Clarkson pie-eyed

[Peter Clinch]

Antony Gelberg wrote:

> Comparing Scotland and Holland is not quite the same as comparing Gaza
> and Egypt, or the West Bank and Jordan.

Indeed, it's a *much* nicer place by my terms of reference. Yet still
I'd rather stay at home than be welcomed to live there.

> They weren't forced out. I already explained that. They were actually
> encouraged to stay and help build the land.

Oh, so that's all right then, being ruled by someone who they don't want
to be ruled by, living in a country they don't want to be part of, that
happens to take up the same land as their homes?

> The vast majority chose to
> leave, believing that the Israelis would be anihilated.

So who are all those people trying to live there who aren't Israelis,
and don't want to be?

> What country? Before the Six Day War, there was no question or concept
> of a Palestinian state.

There was a Palestinian state a /long/ time before the 6 day war. Time
to take your blinkers off.

> Everybody should understand how things came to be, because it is only
> when we understand that, that we know who we are.

But one should not assume that the way things came to be excuses the way
the things are.

> You can't have the penny and the bun.

And you've decided that a large number of people can't have either.
That's nice.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Colin Blackburn]

David Nutter wrote:
[...]
> Alas, you then put that control into the hands of a moron behind a keyboard,
> several months ago.
>
> *scuttles away to hide from mob of angry software engineers*

As a software engineer I always blame the customer. They wrote the
requirements.

Colin

 

[Peter Clinch]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> There was a Palestinian state a /long/ time before the 6 day war. Time
> to take your blinkers off.

Oh, and before you split hairs saying there was never a state known as
Palestine, what there /was/ were Canaanite autonomous city states where
the long-term local inhabitants looked after their own affairs rather
than having rule imposed on them by external governments.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Antony Gelberg]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Antony Gelberg wrote:
>
>> Comparing Scotland and Holland is not quite the same as comparing Gaza
>> and Egypt, or the West Bank and Jordan.
>
> Indeed, it's a *much* nicer place by my terms of reference. Yet still
> I'd rather stay at home than be welcomed to live there.
>
>> They weren't forced out. I already explained that. They were
>> actually encouraged to stay and help build the land.
>
> Oh, so that's all right then, being ruled by someone who they don't want
> to be ruled by, living in a country they don't want to be part of, that
> happens to take up the same land as their homes?
>
>> The vast majority chose to leave, believing that the Israelis would be
>> anihilated.
>
> So who are all those people trying to live there who aren't Israelis,
> and don't want to be?
>
>> What country? Before the Six Day War, there was no question or
>> concept of a Palestinian state.
>
> There was a Palestinian state a /long/ time before the 6 day war. Time
> to take your blinkers off.

No there wasn't. It would be nice if you could provide a citation.
Tell me more. When was it founded? Who were it's leaders before Yasser
Arafat (name me one in all that long time)? What sort of government did
it have? What did it's flag look like? What was it's economy based on?
What else can you tell me about it?

Furthermore, please don't insult me by accusing me of wearing blinkers.

>> Everybody should understand how things came to be, because it is only
>> when we understand that, that we know who we are.
>
> But one should not assume that the way things came to be excuses the way
> the things are.
>
>> You can't have the penny and the bun.
>
> And you've decided that a large number of people can't have either.
> That's nice.

I haven't decided anything of the sort.

Why do British liberals with no obvious connection care so much anyway?
They don't appear to care as much about other conflict around the
globe. Why don't they focus on the issues destroying quality of life in
their own country? And yet, they complain about America sticking it's
nose outside it's borders.

 

[Antony Gelberg]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> There was a Palestinian state a /long/ time before the 6 day war.
>> Time to take your blinkers off.
>
>
> Oh, and before you split hairs saying there was never a state known as
> Palestine, what there /was/ were Canaanite autonomous city states where
> the long-term local inhabitants looked after their own affairs rather
> than having rule imposed on them by external governments.

Why should I not split hairs? Life is nothing if not details. And it's
ironic coming from somebody who previously made a point of answering my
post in inline fashion, so as to sure that no detail was overlooked.

It is even more important to get the details correct in such a
complicated situation.

Anyway, we both seem to agree that there was never a Palestinian state.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Antony Gelberg wrote:

> Why should I not split hairs?

