From: Mermaid . (britannica@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Aug 13 2002 - 13:16:17 MDT
[Jonathan Davis]You are the one who made the claim about me ( and Joe). I
invite you to support it.
[Mermaid]Is it really necessary? The evidence is all over the mailing list.
[Jonathan Davis]I have a massive range of readings and sources of
information. All that is relevant is the quality of the arguments I present
- nothing more.
[Mermaid]And the massive range of readings and sources of information have
not one word about the truly deplorable conditions of the homeless
Palestinians? It has nudged you to conclude that Palestinians are barbarians
and out of the two, Israelis are civilised? How wide is this massive range?
[Jonathan Davis]What I am, what my motives are irrelevant. My sources of
information are only relevant in the context of their relationship to a
claim or argument. You have said in essence "He is wrong because he only
reads one sided propaganda". I am telling you this is rubbish.
[Mermaid]I am not sure I get this right. It sounds like you are telling me
that you pick your sources to support your opinions? Do correct me if I got
that wrong.
[Mermaid]What I said is your reading material might be nothing more than
propaganda because of why and how and by whom Arabic sources are translated.
>From these translations comes a slew of articles that support the alleged
skewed bias of MEMRI.
[Jonathan Davis]That is of course is a speculation, again something you
cannot know so you choose to claim.
[Mermaid]I cannot claim that you and Joe Dees are not idiots and that you
guys might see something in a different light if you chose to explore the
sources???..:)
[Jonathan Davis]I claim that you are received all your information in a
digest from Hermit. See, no need for evidence. It just IS.
[Mermaid]You can. But not bloody likely.
[Hermit]To assert that Joe and I uncritically absorb the opinions of the
organs we read and that those organs are biased and one sided is
unsupported.
[Mermaid]There are two statements here. One is an alleged accusation about
Joe Dees and your reading habits. The other is an assertion that the sources
are biased and one sided. I dont know how you got that. In essence, what I
said was meant to ring to you as ...look jonathan and dees, there is an
article that is curious about MEMRI's motivations. information incest is not
uncommon in the journalistic world. if the very source is biased, all the
news that is based on certain translations will be biased too....
So I asked you...in not so many words...jonathan and dees, would you care to
read the article and tell me if you are sure your information is not biased?
Afterall, MEMRI is headed by the same interests that cherish characters like
Daniel Pipes. Richard Pearle is also a noted neo-con. It doesnt take much
for curiosity to peak. The knee jerk reaction on your part is mostly
self-defense for an accusation that was not uttered.
[Jonathan Davis]In fact, it borders on a deliberate falsehood. Can you
provide reasons for this accusation? Evidence?
[Mermaid]I cannot because no such accusation was made. Your critical enquiry
might have no standing if the very core source translations was nothing more
than propaganda which you cannot investigate.(unless you live in an
Arab/Moslem country and speak the language) You didnt know about it before.
Now you do. Would you care to investigate it? Or would you still maintain
that your sources are immaculate?
[Mermaid]And how exactly do you absorb your database of news and information
uncritically? Do tell us. It will be most useful during times of confusion
and propaganda. I hope that when I make a judgement I do not unwittingly
play into the hands of those with questionable motives. I cannot always be
sure, tho. What about you, Jonathan Davis? How are you sure your information
is without bias? I have asked myself this question again and again and again
after a very interesting exchange with Ben.(Thank you, ben) and I have come
to the conclusion that there is no such thing as an unbiased source of
information although there is such a thing as fact and there is another
called 'opinion'. How do you judge? Do you give more importance to fact or
to opinions?
[Jonathan Davis]No it is not. It is a claim that 1. We uncritically accept
information frombiased sources and 2. propagate them. This is false and
insulting. It is a classic ad hominem. "You are wrong because you reads the
Daily Worker". Do I really need to be explaining this to anyone?
[Mermaid]Based upon the what has been quoted by both of you, I have come to
the conclusion that those articles might be based on biased sources. That is
what the Guardian link I posted attempts to uncover. What that article means
is nothing more than a seed. A seed of doubt. Worth a lot of thought. It has
nothing to do with either of you. But it was specifically directed to both
of you so that you might inspect what you read before you accept it because
there seems to be evidence that it might have a political agenda. And yes,
you do attempt propagate the information that supports your point of view.
And its alright.
[Jonathan Davis]I don't know about your motives. All I do know is that I
your comments defame even if they are not an obvious calumny. Just to be
clear I do not mean defame in any legal sense of a tort. I mean it in the
sense that your derogation attempts to unfairly damage my reputation (he
only reads propaganda) so that you might neutralizing my influence and
damage my credibility.
[Mermaid]Ok. I dont know how many more paragraphs I have to read of your
self defense. It is unfortuante that you choose to believe that its
defamatory even when the message was very clear. Even if it was not clear, I
attempted to spell it out in the mail following your knee jerk reaction to
my first comment. It was never about you. It was about MEMRI and it was for
yours and Joe Dees attention. There is no point in drawing the attention to
those who already ignore Daniel Pipes and other Islamophobes's rants, is
there? You are the capitivated audience. You might have a million reasons to
believe what you do. But there might be just one reason why your belief is
just wrong. And you might not even know that it exists. Read the article. Or
dont. It's your choice. Unless, you have anything to discuss about MEMRI, I
have no intention of entertaining you or debating other irrelevant issues
you might have about my alleged accusations.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:53 MDT