Mail Condemns Guantanamo Abuses



OK : I am going to cede to Eoin C, JH and CR in this instance.

My better judgement tells me that I shouldn't but it appears that there is a strong feeling that by removing Carerra this would be regarded as censorship.

In this instance I am prepared to give way.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
Censorship is not the answer. The soapbox exists for a free exchange of ideas. Whether they are factual are not is irrelevant. If they are not factual, that is where Darkboong and yourself come in. You can expose him to be what you say he is.

If we are going to ban people because of false and insinuating and unprovable postings, then we need look no further than Wurm. He has stated that Bush was complicite in 9/11. He has re-hashed a pipeline theory that has been going around since the 1970's. But I don't see anyone asking him to mend his ways. Fair is fair. Lets hold the same standard for Carrera to all other posters.
I don't think that any person is advocating censorship in totality. Ideas are figments or fragments and are free and open. DB, Lim, and I will take him to to task persistently on his ideas. The problem with Careera is that he fabricates scenarios and statements from us that were never posted in any way, shape , or form. This is done to make out to a forgetful audience that he is right ,and we are wrong. The reason for this is that he has never been able to substantiate a solid defence.
Well you lot sort out Noo York Wurm. I'm stayin with my Hillbilly Rednecks.
 
limerickman said:
Bu he has been exposed and yet he continues to post what is factually incorrect.
That is his right. Like EOINC said you can reply or ignore him.

limerickman said:
In fairness to Wurm, he backed up his allegations about Bush by referring and linking the US SENATE COMMISSION REPORT ON 9/11.
How can I be expected to ask Wurm to mend that accusation when he quotes a report from YOUR OWN COUNTRY'S LEGISLATURE?
The report stated shortcomings that if they were addressed perhaps the plot would have been averted. No where in the 9/11 Commission report does it state that Bush was COMPLICITE in 9/11. How can I expect you to say anything when you believe the same as Wurm?

limerickman said:
Did anyone show where Wurm may have lied?
No.
No one had to show where he was lying. I have no problem letting the village idiot rave on.

limerickman said:
Fair is fair.
You were perfectly content to let Wurm call other posters names until someone finally had to ask you to do your job.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
That is his right. .

Hold on a second - it's not his right.

No one has any right to publish blatant lies and dress them up as fact.


Colorado Ryder said:
The report stated shortcomings that if they were addressed perhaps the plot would have been averted. No where in the 9/11 Commission report does it state that Bush was COMPLICITE in 9/11. How can I expect you to say anything when you believe the same as Wurm?

The commission report appropriated blame to the organs of the US goverment.

Colorado Ryder said:
No one had to show where he was lying. I have no problem letting the village idiot rave on.

You were unable to rebutt Wurms evidence :

But because people manage to rebutt Carerra's evidence, you claim that he is
entitled to repeat lies ad nauseum!

You're a joke.


Colorado Ryder said:
You were perfectly content to let Wurm call other posters names until someone finally had to ask you to do your job.

If Wurm has called you a name - you tell me.
I told you last week that if you had a problem with a post to contact me,
didn't I?

Remember when you asked me to look at another post on your behalf, by private mail, last week?
Or do I need to publish the message that you sent to me last week so as to prove to everyone else here that I acted when you asked me to do so.

And by the way - what was the last sentence in my reply to you last week?
Oh yeah, I told you that i cannot be aware of the content of every single post throughout the site and that I am largely dependent upon members to tell me if there is something which may cause offence.

Remember??

Now if you don't like the way I do my job - you can leave here.
Otherwise, you just have to live with it.
 
FredC said:
I don't think that any person is advocating censorship in totality. Ideas are figments or fragments and are free and open. DB, Lim, and I will take him to to task persistently on his ideas. The problem with Careera is that he fabricates scenarios and statements from us that were never posted in any way, shape , or form. This is done to make out to a forgetful audience that he is right ,and we are wrong. The reason for this is that he has never been able to substantiate a solid defence.
Well you lot sort out Noo York Wurm. I'm stayin with my Hillbilly Rednecks.

Come on down to the hoe down here in them hills. We-uns will drank some shine and **** on the "Bug whacker" jest for thrills.
Your welcome here in the Smokies anytime FC.
 
Let's be fair, though. I'm not above admitting to mistakes when I make them and, sure, I know I have overstepped the mark occasionally - more through haste and carlessness I might add. And we're all guilty of that on occasions.
Seeing as this is a bloody rant part of the site, that's what I tend to do - let off steam. There are even times I might say something when in a pissy mood and then think, "Oops, maybe I came on a bit too strong or maybe I opened myself up to seeming a bit extreme."
The problem is, some of these political debates wind me up and next thing I know I'm ranting. ;)



FredC said:
I don't think that any person is advocating censorship in totality. Ideas are figments or fragments and are free and open. DB, Lim, and I will take him to to task persistently on his ideas. The problem with Careera is that he fabricates scenarios and statements from us that were never posted in any way, shape , or form. This is done to make out to a forgetful audience that he is right ,and we are wrong. The reason for this is that he has never been able to substantiate a solid defence.
Well you lot sort out Noo York Wurm. I'm stayin with my Hillbilly Rednecks.
 
