No-one can be right all the time, of course.
Desmond Tutu on Hamas & The Israeli Blockade of Gaza
- Thread starter Grandma Death
- Start date
No-one can be right all the time, of course.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Of course.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Except Rach...obviously.
In this case however you are completely wrong.
Except that wasn't the claim in it's entirety though was it. Rach claimed HRW were 'founded by and continuously' run by communists. Thus far nobody (myself included) has been able to find evidence to back that up. Hence my questioning his claim.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
But it's clearly not in this case, is it? Rach is still claiming that the ISM doctored photos when I've provided a link to the original story showing they didn't. He's still claiming there were guns in the ISM apartment when I've provided a link to the IDF retraction published by AP. He's still claiming that Susan Barclay was present when I've shown that she was in the US at the time; he even tried to lie about the date of the incident to maintain his lie.
Rach is a proven liar. If he wants to try and prove that statement wrong he is welcome to. Until he does, he is a liar who refuses to back up his claims with evidence. Because he can't.
See, the truth is of no importance whatsoever to rach.
All that matters to him is his freedom to tell stories - lying stories - that is inexplicably granted him by editor.
Hence the steadfast insistence on paraphrasing people, not quoting, and starting side-arguments about what we really said.
Hence the promises to provide sources "later", starting side-arguments about his lying.
The stories give the casual passerby the impression that the whole conflict is about two equal bunches of nutters, so they can safely ignore it.
The side-arguments distract attention from the misdeeds of the occupying forces - most of them barely reported.
In both ways, the threat - however small - that people here might come up with ideas for stopping those misdeeds is successfully averted.
Editor: On the face of it, your post makes sense. When one realises however, that most here never even bother to search a single page on any given issue before demanding sources, it takes on a different sheen.
People here seek to turn forums like these into intellectual proving grounds, as if besting others instead of actually taking part in what could be a very enlightening growth process.
People here who challenge me are not seeking truth, just a blanket party (as we used to say in the army).Facts I provide can very often be simply verified with a cursory Google search
In addition, while I am basicallty computer illiterate my wife can write code with the best of them and therefore it is senseless to demand webpages as proof of anything. I can make my own if I viewed this as some sort of contest.
You mention that there might be a general consensus. Indeed there almost always is. Problem with that however is that the consensus is with left leaning fringe type personalities. If someone POLITELY told me that they have made an earnest search and as of yet have been unable to verify something I have maintained, I would then HAPPILY try my best to satisfy that person's curiosity. How many times does THAT happen though?
More often than not, it is something along the lines of this: "Hey stupid, you are a habitual liar and propagandist who would nopt recognise the truth if it slapped you in the face." That is of the kinder stripe. Other times I am portrayed as a Nazi pretending to be Israeli in order to inspire more hatred of Jews and Israelis or something almost as equally inane.
Indeed, I WOULD BE crocked were I to seek and entertain their requests.
People here seek to turn forums like these into intellectual proving grounds, as if besting others instead of actually taking part in what could be a very enlightening growth process.
People here who challenge me are not seeking truth, just a blanket party (as we used to say in the army).Facts I provide can very often be simply verified with a cursory Google search
In addition, while I am basicallty computer illiterate my wife can write code with the best of them and therefore it is senseless to demand webpages as proof of anything. I can make my own if I viewed this as some sort of contest.
You mention that there might be a general consensus. Indeed there almost always is. Problem with that however is that the consensus is with left leaning fringe type personalities. If someone POLITELY told me that they have made an earnest search and as of yet have been unable to verify something I have maintained, I would then HAPPILY try my best to satisfy that person's curiosity. How many times does THAT happen though?
More often than not, it is something along the lines of this: "Hey stupid, you are a habitual liar and propagandist who would nopt recognise the truth if it slapped you in the face." That is of the kinder stripe. Other times I am portrayed as a Nazi pretending to be Israeli in order to inspire more hatred of Jews and Israelis or something almost as equally inane.
Indeed, I WOULD BE crocked were I to seek and entertain their requests.
YMU: Um, what people are arguing, as it has evidently escaped you is NOT whether ISM provided doctored pictures but whether ISM leadership ever apologised for them. The fact that doctored pictures were provided was admitted to by the person who took them, "Steve Carr" who goes by many names, usually all with the first name Steve. Specifically, what is being debated is whether or not ISM leadership apologised to Reuters who actually took the pictures for publication (Reuters having an especially bad time with doctored pictures at that time and in that bureau).
To suggest that I have been proven to be a liar would, at the very least, require your mentioned proof. Care to provide it?