Because it isn't helpful.

> It is even more important to get the details correct in such a
> complicated situation.

Well, it certainly helps you to ignore the bigger picture.

> Anyway, we both seem to agree that there was never a Palestinian state.

But you've missed the bigger picture that there are more useful things
to look at than your particular definition of "state". In particular,
are the people who've been there a long time in charge of their own
destinies to any degree.

The aboriginal inhabitants of Australia never had a formal state,
especially as many of them regard ownership of land to be a ridiculous
concept. So I guess it was okay for European settlers to impose a state
on them. That's nice.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Antony Gelberg wrote:

> No there wasn't. It would be nice if you could provide a citation. Tell
> me more. When was it founded? Who were it's leaders before Yasser
> Arafat (name me one in all that long time)? What sort of government did
> it have? What did it's flag look like? What was it's economy based on?
> What else can you tell me about it?

It was formed of Canaanite autonomous city states like Jericho, rather
than being a monolithic entity, Canaanites being the local people of the
time. The economy would have been primarily agricultural, this being
4000 BC or so. Don't know the exact government type, but the important
point is it doesn't appear to have been imposed by an external authority
by force.

> Furthermore, please don't insult me by accusing me of wearing blinkers.

I'm not insulting you, I'm noticing your blinkers and pointing them out
to you. You probably can't see them too well, what with the blinkers.

> Why do British liberals with no obvious connection care so much anyway?

Why shouldn't I?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Antony Gelberg]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Antony Gelberg wrote:
>
>> No there wasn't. It would be nice if you could provide a citation.
>> Tell me more. When was it founded? Who were it's leaders before
>> Yasser Arafat (name me one in all that long time)? What sort of
>> government did it have? What did it's flag look like? What was it's
>> economy based on? What else can you tell me about it?
>
>
> It was formed of Canaanite autonomous city states like Jericho, rather
> than being a monolithic entity, Canaanites being the local people of the
> time. The economy would have been primarily agricultural, this being
> 4000 BC or so. Don't know the exact government type, but the important
> point is it doesn't appear to have been imposed by an external authority
> by force.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the vagueness of the response.

>> Furthermore, please don't insult me by accusing me of wearing blinkers.
>
>
> I'm not insulting you, I'm noticing your blinkers and pointing them out
> to you. You probably can't see them too well, what with the blinkers.

I think it is insulting to insinuate that I have blinkers, viz can't see
certain things.

>> Why do British liberals with no obvious connection care so much anyway?
>
>
> Why shouldn't I?

I was always taught never to answer a question with a question. I'm not
saying that you shouldn't care, but I was asking why some people _do_
care. There were some good reasons I gave that you snipped.

We are so far off-topic, perhaps we should take it to email? I know
that nobody is complaining but I feel a little uncomfortable. Or we
could just stop altogether as I feel that it's not really much of a
dialogue, more point-scoring now.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Antony Gelberg wrote:

> I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the vagueness of the response.

You're splitting hairs is what it boils down to, citing no firm state
(by current definitions of statehood) in the past to infer some vague
justification for there not being one now, just as you cited historical
injustices from neighbouring nations (which I certainly don't deny
happened, btw) to vaguely infer excuses for inexcusable behaviour in the
other direction.

> I think it is insulting to insinuate that I have blinkers, viz can't see
> certain things.

I don't regard calling a spade a spade as being insulting if it's a
spade we're talking about. You have evidently refused to see the
situation in any more than one manner, which strikes me as not seeing
certain things. Whether deliberately or not, it's not seeing things,
which looks to me like blinkered vision.

> I was always taught never to answer a question with a question. I'm not
> saying that you shouldn't care, but I was asking why some people _do_
> care. There were some good reasons I gave that you snipped.

"Because we do" is all the reason we need.

> We are so far off-topic, perhaps we should take it to email?

If you like.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Bertie Wiggins]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:36:16 +0100, The Nottingham Duck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Huntley is alleged to have lured 2 children to their deaths
>>
>>I don't believe that to be true.
>
>Do you know what happened because you were there ?

I was careful in my wording to express an opinion rather than a
statement of fact. I know few facts, but I did follow press reports
of the investigation and trial.

