which I have serious doubts about)"
I assure you it is. It's an unimpeachable fact.
ML said: >>"this means: A. Building a wall only locks these people INTO Israel proper."<<
Why? There's at least one point on the Green Line where Palestinians legally pass from Israel into Judea & Samaria and vice versa. Why should the Palestinians squattors within Israel not be free to return to Judea & Samaria? Don't you know about the security fence that streches around the Gaza strip (which has been successful in keeping Gazan suicide bombers out of Israel)? There's at least one point where Palestinians move from and into the Gaza strip - the Erez checkpoint.
As to the stucture of the security barrier being erected aound Judea & Samaria, it's high time you learn the *facts*: less than 10% of it consists of walls.
ML's underinformed musings continue: >>"B. If Palestinians are really so dangerous and unable to live with Israelis, then you would have, not the occasional and still evil suicide bombings, but bombs going off every hour of every day."<<
The danger stems from those among them who are terrorists or practice other forms of anti-Israeloi and anti-Jewish violence. Much of the Palestinian population isn't dangerous. The reason Israel hasn't been suicide-bombed out of existence is because it has defended itself. The percentage of prevention of suicide bombings and other forms of violence hovers around 90%! It's ointeresting to note that one or two years ago a bomb was planted on a huge tank in a gas depo in or nearby Tel-Aviv. It was only a fluke that the explosion didn't incinerate tens of thousands of people! You haven't heard about this incident, have you?
ML said: >>"C. I doubt that any Palestinian thinks of themself as being resident in "Judea and Samaria" in the first place,"
You're probably right. Most of them consider themselves residents of "Palestine", i.e. the whole land.
I said before: As for creating a Palestinian state NOW...it's not feasible.
ML intones: >>"Well, if not now, when? It is nonsense to think that things will get better with further delay. Peace is always risky, but it's no riskier than war. Admittedly, ANGEL's motivations are not benign when s/he says that, but neither are CT's."
I've already laid out above in detail when. However, I would happily welcome the establishment of a Palestine in Jordan or part of it, should it somehow become possible, whenever Jordan goes democratic - hopefully very soon. Gehrig is well aware of my thoughts on this. In case you don't know, nearly 80% of the Jordanian population is Palestinian, and some 80% of what was known as Palestine prior to 1923 is today's Jordan.
Now, while the situation on the ground will most certainly not improve by the Palestinian and Israeli sides being idle about it, it's equaly true the situation won't improve if a Palestinian state is created now in the disputed territories. If anything, things might go from very bad to worse. History has proven that rulers of dictatorial states that are run abysmally - as the PA administrates Palesinian society - would wage war against their democratic neighbors in order to divert their subjects' attention away from their own failings. The same holds true for Arafat and his guard in the PA. This is not the kind of peace worth striving to. It's actually "peace". It's just as risky as war.
Your assertion that my motivations aren't benign are unsubstantiated and wrong.
ML's babbling rolls on in earnest: >>"The one good (and ultimately probably necessary) idea that ANGEL has is:
"Send in a Joint, U.S., U.N. Peace keeping Force to the West Bank and Gaza for the sole purpose of trying to avoid conflicts between the Palestinian and the settlers...."
but it is rejected out of hand by CT, who seems to prefer a state of permanent war to even an uncertain peace."<<
I didn't refer to that component in ANGEL's plan only because I don't find fault in it, generally. I certainly don't reject it outrght. But ML manufactured a strawman argument anyway, claiming I did, and added insult to injury arguing that I probably prefer perpetual war to some state of non-belligerence. What temerity.
I have one reservation about that particular ANGEL idea. It might compromise Israel's independence, or at least hinder the ability of the Israeli forces to combat Palestinian terror and violence while being ineffective at staving off most Palestinian attacks. Of more importance, I really don't think this idea could be realized given the US-Israeli relationship.
Needless to say that sending in a UN or EU-UN or even a NATO-UN force that isn't comprised of a majority of and led by US personnel is a non-starter. If you don't know why, I'd be happy to explain.
Earlier I said: S/he [ANGEL] has been asked if s/he'd accept a solution whereby the settlements are relocated to one or a few blocs within Judea & Samaria near the Green Line...
ML prattled: >>"Reality, which CT seems to have a real hangup about, would seem to indicate that there is no viable future to Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories. ANGEL should have graced the question with an answer, but the only realistic answer is a trade of land for peace.:<<
Well, I have my doubts about the viability of some, or many, of the Jewish settlements in the disputed territories. I especially think the existence of the vast majority of the settlements in the Gaza strip is problematic. I would have totally embraced Sharon's plan of evacuating 17 Gazan settlements if it weren't for the fact his plan doesn't seem to provide any safeguards against the arisal of certain problems, that might prove a rerun of what had happened during the Oslo process every time Israel withdrew from a certain area.
However realistic the notion of trading land for peace, it must be implemented only once true Palestinian leaders who're not "compromised by terror" and actually believe in Saadat's motto, "no more war, *no more bloodshed*" come instead of the likes of Arafat. The case of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty really illustrates how important it is for an Arab entity (be it an "authority" or a ful-blown state) to at least first recognize Israel's undeniable right to exist within secure borders prior to reaching a peace pact for the peace treaty to at least partially succeed.
