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