>>It would appear that the two children *approached* Ian Huntley to pet
>>his dog and to ask after their classroom assistant. Huntley used this
>>approach to fulfill his perverted desires.
>>
>Why are you defending Huntley ?

I am not defending him. I am simply making a point that the culprit
was not a stranger to his victims and did not *lure* them (in my eyes
it makes it even *more* of a crime that he was someone they thought
they could trust). The way children are taught to be wary of
strangers is probably indicative of society's way of not wanting to
believe the real danger - friends and relatives.

 

[Antony Gelberg]

The Nottingham Duck wrote:

> Ha Ha Ha, admission of defeat !

Only a troll would be talking about defeat. I didn't know there was a
battle.

 

[Bertie Wiggins]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:07:23 +0100, Tony B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Bertie Wiggins wrote:
>
>> A child's parents are its biggest risk by some considerable margin.
>
>Really? I'd have thought motor vehicles were the biggest risk. Must do some digging...

Make sure you investigate who is most likely to be the driver of the
motor vehicle.

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:23:47 +0100, Antony Gelberg
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The Nottingham Duck wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:35:36 +0100, Antony Gelberg
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>
>>>>I submit that on or about Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:05:49 +0100, the person
>>>>known to the court as The Nottingham Duck
>>>><[email protected]> made a statement
>>>>(<[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle)
>>>>to the following effect:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>After all,we don't view Israel as a terror state,despite the hundreds
>>>>>of British servicemen murdered by Zionists-because of the context in
>>>>>which they were slaughtered .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't you? I do. One of the questions I asked some of the neocons re
>>>>Iraq was, given that the reason[1] given for the /Wa/ was flouting of
>>>>UN resolutions, when will they be invading Israel?
>>>
>>>Would love to see how you'd react if the Welsh wanted to drive you into
>>>the sea. Pretty easy to sit here on your high horse.
>>
>>
>> It is interesting that you appear to be leaping to the defence of
>> Isreali terrorists,despite their crimes,presumably because of your
>> shared-faith.
>
>My faith is neither here nor there, but it is interesting that you
>regard my opinion as a leap, based on my faith. Does this mean that you
>disregard opinions
>
>> Would it be fair to compare you to British Muslims who automatically
>> leap to the defence of Muslim terrorists,just because they share the
>> same religion ?
>
>It's up to every individual to decide what is fair, in his own heart.
>
>By the way, that was the worst troll ever, and I can't believe I
>responded.



Ha Ha Ha, admission of defeat !

Whenever someones's lost an argument,or refuses to be drawn on points
they can't defend just cry " troll ! " and try to subvert the
argument to a point you feel you can regain credibility with.


>It is easy to sit thousands of miles away and make ill-informed comments
>based on what you read in a narrow section of the media, most likely the
>BBC, Independent and Guardian.
>
Do you live in Israel ?
Do you live in a Palestinian refugee camp ?
Where are you getting your information from ?

>Many hold the BBC in the highest esteem, and their website is _very_
>nice, I must admit, but I see no reason why they are any more impartial
>than any other organisation. In fact, their reputation makes it
>extremely easy to output whatever tripe they want and be trusted.
>
What tripe ?

Please provide examples,if you can.

>It's getting to the point where Private Eye is the most interesting and
>accurate news source in the country. A rather sad state of affairs.
>But perhaps we get what we deserve, for our apathy.
>
I ask,with all due respect,if you were born in another country and
moved here recently.
You're puzzling description of impartial internationally respected
media institutions tends to suggest that your knowledge of the British
news media is lacking miniscule.

>(I realise that this is OT, so please let me know if this is becoming
>tedious. I don't want to annoy anybody.)

Once again, an admission of defeat. "Oh,I'm bored with this rubbish -
your not worth replying to"

And you still haven't answered the point I put to you.

>> Would it be fair to compare you to British Muslims who automatically
>> leap to the defence of Muslim terrorists,just because they share the
>> same religion ?

 

[Mark Thompson]

> So you couldn't comment on whether the Commander-In-Chief of the
> British Armed Forces is responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children
> killed by R.A.F. bombs ?

The Queen is responsible?