ML's prattle picks up: >>"There's still plenty of space in Israel proper and any other solution relies on a continuation of a state of war. Of course, for CT, this seems preferable, as well as does the idea of an expansionist Israel based on conquest."<<
There's definitely more room and plenty of it in Jordan - a huge country in comparison to Israel. Or did you not know the vast majority of its territory is uninhabited? And what the hell in your supposedly analytical mind made you conclude I rather have Israel be expansionist and conquer territories it doesn't deserve?! Are you insane or what?! Israel has no territorial claims from Egypt - it ceded the Sinai in return for peace. No territorial demands from Jordan. Same goes for Lebanon (from which Israel fuly withdrew almost 4 years ago) and Syria, except the devious Assad Sr. refused to take back the Golan Heights and preferred to use machinations.
ML concludes: >>"I know that some assert that Israel is somehow "entitled" to the Occupied Territories by virtue of claims that Israel was attacked in 1967. The problem is that the idea of settling international problems by territorial aggrandisment is only a recipe for perpetual war. The history of the 20th Century pretty much proved that and anyone that thinks differently is only ignoring the reality that this will only guarantee perpetuation of war, however justified they may feel about what sparked 1967."<<
Well, from the standpoint of internationa law, Israel has a better claim to the disputed territories than any of the Arab parties.
And unfortunately, the problem with the viewpoint of most Palestinians has been that they have aspired to more than a viable independent state in the disputed territories, they have been aiming for a state that would encompass Israel proper too and wouldn't recognize Israel's right to exist - much less as a Jewish state - but demand another Arab state (their own). Ever cared to read the Palestinian constitution?
You may have been ignoring that the Oslo process had not only been the anti-thesis of territorial aggrandizement, but an honest attempt to considerably minimize the scope of the Settlement enterprize. In any rate, it's an established fact that this process' climax was supposed to have been dismantlement of the settlements to a very large degree. It could have materialized and Arafat is the one to blame for the failure to reach this outcome.
Like it or not, Israel still technically answers to a definition of a democracy whereas Palestinian society is still yet another undemocratic Arab society. If you could grasp just how substantial the difference is, you'd probably realize other things about both Israel and the Palestinians that haven't been apparent to you.
I never claimed I'm a peace activist. I'm not a war monger either. Yet I do believe in relistically striving to peace based on facts, not disinformation or propaganda. |
|
More for ML: about the usage of the names "Judea" and Samaria" |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
17 Feb 2004
|
You may be surprised to realize how much these names have been used and by who.
For more than 3,000 years, the name Judea has been consistently used to describe the territory from Jerusalem south along the Judean mountain ridge line, extending east from the mountains down to the Dead Sea.
The hill country north and west of Jerusalem has been known as Samaria at least as early as the schism between the Jews that lived in that region and the Judean Jews began in the 2nd half of the 6th century BC, when the Judeans prevented the former from participating in building the Second Temple in Jerusalem.
Judea and Samaria have been known by these names for unbroken centuries, and were registered as such on official documents and maps, by international institutions and in authoritative reference books right up to about 1950. When the correct names became a problem for Palestinian Arabs, it somehow became "politically correct" to use "West Bank" or "occupied territories" instead of the historically accurate names Judea and Samaria.
Some examples of reference works using the names Judea and Samaria:
1. A map published by the US State Department designating the Middle East's "Military Situation" on July 18, 1948 calls the "Arab held" area north of Jerusalem "Samaria"
2. In A Survey of Palestine prepared by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in December 1945 and January 1946 the authors used the titles "Judea" and "Samaria" as a matter of course when referring to what later became the "West Bank"
3. In United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 adopted November 29, 1947, the world body referred to Judea and Samaria by those historical names
4. Every edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, up to the latest (1994) writes extensively concerning the areas politically called the West Bank, and calls them by their historically accurate names: Samaria and Judea. The fact that the "West Bank" is not mentioned once in the 1954 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica indicates just how recently this title entered popular usage, and just how quickly, and deeply, it has taken root. |
|
No Retraction |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
17 Feb 2004
|
Trysome critical reading, CT. I did not retract what I said, only that what I concluded about you was based on far more than your comment on 'Judea and Samaria."
As for the rest, your reply only reinforces my conclusion about your motivations, The fact that you reject Sharon's plan for withdrawal from Gaza as "his plan doesn't seem to provide any safeguards" is telling, as if somehow, if Israel could only come up with a stronger leader than him, it would be safe.
Yeah, right.
The rest of your arguments can be similarly dismembered, but why bothered? You're far more interested in semantics than you are in truth.
Have you considered employment with Likud? |
|
Re: ANGEL's clarifications |
by Critical thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
17 Feb 2004
|
I wouldn't insinuate that ANGEL has been an Arafat groupie at any point over the last year or so. Yes, what he's been doing is very far from being in the best interest of any Palestinian who hopes for a reasonable resolution of this conflict.
While forms of collective Israeli punishment such as those that ANGEL mentions indeed do not calm the situation, things aren't helped by the fact that most Palestinians allow terrorists to use homes, fields and crops as launching pads for attacks. So many Palestinians are armed; why can't the non-terrorists among them forcefully prevent the terrorists from using their property to stage terror? That would go a long way toward improving matters.
ANGEL: >>"If you are going to go through the trouble of relocating the settlements, why not relocate them inside Israeli Proper since Israel proper is not that much farther away and it would cause less Problems in the small 22% of the Area left for a Palestinian State. Etc., etc., etc."<<
Because:
1. Many Jews in the disputed territories don't want to move to Israel proper and would want to stay in the territories, and you yourself claimed you don't advocate making the disputed territories Jew-free. And so, if Israel decides to relocate certain settlements to (a) bloc/s near the Green Line within the disputed territories, it follows that you'd have to agree to this decision, at least in principle.
