Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:09:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
717 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Snippage, as usual.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > You are mixing tone and content. In any event, I was happy to have my tone
> > called "polemic":
> > http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=polemic*1+0
>
> Unsurprising that you would. (about as unsurprising to long time readers as
> that I would relish being called a braggart... L0L )
>
> I like the last definition (of a related word) in your cite (thanks for
> that, by the way, always nice to have a different source than good old
> dictionary.com)
>
> "Her polemical essays are rather naïve and simplistic."
>
> Sums up your posts nicely,
I am tempted to say the same about you, but I won't.
> although it should be noted that not all polemic
> rhetoric is simplistic. Tends to be, though.
>
>
> > > You've been called on this point before, you are quick to criticise some
> > > sides (who deserve criticism, in this case Israel) and reluctant to
> > > acknowledge that the UK had anything to do with the problem or that it has
> > > faults elsewhere or that the other sides in the same conflict (in this case
> > > the PLO) deserve criticism much much more.
>
> > That is because I am talking about now. You are talking about the past.
>
> What is the border between now and the past? Right NOW there is no terrorism
> going on anywhere in the world. It happened in the past. (2 seconds ago is
> the past, you know).
Hmm. Rather a simplistic argument.
>
> More germanely, isn't the UK partition of Palestine in the recent enough
> past to be the subject of criticism? If not, why not?
You are free to criticise what ever you wish. I am not going to put you in
jail for your political views.
>
> > ...and, for the record, I am no friend of the PLO either. But I certainly
> > blame them no more than I do Israel.
>
> And that shows your bias.
Nope, that shows my general ambivalence. But you are free to read into it
what you wish.
> Their tactics are far worse. Why are you biased in
> favor of a gang of armed terrorists and against a state your government created?
I am not.
>
> > The problem with the PLO is that they
> > have too little lobbying power ;-)
>
> No, that they have too many weapons and defective morals.
One could say the same about Israel... and your country, and no doubt my
own, armed them.
Have you got a point Larry, or are you just trying to annoy me?
Scott A
>
> c-Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) Yes, two of them. I made them already. But for your benefit, since you missed it: 1. You seem to be saying that Israel and the PLO are equally bad. This is incorrect. The PLO is far worse. To say that they are equal shows your bias. 2. The UK (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| Snippage, as usual. (...) that I would relish being called a braggart... L0L ) I like the last definition (of a related word) in your cite (thanks for that, by the way, always nice to have a different source than good old dictionary.com) "Her (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
197 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