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:26:16 +0100, Antony Gelberg
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Antony Gelberg wrote:
>
>> My faith is neither here nor there, but it is interesting that you
>> regard my opinion as a leap, based on my faith. Does this mean that you
>> disregard opinions
>
>Oops, didn't finish. Should have read:
>
>My faith is neither here nor there,

Actually it is.Re-read the question I put to you -

>> Would it be fair to compare you to British Muslims who automatically
>> leap to the defence of Muslim terrorists,just because they share the
>> same religion ?

>but it is interesting that you
>regard my opinion as a leap, based on my faith. Does this mean that you
>disregard opinions based on the faith of the opinion-holder?

On the contrary,but when you fiercely defend Zionist terrorism against
British servicemen in a British newsgroup,it would tend to suggest
that you aren't exactly 'batting for the home team'.

Perhaps a better response would have been to say "I denounce all acts
of violence,whatever the context" and leave it at that.
But for some reason you object to people bringing up Israel's shameful
past.

This logically infers that you have Zionist sympathies,and that your
faith would reflect that.

If you could publicly denounce the cimes of Ben Gurion ,et al then you
wouldn't come across as a narrow-minded bigot,and lose arguments so
spectacularly.

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:38:52 +0100, Tony B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The Nottingham Duck wrote:
>
>> Wow,it must be Tony Blair himself !
>
>Sorry to disappoint...
>
>> because he was protecting us from 'Sadam's 45
>> minute nukes' - so its alright to kill Iraqi kids.
>
>Except they never existed - lots of agencies and very qualified-to-comment people (Scott Ritter for one) were trying to counter the tidal weave of misinformation, but were barely heard over the corporate media howling.
>
>> The idiots of this country even voted the pig-dog back in to Downing
>> St. in May
>
>Yes, sadly - although more people wanted him out than wanted him in.
>
>> So I would assume from that level of support that he is not viewed as a child-murdering c*nt.
>
>That prolly depends on who you ask. He is also a c*unt on various other counts.
>
>> And his wife represents Paedophiles on a regular basis.
>
>Someone has to, or else whither justice???

>
>Tony B

So your reply was a bit pointless then.

 

[Dave Larrington]

Also sprach The Nottingham Duck <[email protected]>:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:24:56 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Also sprach The Nottingham Duck <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> e.g. Ian Huntley was convicted of killing 2 children.He is evil.
>>>
>>> Tony Blair is responsible for the deaths of Iragi children living
>>> near Sadam's palaces and suspected bunkers.However,he is not evil.
>>
>> /You/ might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
>
> So you couldn't comment on whether the Commander-In-Chief of the
> British Armed Forces is responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children
> killed by R.A.F. bombs ?
>
> What a strange person.

Perhaps if you spent a little more time in pursuit of what our Colonial
Cousins quaintly call "Book-learning", you might recognise the above as
Francis Urquhart's "mantra of hypocrisy" in "House Of Cards" by Michael
Dobbs.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
It would appear apparent, to me at least, that dinosaurs were largely
burrowing creatures.

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:24:56 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Also sprach The Nottingham Duck <[email protected]>:
>
>> e.g. Ian Huntley was convicted of killing 2 children.He is evil.
>>
>> Tony Blair is responsible for the deaths of Iragi children living near
>> Sadam's palaces and suspected bunkers.However,he is not evil.
>
>/You/ might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

So you couldn't comment on whether the Commander-In-Chief of the
British Armed Forces is responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children
killed by R.A.F. bombs ?

What a strange person.

 

[Antony Gelberg]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Antony Gelberg wrote:
>
>> I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the vagueness of the response.
>
>
> You're splitting hairs is what it boils down to, citing no firm state
> (by current definitions of statehood) in the past to infer some vague
> justification for there not being one now,

No, you said that there was a state years ago, I questioned that and
asked some fairly standard questions about it, the answers to which
weren't that clear to me. I repeat, one man's splitting hairs is
another man's crucial point.

> just as you cited historical
> injustices from neighbouring nations (which I certainly don't deny
> happened, btw) to vaguely infer excuses for inexcusable behaviour in the
> other direction.
>
>> I think it is insulting to insinuate that I have blinkers, viz can't
>> see certain things.
>
> I don't regard calling a spade a spade as being insulting if it's a
> spade we're talking about. You have evidently refused to see the
> situation in any more than one manner, which strikes me as not seeing
> certain things. Whether deliberately or not, it's not seeing things,
> which looks to me like blinkered vision.