2. I don't think the disputed territories should become Jew-free either. These areas are historically part of the Land of Israel and many Jews are historically tied to them. Many Jews had lived there ages before the Arabs - the ancestors of some of the modern day Palestinian Arabs - invaded the land circa 636 AD. Jews (not all, but many) also have a very deep religious bond to these territories, especially to places like Hebron, E. Jerusalem and other locations where Jewish holy sites exist. Jews have a right to live in those areas of the disputed territories where they wouldn't wrong Arabs, especially if they're not too hard to defend.
ANGEL, you can't have it both ways. Either you support the existence of a Jewish presence within the disputed territories in some capacity, or you totally disapprove of it. So which one is it?
As for your assertion that "If Israel and Palestine were at Peace... there is no reason why the Jewish people in Palestine cannot continue to live where they are if they choose to stay there", that's all nice and well, but isn't in the realm of reality, nor will it be for the near future at least. What's really happening is that most Palestinians want virtually all the Jews out of the disputed territories. We have to stare at reality, be frank with ourselves and make proper observations.
ANGEL: >>"The important thing right now is that we have the Borders set for the Country of Palestine so that the Palestinian People can set up a decent Government, rebuild their infrastructure,..."<<
No. That's a capital NO.
Before any of what you outline can be undertaken, the PA needs to put an end to incitement, terror and violence. You keep trying to impress that you want a Palestinian state in accordance with the "road map", and yet you keep omitting the "road map" stipulates Palestinian violence and incitement must first be ended, and that a Palestinian state is the end product of this process rather than its trigger. You have actually been making a mockery out of the "road map" and one doesn't need to be exceptionally smart to figure that out. More importantly, you somehow fail to understand - or deliberately overlook the facts - that there can be no decent Palestinian government until Arafat's influence is ended and that the PA could easily keep cultivating anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic sentiments, and entice many Palestinians to practice terror in order to deflect their attention away from corruption in the PA.
On these problems are dealt with, real peace negotiations could resume and a viable solution could be negotiated with vigor.
You keep repeating that you know many Jews both in Israel and worldwide are good and moral people, yet you have also repeated a refrain that the people that make up the Israeli government have no conscience. This allegation not only bothers me a lot, it's unsubstantiated and mindless bunk. Why have you been propagating such tripe?
ANGEL: >>"I do not like to see suicide bombing, so please remove the reason for them so they do not have to occur."<<
Please tell that to Arafat and especially the religious terrorist leaders like Ahmed Yassin and Abdallah Shami whose organizations educate and enable Palestinians to become suicide bombers.
The problem lies in the fact that many Palestinians view suicide bombings as a legitimate tool rather than a despicable abomination. You want to remove the reason for suicide bombing? Preach to the Palestinians not to resort to this tactic, explaining that most nations - since the invention of gun powder - have fought for hundreds of years against other nations, but never considered suicide bombings a legitimate and moral form of warfare.
Yes...I know the Palestinians aren't the only ones who've resorted and are resorting to this tactic, but you might want to remind them that it's counter to their interests. |
|
About enabling anti-Semitism - to gehrig |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
17 Feb 2004
|
|
The fact that nessie isn't an anti-Semite per se is no consolation when he enables other people to express anti-Semitism. Given that he's in a position of editorial power, and the fact the enormity of his deeds and omissions in this regard has been brought to his attention so many times - mostly to no avail - makes him just as guilty as the likes of W. Campbell and lesser evils. |
|
Re: ML's non-retraction |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
17 Feb 2004
|
I'm amused to notice you think I claimed it would be safe for Israel to withdraw from he Gaza strip - or Sharon's plan would be safe - if only his plan were carried out by a stronger leader in his stead. What I actually think is that Sharon's plan lacks necessary contingencies, not that it should be implemented by a stronger leader.
Yet, of more importance, I didn't reject Sharon's plan. Hehe, talking about critical reading.
Furthermore, if you were right about the reason for my alleged rejection, how do you explain the opposition to Sharon's plan from some leftie circles in Israel?
ML mumbles: >>"You're far more interested in semantics than you are in truth."<<
The real question is whether you're interested in truth.
I wonder what you think about the hawks in Labor. Are they Likud lackeys to you? |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
18 Feb 2004
|
CT -- I agree that nessie's blindness has created a place where, in the name of "anti-racism," Windy Wendy -- still not gone, funny, isn't it -- can post shit like this:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1679149.php
And that the pragmatic effect of SF-IMC is to promote rather than combat antisemitism.
But I also believe that nessie will drag the remains of SF-IMC down with him like the Pequod dragged down its crew.
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by CarrotTop
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Feb 2004
|
Gehrig
dude - you rock!
at this rate you will have your own talkshow in no time!
you are truly the list -master! |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by Bob
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Feb 2004
|
Gerhig, I've been a fan of yours for a long time. I gave up on SF after realizing that there was no point arguing with a racist censor. I especially find it ironic that Nessie came here to participate in a debate that he would not allow on his own site. But I think your talents are being wasted here. There are other sites on which your clear, convincing writing could be better put to use.