Incidentally, I'm planning to go hunting with **** Cheney in Spring as part of a health and safety shooting course. :)
 
That's why writing for a publication is different - there is more time. Generally I do my first text on the P.C. and then switch everything off and take a break. After that, I re-read my text. At that point, I make alterations, check everything out and try and make sure my points are clear and not open to misinterpretation.
After that, it goes out to be published and appears in the paper 9 times out of 10.


Carrera said:
Let's be fair, though. I'm not above admitting to mistakes when I make them and, sure, I know I have overstepped the mark occasionally - more through haste and carlessness I might add. And we're all guilty of that on occasions.
Seeing as this is a bloody rant part of the site, that's what I tend to do - let off steam. There are even times I might say something when in a pissy mood and then think, "Oops, maybe I came on a bit too strong or maybe I opened myself up to seeming a bit extreme."
The problem is, some of these political debates wind me up and next thing I know I'm ranting. ;)
 
Carrera said:
Incidentally, I'm planning to go hunting with **** Cheney in Spring as part of a health and safety shooting course. :)
Wear body armour and a helmet.
It would be safer to take him on a canal cruise.
:)
 
EoinC said:
Fred,
When Carrera (or anyone else) accuses you of making statements that you haven't made and doesn't accept your challenge to provide proof, we all take it that the accusation is false. If the accuser apologises specifically for their error, they may grow a little in our eyes. If they ignore or evade, they may shrink.
We're playing a game of backyard footy here. Even though Lim has an umpire's ticket, we should still be able to play without him bringing a whistle and a set of coloured cards.
Agree.
We are all adults and can decide for ourselves the truth or falsity of anything posted here.
 
jhuskey said:
Come on down to the hoe down here in them hills. We-uns will drank some shine and **** on the "Bug whacker" jest for thrills.
Your welcome here in the Smokies anytime FC.
A thank y' kindly for the renewed offer, it's always on my mind with great gratitute from you boys, and there it must rest. I'd love to go learning your land and hunting it, but helas, it's not a dream, it's an invitation.
Anyway Careera couldn't hit a cows ass with a banjo.
There are no locks on the doors, only dogs to stop people to pissing in the well.
 
Carrera said:
Let's be fair, though. I'm not above admitting to mistakes when I make them and, sure, I know I have overstepped the mark occasionally - more through haste and carlessness I might add. And we're all guilty of that on occasions.
Seeing as this is a bloody rant part of the site, that's what I tend to do - let off steam. There are even times I might say something when in a pissy mood and then think, "Oops, maybe I came on a bit too strong or maybe I opened myself up to seeming a bit extreme."
The problem is, some of these political debates wind me up and next thing I know I'm ranting. ;)
You have been asked time and time to retract factual fabrications. Now you make an excuse of an unconsidered 'rant' for your postings. You have never been known to retract a 'rant' no matter what the subject or topic. This type of intellectual mediocrity from your postings indicates a lack of reality.
 
Not quite. I admitted to a slip over the policewoman shooting when I referred to some Somalians who had been arrested as moslems (meaning from an Islamic country). The meaning was meant to convey the sense they were foreigners not that moslems are criminals.
If some people from Somalia had been arrested in the U.K. my assumption at the time was they would probably have been moslems (from an Islamic country) but the mistake on my part was to give the idea all moslems get involved in crime - not the idea I wished to convey. So, I admit I made a mistake and will go so far as to apologise for that mistake and retract what I said.
It's also an easy slip to talk about a struggle against Islam as opposed to the correct terminology "a struggle against extremist Islam" - which is totally different.
But having said all that, I have at least admitted to a mistake I made - nobody else has so far as I can recall. How about all those statements made, "Jews do this", or "Jews cause problems wherever they go!"? Which Jews? All of them, some of them or throughout history?
I'm not Jewish myself but how many Jewish cyclists could there be on the forum who feel very offended over such generalisations that would link Donald Rumsfeld, for example, with Albert Einstein and Heather Mills Mcartney who's devoted to animal welfare and opposes the trade in fur.





FredC said:
You have been asked time and time to retract factual fabrications. Now you make an excuse of an unconsidered 'rant' for your postings. You have never been known to retract a 'rant' no matter what the subject or topic. This type of intellectual mediocrity from your postings indicates a lack of reality.
 
Overall, you have to weight the successes against the slips. Like everyone I make slips but let's not forget the successes. I scored a lot of good points in the debate over Israel and even re-addressed Fred's point about Aramaic on the Classics Forum where we have some pretty clued-up researchers and archeologists as well as students from all over the globe.
Myself and Michael Grant were correct about the Aramaic question. One of the females dated Aramaic around 800 B.C. whereas I have it around 900 B.C. (but only spoken outside Israel).
We all agreed it didn't come to Israel somewhere around 400 B.C. when it became the main spoken language and brought about a few changes in the original Hebrew script.
I can't see Fred ever confessing he got it wrong on that point.

stevebaby said:
Agree.
We are all adults and can decide for ourselves the truth or falsity of anything posted here.
 