Evidently? Where's your evidence? I don't feel the need to call you
blinkered because you disagree with me. I can see what you are saying
even if I don't agree with it.

I try to take a balanced view which is more than I hear most people
admit to. For the record, a Palestinian state is a good idea iff it
means that the two can live side by side in peace. If it's just the
thin edge of the wedge, then it seems pointless to me.

I would be very interested to know what you think Israel should do at
this juncture. Even more so, would what you do if you were the Israeli
PM? How would you write the history books?

>> I was always taught never to answer a question with a question. I'm
>> not saying that you shouldn't care, but I was asking why some people
>> _do_ care. There were some good reasons I gave that you snipped.
>
>
> "Because we do" is all the reason we need.

"Because we do" isn't even a reason. Granted, you don't need a reason,
but you must have one. You don't have to tell me what it is, but you
must have one. For everything that I care about, from 70s prog rock to
the state of British society, I can tell you why. In fact, caring about
something is defined only by the reason. The exception, perhaps, is love.

>> We are so far off-topic, perhaps we should take it to email?
>
> If you like.

Ok, we'll do that if urc complains. But I'm quite enjoying this, whilst
it stays civil and it would be interesting to see what others have to
say. I got no response to one post this morning, regarding the
inequality between the leadership and the people, and the vanishing of
the aid. Why is nobody interested in harping on about _that_
inequality? What about Camp David, where Israel offered the
Palestinians all that they wanted except the right of return, and it was
rejected? Was that a decision in the best interests of the Palestinian
people? Surely you can understand that they didn't want to sign their
own death warrant?

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On 16 Sep 2005 07:58:23 GMT, Nobody Here <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The Nottingham Duck <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:35:19 +0100, Bertie Wiggins
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:35:56 +0100, The Nottingham Duck
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Huntley is alleged to have lured 2 children to their deaths
>>>
>>>I don't believe that to be true.
>>
>> Do you know what happened because you were there ?
>>
>> Are you a member of the Cambridgeshire Constabulary masonic paedophile
>> ring alleged to be the true culprits ?
>>
>>>It would appear that the two children *approached* Ian Huntley to pet
>>>his dog and to ask after their classroom assistant. Huntley used this
>>>approach to fulfill his perverted desires.
>>>
>> Why are you defending Huntley ?
>>
>> Do you believe that the 'little minxes' deserved their fate ?
>>
>> What kind of sad ******* are you to throw this twisted ******** into a
>> debate ???
>
>D'y'know I was reading some of your other posts and more and more
>I've been gettingthe feeling that you're a little lacking in the
>conprehension stakes. This one confirms it.

Then why come in at this point and not the more difficult ones ?
Perhaps the subject of 'nonces' is the only one you feel qualified to
address,no doubt thanks to your subscription to The Sun or some other
tabloid 'Pavlov'.

>
>The clearly obvious point that he was making was not that he was
>defending Huntley at all,

Then why does he object to the claim that Huntley "lured" the 2 girls
to their deaths ?
You must be as mentally-challenged as him.Why would anyone want to
dive in to a discussion about 'hate-crimes' with some half-arsed
paedophile conspiracy nonsense.

Once again,a basic lack of dictionaries has led to a number of posters
here embarassing themselves.
Perhaps you could find a dictionary and see its definition.

Luring does not necessarily equate to force or subterfuge.Consent of
the 'luree' is not an issue.
The only person who has claimed that the Holly and Jessica wanted to
use the bathroom is Huntley himself.

Do you believe a serial sex-offender ?


>but that like in many of these cases
>the children were killed by someone they knew and trusted. He
>didn't have to lure them anywhere, they apparently went willingly.
>Very few children are killed or abused by strangers, most of that
>sort of crime is at the hnads of family members, and there is
>no "luring" involved.
>
>I assume he knew that because he took some notice of what was said
>at the time. Something you might think about doing.

You are probably a decent bloke,I couldn't say,but to
leap to the defence of a poster who posts such crass and insensitive
nonsense betrays your character.

The fact that you can't grasp cogent argument also tends to suggest
some form of intellectual impairment

Would you like to throw in something about Sidney Cook at this point ?