At Littlegreenfootballs.com you will have the opportunity to debate with neo-conservatives and moderate rightists about the future of the Middle East. At Stormfront.org you can debate with open racists (in the guest section). I think you will particularly enjoy Stormfront because you will have the opportunity to refute obvious racist lies and try to talk people out of their hateful beliefs. I post at Stormfront and I find it refreshing to deal with haters who are open about their hate - unlike dealing with the Orwellian Nessie or Wendy who call their racism anti-racism.
Either way, good luck. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
18 Feb 2004
|
Bob -- thanks for your support.
I don't really feel the need to go to overtly racist sites like Stormfront, though, because they make it very clear that they _are_ racist sites.
The reason I fought in SF-IMC so hard for so long is that there was such an obvious disconnect between what SF-IMC _said_ it stood for -- including the fight against antisemitism -- while their editorial policy was plainly ignoring a big swath of antisemitic rhetoric from people like Wendy Campbell.
That is, the site wasn't functioning -- and still isn't functioning -- according to its stated principles, because you can say the most egregiously antisemitic things there as long as you cloak it with the word "Zionist." Look at how the post by "American observer" in the thread whose URL I posted a few notes up talks about Jewish predatory cultural imperialism and thought police and all, but using the nessie-acceptable codeword "Jewish-Zionist."
I figured that if I pointed out that gulf enough times in good faith, the editors at SF-IMC would finally catch on. Nessie is, simply, a blind authoritarian who believes he's an anti-authoritarian. It's getting clearer and clearer to me why all the talent at SF-IMC left for Indybay, leaving "my way or the highway" nessie behind to sink slowly in the west.
@%< |
|
David Gehrig's nominated for sainthood! here on s/f imc |
by nessie
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
19 Feb 2004
|
David Gehrig's nominated for sainthood! here on s/f imc
we are pleased and proud to be the first to nominate David Gehrig honored title of sainthood, yes we here at s/f imc have come to honor and respect this bringer of wisdom. he has helped us see the light and solve life's riddles. we honor David for showing us the way - we are forever in your debt! - |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: dave is #1 |
by trashman
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Feb 2004
|
|
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1679475_comment.php#1679498 |
|
Re: request |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
19 Feb 2004
|
I really wish whoever's spamming my post to SF-IMC would stop. It really doesn't serve any purpose. People who follow the SF-IMC site already know what's in it, and people who don't won't care.
@%< |
|
Re: nessie continues to lie about me |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
19 Feb 2004
|
Gehrig's banning
by one of the editors Thursday February 19, 2004 at 02:41 PM
It's not "unfortunate." It's a dramatic improvement to the site's culture. He abused the newswire by spamming and by preaching racism. Anyone who abuses the newswire is banned. Period. End of story. No appeal.
-------
My comment: as the record shows, what happened was that I showed that nessie was an idiot one too many times, and so he has decided to slander me as a "racist" and a "spammer."
The record is quite clear on that; if he thinks otherwise, well, add one more item to his list of delusions.
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by non-english europe
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
25 Feb 2004
|
Hey, gehrig, nice to see you on this site.
Btw, there is some other imc-sections where is still (a real) free publishing), for example, vancouver-imc, la-imc etc
I was surprized that sf.imc banned you. because nessie used to say that you are ok, despite you are a "zionist" etc. For sure other 'editors' and sf-imc readers conspirate against you.
Poor racist-nessie !! |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
26 Feb 2004
|
n-e e: thanks! Most IMCs continue to allow open publishing without political censorship; SF-IMC is a sad exception.
I think my being banned from SF-IMC was for two reasons. First, nessie's decision that anybody who supports the two-state solution is a "racist." But mostly, that was his excuse; the real reason is that he was angry about having to admit that Wendy Campbell really _is_ an antisemite, and like a little child, he banned me for embarrassing him.
@%< |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by ((i))
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
28 Feb 2004
|
SF Indymedia really has gone well outside the IMC Principles of Unity with its editorial actions that amount to, I think, outright hate and anti-semitism.
I acknowledge that label gets misused to try and quell rightful and needed critique of Israel's unjust policices and actions. And even with that awareness that the term is abused far too often by right-wing groups, I really think it's no stretch or misuse or mischaracterization to say that SF IMC's editorial policy and actions reflect blatant anti-semitism.
While I agree that it's unfair to make sweeping claims about IMCs as a whole, let's be honest and also acknowledge that some other IMC's have not only ignored the really troubling implications of rhetoric like "zionazi", they've *featured* stories that use the term. Worse yet, many indymedia collectives (and the network as a whole) seem pretty resistent to even discussing the issue without persecuting the person trying to raise the legitimate concern.
Moreover, if the SF IMC is allowed to continue with this sort of targetted editorial abuse, well outside the imc principles of unity, I think it really then is Indymedia as a whole that has to face rightful concerns and criticism about this. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
28 Feb 2004
|
((i)): "I acknowledge that label gets misused to try and quell rightful and needed critique of Israel's unjust policices and actions. And even with that awareness that the term is abused far too often by right-wing groups, I really think it's no stretch or misuse or mischaracterization to say that SF IMC's editorial policy and actions reflect blatant anti-semitism."
I've been very careful all along to say, over and over, that I do not consider criticism of Israel to automatically be antisemitic. But it's disappointing how many people -- like nessie -- will then turn and say I've said exactly the opposite!