Carrera said:
Overall, you have to weight the successes against the slips. Like everyone I make slips but let's not forget the successes. I scored a lot of good points in the debate over Israel and even re-addressed Fred's point about Aramaic on the Classics Forum where we have some pretty clued-up researchers and archeologists as well as students from all over the globe.
Myself and Michael Grant were correct about the Aramaic question. One of the females dated Aramaic around 800 B.C. whereas I have it around 900 B.C. (but only spoken outside Israel).
We all agreed it didn't come to Israel somewhere around 400 B.C. when it became the main spoken language and brought about a few changes in the original Hebrew script.
I can't see Fred ever confessing he got it wrong on that point.

One the subject of Aramaic you were (and now are once again) incorrect.

The first mistake that you made in claiming that the Jews were in that land from "time in memorial",
was to use liguistics to try to prove your point.
You stated that Hebrew was the oldest language in the land to support your mistaken contention that the Jews occupied the land in that region.

Hebrew isn't the oldest lnaguage used in that region.
 
Nope, I didn't say that. I stated that liturgical Hebrew was the surviving language from a series of languages that died out from the source of a whole group of languages.
It was spoken in Israel before Aramaic spread to Israel around 400 B.C.
Another point is I never said the Jews were the first to inhabit Israel. They were not. Although Jews were closely related to the Canaanites, the Canaanites inhabited the promised land prior to the Jews or Hebrews. These Canaanites worshipped a variety of gods but the Jews were monotheistic, the same as Moslems are.
Moslems believe in only one god Allah. Jews believe in only one god Yahweh.
At certain points throughout history, Jerusalem was also taken by the Israelites by force - David once conquered it.
Of course, the ancient Egyptians were far older than the Jewish culture and it's thought that the whole exodus was a mixture of escaped Jews and other groups that simply left, together with various other nationalities.


limerickman said:
One the subject of Aramaic you were (and now are once again) incorrect.

The first mistake that you made in claiming that the Jews were in that land from "time in memorial",
was to use liguistics to try to prove your point.
You stated that Hebrew was the oldest language in the land to support your mistaken contention that the Jews occupied the land in that region.

Hebrew isn't the oldest lnaguage used in that region.
 
Carrera said:
Nope, I didn't say that. .

yep, you did say that Hebrew was the oldest language in that land.

And you completely disregarded Aramaic.

Carrera said:
I stated that liturgical Hebrew was the surviving language from a series of languages that died out from the source of a whole group of languages.
It was spoken in Israel before Aramaic spread to Israel around 400 B.C.

your information is once again - incorrect.



Carrera said:
Another point is I never said the Jews were the first to inhabit Israel. .

You did.
 
limerickman said:
yep, you did say that Hebrew was the oldest language in that land.

And you completely disregarded Aramaic.



your information is once again - incorrect.





You did.


I thought Sumerian was the oldest language,there again I am not old enough to remember.
 
The accusation made by Islamic clerics is that the Jews stole "our" land, so to speak. I was watching TV the other night when they had a cleric who said just that and no opposition was forth-coming. What a pity.
So, what I essentially did was to take this repeated statement and show how old Jewish culture actually is compared with Islamic culture. By Islamic culture, I don't mean to indicate the Persians or Assyrians since these peoples were not Islamic, although they did invade Israel or ethnically cleanse Jewish people in their day (Babylonian exile for one), just as the Persians attempted to subdue Europe under Darius.
The Hebrew language is grouped together with Phoenician, Moabite and Canaanite - that's what I said in several posts. I always maintained Canaanites preceded Jews but that doesn't nullify the fact Israel had their Empire (Judah and Israel) as far back as 1000 B.C. which is old enough. The language they spoke was Hebrew not Aramaic which came later.
I base the right of Jews to reside in the Holy Land based on linguistic evidence and religion/culture. Judaism is the oldest world religion that originates from the Middle East - older by far than Christianity and far older than Islam. I also base my claim on the fact this right was disputed by war and Israel won that conflict. War has always been the ultimate decider of territorial conflict.
Overall, I concluded the Palestinians should be given a Palestinian State removed from Israel with their own borders but I maintain that if they still keep firing rockets and refuse to accept Israel's right to govern itself in its ancient land - Israel should go to war. This is my view and I don't think it's unresonable and I doubt I'll never budge from that view as it seem logical to me.


limerickman said:
yep, you did say that Hebrew was the oldest language in that land.

And you completely disregarded Aramaic.



your information is once again - incorrect.





You did.
 
Yes, the Sumerians were an old civilization and I seem to recall they weren't a semitic race.

jhuskey said:
I thought Sumerian was the oldest language,there again I am not old enough to remember.
 

Similar threads