As long as the antisemitism issue remains unresolved, it's impossible to get to the issue underneath, the Israeli/Palestinian confict, with any effectiveness. This is what frustrates me about SF-IMC; the issue would go away -- the same way it's gone way on this board -- the moment you start addressing it honestly. But nessie is so convinced that anyone who brings up the topic is COINTELPRO or crying wolf, he's never been able to give the issue the good, honest look it deserves.
Yes, there are those who drop the accusation of antisemitism at the drop of a hat. But that doesn't mean that antisemitism is nonexistent, and it shouldn't make the burden of proof any more stringent that any other kind of racism.
((i)): "While I agree that it's unfair to make sweeping claims about IMCs as a whole, let's be honest and also acknowledge that some other IMC's have not only ignored the really troubling implications of rhetoric like "zionazi", they've *featured* stories that use the term. "
This comes in waves. My understanding is that most IMCs regard the term as, at best, unhelpful, and many sites toss posts using it outright.
((i)): "Worse yet, many indymedia collectives (and the network as a whole) seem pretty resistent to even discussing the issue without persecuting the person trying to raise the legitimate concern."
This was my big surprise at SF-IMC. Because I spotted Holocaust denial URLs the editors didn't, I found myself accused of having planted them myself. My eventual banning was just a natural extension of that same bit of bolloxitude.
((i)): "Moreover, if the SF IMC is allowed to continue with this sort of targetted editorial abuse, well outside the imc principles of unity, I think it really then is Indymedia as a whole that has to face rightful concerns and criticism about this."
Actually, I think there are many more issues concerning SF-IMC and Indybay that are more pressing than nessie's having given me the boot. The bum's rush I was given is only a sign of a deeper problem at SF-IMC.
@%< |
|
nessie does it again |
by not suprised
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
28 Feb 2004
|
|
http://www.sfimc.net/news/2004/02/1681493.php |
|
another IMC is publishing reposts from |
by where's gehrig when we need him?
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Feb 2004
|
a site that contains Holocaust denial propaganda.
It's not SF-IMC:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M4F323197
It's SFBay:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/02/1671722_comment.php |
|
A "justice activist" a.k.a. "peace" activist gone totally insane |
by non-nessie pointer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
02 Mar 2004
|
The moral reprobate known as nessie has totally lost it. See:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/1681986_comment.php#1682009 |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by ((i))
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
03 Mar 2004
|
I wish you were right about the IMC as a whole, but I can actually think of a couple of collectives on the network who's editorial practice really veers toward the direction of Nessie's extremism and de facto racism/anti-semitism.
(I appreciate you trying to avoid using the at times very abused label of anti-semitism, but let's be honest. I berate Israeli right wingers andI berate the ADL all the time for abusing it. But Nessie is a racist. A rather nasty variety of that.
His cloaking it in claims of fighting racism, when contrasted with his bizzare hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty and double standards in critique and labeling, is hands-down the low point of IMC editorial action anywhere, anyhow.
But alas, there really are problems with other IMCs. Without going on some unconscrutive witch hunt and naming, there really are some IMCs in the network with woefully small cabals of editorial people with an agenda that has less to do with community-based indymedia and more to do with an apparent single-minded pursuit of villifying Israel and anyone who might (gasp) support any notion as horrendous as the view held by the majority of Palestinians in the region: (e.g. a two-state solution with immediate Israeli withdrawal, knocking down the illeagally placed wall, an end to all security and material assistance to the illeagel settlements, and a diversion of some of the hefty aid going to Israel and instaed using to help Palestinian rebuilding after the long conflict and violence.)
Yeah, I know, Nessie would consider me a horrendous racist for this view I also, gasp, donate and volunteer labor to Peace Now. Clearly, Nessie's totalitarian and racist, dogmatic agenda pushing via editorial control is well outside the scope of indymedia principles of unity, creating a truly extreme litmus test for participation in a collective and newswire, that involves others having to adopt Nessie's bizzare, unpopular among Palestnians, totalitarian, and racist in its peculiar exceptionalism and thinking policy and actions.
I've been involved in the IMC from the beginnings, in Seattle, and I think it's going to be a sad but significant chapter in our history that tells about how the vibrant, broad umbrella open media project trying to empower independent community media makers got hijacked by groups trying to use it not for its original vision and purpose, but just as tactic tool to advance their own agenda and beliefs, sickly comfortable with the fact that it meant destroying the character of the fantastic movement they were hijacking. |
|
Re: My Final SF-IMC Post: Wasting Away Again in Mussoliniville |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
03 Mar 2004
|
((i)): "I appreciate you trying to avoid using the at times very abused label of anti-semitism, but let's be honest. I berate Israeli right wingers andI berate the ADL all the time for abusing it. But Nessie is a racist. A rather nasty variety of that."
My frustration is that nessie is doing exactly what he condemns The Zionist Menace for. He's using a weirdly gerrymandered definition of "racism" to slander those he has _political_ disagreements with. He said as much on the imc-us-process list: his calling me a "racist" was "a political value judgement," and later that "It's about [my] politics."
Well, let a Zionist rightist use a weirdly gerrymandered definition of "antisemitism" to slander those _he_ disagrees with politically, and nessie would raise the proverbial roof. (In fact, he's accused _me_ of having done this countless times -- every time, in fact, I pointed out that someone had posted a link to an antisemitic hate site.) But he's doing _exactly the same thing_ he hates when Zionist rightists do it. And his hatred of anything related to Israel is so absolute, and so overwhelming, and has such an iron grip on his cognitive capabilities, he can't see what it is that he's doing.
I still do not call nessie an antisemite. I think he's got a stripe of prejudice down his back so wide that you could land a 767 on it, but it's anti-Israel, not antisemitic. His recent condemnation of Egypt for having made peace with Israel -- "Egypt is governed by moral reprobates. They made peace with Israel. Anyone who would sink that low is capable of anything" -- is just another sign of how blisteringly whack he is on the topic. Which wouldn't be a problem if he weren't using an IMC as his big stick.
((i)): "His cloaking it in claims of fighting racism, when contrasted with his bizarre hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty and double standards in critique and labeling, is hands-down the low point of IMC editorial action anywhere, anyhow."
I won't disagree with that. Especially when combined with a year-long crusade of defending the antisemitic Wendy Campbell, finding excuse after excuse to look away from her quite blatant antisemitism, and then flogging me for pointing that same blatant antisemitism out.
((i)): "a two-state solution with immediate Israeli withdrawal, knocking down the illegally placed wall, an end to all security and material assistance to the illeagel settlements, and a diversion of some of the hefty aid going to Israel and instaed using to help Palestinian rebuilding after the long conflict and violence."
A view I share -- and would have shared more on SF-IMC if I weren't constantly having to defend myself against nessie's insane charges that I was the one secretly planting antisemitic URLs in order to make SF-IMC look bad. There isn't much doubt now about who's making SF-IMC look bad.
((i)): "Yeah, I know, Nessie would consider me a horrendous racist for this view. I also, gasp, donate and volunteer labor to Peace Now. Clearly, Nessie's totalitarian and racist, dogmatic agenda-pushing via editorial control is well outside the scope of indymedia principles of unity, creating a truly extreme litmus test for participation in a collective and newswire, that involves others having to adopt Nessie's bizzare, unpopular among Palestinians, totalitarian, and racist in its peculiar exceptionalism and thinking policy and actions."
So the question is, is there anything that can be done about it, other than do what most people are doing, which is to be repelled by it? Or is SF-IMC the burden the IMC has to be willing to bear in order to keep from dissolving into factions?
((i)): "I've been involved in the IMC from the beginnings, in Seattle, and I think it's going to be a sad but significant chapter in our history that tells about how the vibrant, broad umbrella open media project trying to empower independent community media makers got hijacked by groups trying to use it not for its original vision and purpose, but just as tactic tool to advance their own agenda and beliefs, sickly comfortable with the fact that it meant destroying the character of the fantastic movement they were hijacking."
Maybe it's my midwestern roots coming through, but I'm a little more optimistic. I think that a clear case can be made that SF-IMC is in serious and systemic violation of core IMC principles. At some point, surely the larger IMC community as a whole must have some power to react.
@%< |
|
The newswire SF-IMC does not "champion free speech." |
by rene
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -4
06 Mar 2004
|
The newswire does not "champion free speech."
by one of the editors Friday January 30, 2004 at 09:55 AM
Don't confuse this place with usenet. Indymedia exists to provide an alternative to the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex. It's fans and lackeys like “Go To” have plenty of places to go read the lies and distortions that support their sick, evil beliefs and vile, despicable forces of darkness that benefit from them.
Speech is free. This website is not. It requires a great deal of time, energy, skills, talent, effort and money, just to exist at all. We who make the place possible refuse to allow our time, energy, skills, talent, effort and money to be hijacked by our enemies and used to provide a soapbox for them to use to promote their evil agendas. To do so would be for us to willingly submit to enslavement.
No, we wont do that.
These miscreants are lucky we let them appear here at all, let alone in a part of the site where the naive might mistake them for us. But do they even thank us? Do they put out the time, energy, skills, talent, effort and money it takes to produce a site of their own? Hardly. Instead, they whine like little children who can’t reach the cookie jar. When that doesn’t work, they throw tantrums. That’s the kind of people they are. |
|
Re: more ashcroftism from nessie |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
06 Mar 2004
|
Another Ashcroftian stump speech from nessie doing nothing more than providing eloquent apologia for his political censorship. If nessie would stop and listen, he'd discover that I'm not the enemy. But he'd rather perorate dogmatic grandiosities than provide any opening for a dialog that might endanger his catechism.
And in the sheer magnitude of his bloviation, he hopes to misdirect the readers of SF-IMC into believing that he's not in fundamental violation of the IMC open publishing policy.
Believe me, it's being noticed.
@%< |
|
Re: incidentally, rene |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
06 Mar 2004
|
I notice that nessie has called you a "racist" too. Join the club.
@%< |
|
Banning racism on Indymedia |
by pointer AKA DAN "Likes to Pretend He's Nessie" Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -5
10 Mar 2004
|
A response to Gehrig, to all Zionists and to racists in general.
Click here:
http://www.sfimc.net/news/2004/03/1683899.php |
|
Fair Enough? |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
10 Mar 2004
|
While nessie likes to swing the rather specious and unsupported charge of racism, based almost solely on his own personal evaluation and opinion rather than any substantive rational standard, I seriously doubt that he will allow gehrig the right of reply. It's pretty easy to win an argument when you're not going to give your opponent the opportunity to speak. I'm less than impressed with this "debate coach."
It's both sad and amusing that nessie wishes to use SF IMC as the standard by which to judge the rest of the Indymedia network. We all have our opinions, as IMC editors, in particular, and as IMCistas in general. Few of us are so pompous and delusional that we regard our own opinions as an exclusive yardstick for others to conduct their affairs by. nessie is apparently, and thankfully, one of the exceptions.
Despite his assertion to the contrary on the IMC US Process list, the timing of his banning of gehrig raised my suspicions from the beginning that he was going to use it to make a mountain out of a molehill in his spat with Indybay. If they didn't follow suit, it was going to be one more nail in the coffin he thinks he is is crafting against the majority of IMCista's in San Francisco. Obviously, he is now setting his sights on bigger game, thinking he will use any particular Indymedia site's failure to ban gehrig as proof that they somehow don't measure up. That's seriously delusional in my book, but we all realize by now that he uses his own special needs playbook in the game of life.
Whatever our personal opinion on the Israel/Palestine issue, most of us realize it is hardly the simplistic tautology that nessie reduces it to. For someone who has strayed about as far as possible from the IMC Principles of Unity, nessie's bogus charge against the majority of the Indymedia network is a uniquely egotistical and arrogant presumption.
It is particularly ironic to see nessie wringing his hands over the thought that someone might mistakenly see the Indymedia network as a place where "we are all Holocaust deniers" when his editorship has singlehandedly done more to create this false impression than the rest of the spammed postings from the same source that periodically afflict the rest of the network combined.
Finally, his seemingly knowing reference to the dangers of "black propaganda" takes the cake. He couldn't tell a piece of "roorback" if it hit him the face. We find and deal with much of the exact same crap that shows up on SF IMC, but he seems to think that a lot of it is legitimate posting, even when the patterns are so obvious they reek of the stench of false flag ops. One good example is the repeated spamming of his Newswire with gehrig's last SF IMC post. For most of us, its origin is easily identifiable as the thinnly disguised source that he is indifferent to and which originally drew gehrig's attention to SF IMC. This tactic is the same one used against many IMCs and against SF IMC before gehrig ever darkened their door. But nessie can't see this pig in a poke, because he prefers to see the "Zionist" behind it that the paranoid delusions that drive his thinking and prompt him to believe sees there.
BTW, I'm certain that nessie will still be allowed to speak his peace here, but I'm also certain he'll see no hypocrisy in doing so, while continuing with his banning of gehrig at SF IMC. I expect him to grant no right of reply to gehrig, because he has already stated he will not allow it. It's always a tough battle when you have to fight somebody with both hands tied behind their back, isn't it nessie?
On another matter...
Now crawl back in your hole, DAN, until you come out tonight to once again spam the SF IMC Newswire full of copies of gehrig's last post. Your jerking of nessie's chain has had its desired result, as he is once again fooled by your behavior into lashing out at the wrong target. He thinks it's a Zionist spamming his site, when it's only you, the Sacramento Cockroach. There's a definite stench about you and it's not just your pretense opf support for the Palestinian cause, counteracted by all the times you've been caught here playing the other side of the political street. No, the stench is COINTELPRO and it's all around you as you try to stir up division in Indymedia. nessie will just have to manage that based on his own hubris, without any help from you and your paymasters. |
|
Verbal Post Mortem |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Apr 2004
|
|
I couldn't overlook the irony in a spectacle where ML started not only by insisting on a semantic point (""Judea and Samaria" are not part of Israel. They're the Occupied Territories."), but also presupposed that I deemed Judea & Samaria as part of the State of Israel, and ultimately, after having been shown his errors and enlightened, proceeded to brand *me* - not himself - as someone who's pretty interested in semantics to the point where the truth takes back seat... being unaware that these decriptions applied to him more than to me. As Gehrig would say, my irony detector was off the scale. I don't know ML as well as gehrig knows him. I can only hope that he a least has been willing to learn from his mistakes and get his facts straight.
It's noteworthy that many anti-Zionists - from ML's politically driven type to the vilest anti-Semites - seem to be fond of using this "semantics" bit when their skewed view (or at least parts of it) of Middle East history and geography are corrected. One loathsome anti-Semite, "The Missing Link", who apparently answers to the name Url E. Bird, resorted to the same tool on SF-IMC and Indy-IMC. First note his post on Monday, Oct. 27, 2003 at 3:36 AM, then read this arrogant buffoon's post on Sunday, Nov. 02, 2003 at 10:56 PM (" don't waste my time with your semantics and pedantics"). http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/10/1653699_comment.php#1655620
On Barak's Camp David Palestinian statehood offer: ML is/was unaware that all the people who share his position on the matter are unintentionally implying that Dennis Ross is lying for having claimed that the Israeli negotiation team did offer Arafat a contiguous state on some 97% of the disputed territories, and that he's a liar, by extension. What interest does Mr. Ross have to lie? He wasn't crazy about Ehud Barak; his political leanings were -- to the extent that he favored anyone in the spectrum of Israeli Zionist parties -- toward Yossi Beilin who was far to Barak's Left. I don't see any reason to doubt Ross's integrity on this issue, and am deeply suspicious of the motives of every observer who has raised counter-claims.
While its true that had Arafat accepted the offer, Israel would have maintained control of external security matters of the newborn Palestinian state for 6 years (hardly forever), it's equally correct that no valid objective assertion can be made that Arafat was right to reject Barak's proposal, because pragmatic considerations would suggest that a leader should agree to proposals that would leave him/her at a better position than his/her departure point, however imperfect the offer or how small it might seem. ML should remember that David Ben-Gurion accepted the 1947 UN partition plan, and part of the Zionist leadership was willing to accept the 1937 Peele Commission's Partition proposal precisely because of pragmatic considerations. (Indeed, those Zionist leaders hoped to gain additional territory as time went by, but didn't make the realization of this hope the condition for their approval).
Barak's plan may not have been viable, but then no one else's plan was. Does ML really measure a plan's viability by the yardstick of how much it accommodates all Palestinian demands? If so, he's forgetting Israel has its own red lines which must be respected. Any plan that fails to take them into account is not viable. Most Israeli Jews' desire to keep their country one that prefers Jews for several reasons -- as opposed to having a multi-national country like the US or Canada, or letting Israel become yet another Arab state -- has been an insuperable obstacle for virtually all Palestinians and their supporters. I for one hope that at least ML can realize this point and reconsider his position on this one topic if he hasn't already.
I would like to end with an optimistic conclusion I have reached. I've noticed that fair-minded anti-Zionists (as well as non-Zionists) -- even in armpits like SF-IMC -- reconsider their outlook on the Arab-Israeli conflict, or at least back-pedal from previously long cherished misconceptions and disinformation upon being presented with reason-based counter arguments and irrefutable evidence that invalidate their initial beliefs and thoughts. They realize that not every point of view that is held by most people worldwide regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict is necessarily justified or evidence based. At times it is a tiny minority, or even a lone person, who has it right (not referring to myself). |
|
Verbal Post Mortem, take #2 |
by Critical Thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Apr 2004
|
(I used the HTML format above because I included a URL. But I couldn't get the post to upload correctly as I don't have a good command of posting different formats of comments to this site. Let me give this another try if this attempt fails too.)
I couldn't overlook the irony in a spectacle where ML started not only by insisting on a semantic point (""Judea and Samaria" are not part of Israel. They're the Occupied Territories."), but also presupposed that I deemed Judea & Samaria as part of the State of Israel, and ultimately, after having been shown his errors and enlightened, proceeded to brand *me* - not himself - as someone who's pretty interested in semantics to the point where the truth takes back seat... being unaware that these decriptions applied to him more than to me.
As Gehrig would say, my irony detector was off the scale. I don't know ML as well as gehrig knows him. I can only hope that he a least has been willing to learn from his mistakes and get his facts straight.
It's noteworthy that many anti-Zionists - from ML's politically driven type to the vilest anti-Semites - seem to be fond of using this "semantics" bit when their skewed view (or at least parts of it) of Middle East history and geography are corrected. One loathsome anti-Semite, "The Missing Link", who apparently answers to the name Url E. Bird, resorted to the same tool on SF-IMC and Indy-IMC. First note his post on Monday, Oct. 27, 2003 at 3:36 AM, then read this arrogant buffoon's post on Sunday, Nov. 02, 2003 at 10:56 PM (" don't waste my time with your semantics and pedantics"). http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/10/1653699_comment.php#1655620
On Barak's Camp David Palestinian statehood offer: ML is/was unaware that all the people who share his position on the matter are unintentionally implying that Dennis Ross is lying for having claimed that the Israeli negotiation team did offer Arafat a contiguous state on some 97% of the disputed territories, and that he's a liar, by extension. What interest does Mr. Ross have to lie? He wasn't crazy about Ehud Barak; his political leanings were -- to the extent that he favored anyone in the spectrum of Israeli Zionist parties -- toward Yossi Beilin who was far to Barak's Left. I don't see any reason to doubt Ross's integrity on this issue, and am deeply suspicious of the motives of every observer who has raised counter-claims.
While its true that had Arafat accepted the offer, Israel would have maintained control of external security matters of the newborn Palestinian state for 6 years (hardly forever), it's equally correct that no valid objective assertion can be made that Arafat was right to reject Barak's proposal, because pragmatic considerations would suggest that a leader should agree to proposals that would leave him/her at a better position than his/her departure point, however imperfect the offer or how small it might seem. ML should remember that David Ben-Gurion accepted the 1947 UN partition plan, and part of the Zionist leadership was willing to accept the 1937 Peele Commission's Partition proposal precisely because of pragmatic considerations. (Indeed, those Zionist leaders hoped to gain additional territory as time went by, but didn't make the realization of this hope the condition for their approval).
Barak's plan may not have been viable, but then no one else's plan was. Does ML really measure a plan's viability by the yardstick of how much it accommodates all Palestinian demands? If so, he's forgetting Israel has its own red lines which must be respected. Any plan that fails to take them into account is not viable. Most Israeli Jews' desire to keep their country one that prefers Jews for several reasons -- as opposed to having a multi-national country like the US or Canada, or letting Israel become yet another Arab state -- has been an insuperable obstacle for virtually all Palestinians and their supporters. I for one hope that at least ML can realize this point and reconsider his position on this one topic if he hasn't already.
I would like to end with an optimistic conclusion I have reached. I've noticed that fair-minded anti-Zionists (as well as non-Zionists) -- even in armpits like SF-IMC -- reconsider their outlook on the Arab-Israeli conflict, or at least back-pedal from previously long cherished misconceptions and disinformation upon being presented with reason-based counter arguments and irrefutable evidence that invalidate their initial beliefs and thoughts. They realize that not every point of view that is held by most people worldwide regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict is necessarily justified or evidence based. At times it is a tiny minority, or even a lone person, who has it right (not referring to myself). |
|
kdodaai@yahoo.com |
by kdodaai@yahoo.com
kdodaai (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Jun 2006
|
|
I'm surprised :). Lilly |
|