You have shown that Susan Barclay was in the US on 3/27? Funny, I just provided full info on her. The whole claim that she was in the USofr that interview on 3/20 is nothing but propaganda and has only been repeated on a couple of fringe sites. She was in Israel until 4/12. I would have thought you would have quietly backed off that one in light of the data I provided but this just goes to show that many here do not give one iota about truth and look at it as a contest of some sorts though for the life of me I cannot see why.
The only thing you have shown was a tiny periodical from Washington State that dates a purported interview to the 20th with wording that implies she was in the US when interviewed. If you find yourself able to actually research this issue you might come away chastened. My information in that case is impeccable but that will not mean anything to you. I would only suggest that you actually research it as opposed to relying on that one interview with that no name paper. As stated, if even the NY Times can have egreigous errors, I am sure that tiny rag can as well, if indeed it was even an error as opposed to purposeful propaganda. As Steven Carr says, and misquoting Malcom X when doing dso: "By any means..."
To suggest that I have been proven to be a liar would, at the very least, require your mentioned proof. Care to provide it?
You have shown that Susan Barclay was in the US on 3/27? Funny, I just provided full info on her. The whole claim that she was in the USofr that interview on 3/20 is nothing but propaganda and has only been repeated on a couple of fringe sites. She was in Israel until 4/12. I would have thought you would have quietly backed off that one in light of the data I provided but this just goes to show that many here do not give one iota about truth and look at it as a contest of some sorts though for the life of me I cannot see why.
The only thing you have shown was a tiny periodical from Washington State that dates a purported interview to the 20th with wording that implies she was in the US when interviewed. If you find yourself able to actually research this issue you might come away chastened. My information in that case is impeccable but that will not mean anything to you. I would only suggest that you actually research it as opposed to relying on that one interview with that no name paper. As stated, if even the NY Times can have egreigous errors, I am sure that tiny rag can as well, if indeed it was even an error as opposed to purposeful propaganda. As Steven Carr says, and misquoting Malcom X when doing dso: "By any means..."
Laptop: Why do you see the need to insult a perosn you have never met? If I am able to post , pointedly to you, why can you not take it upoon yourself to act in an adult like manner?
That aside, the story you linked to...I have one name for you to try and keep in mind: Muhammed al Dura. Ever even hear that name? Before you buy into your Arab propaganda sites, afford the IDF the same rights you would undoubtedly afford a person in your own nation, the right to a full and impartial investigation. Perhaps it might just end up like the al Dura case. In any event, it is certainly worthy of a full investigation as opposed to your blanket judgements and recriminations.
That aside, the story you linked to...I have one name for you to try and keep in mind: Muhammed al Dura. Ever even hear that name? Before you buy into your Arab propaganda sites, afford the IDF the same rights you would undoubtedly afford a person in your own nation, the right to a full and impartial investigation. Perhaps it might just end up like the al Dura case. In any event, it is certainly worthy of a full investigation as opposed to your blanket judgements and recriminations.
More story-telling.
More attempts to frame the issue of rach as authority versus "leftists".
No facts.
To call a liar a liar is not an insult. It is a description.
So, to answer in kind:
Why does rach see the need to lie to people he has never met?
More storytelling.
More attempts to frame the issues.
I linked to a news report. It had the uncontested headline "The Israeli army kills a Palestinian boy near Hebron". It quoted eyewitnesses. It quoted Israeli media quoting the IDF.
Laptop: To argue your presented argument, to lie to a person is different then calling someone a liar. Surely you could grasp this very basic concept. I have faith in you. Come on, try, I know you can do it.
"It quoted.": Yes, but it did not investigate a damn thing and therein lies the key. Sorry that this escapes you as it is a very, very basuc truth.
Dura?
Jenin?
Beit Jala?
Qana?
Should I keep on listing those so called "smoking guns" that shortly thereafter turned oiut to be nothing but Arab propaganda?
"It quoted.": Yes, but it did not investigate a damn thing and therein lies the key. Sorry that this escapes you as it is a very, very basuc truth.
Dura?
Jenin?
Beit Jala?
Qana?
Should I keep on listing those so called "smoking guns" that shortly thereafter turned oiut to be nothing but Arab propaganda?
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Rach for the record-on the evidence I have requested from you previously I have researched your claims-hence my asking. Thats well documented in on this forum. Your consistent promises then flounes/excuses are the issue here not whether people research the debate at hand.
So why can't you post the facts? Its simple really.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
I rarely question the moderating on this forum but I have to agree with this. Rach is allowed to post huge posts going off on weird tangents that clearly are nothing but one sided propoganda. I don't ever recall his posting style ever questioned for which is effectively spam/propoganda. Mammoth Cut and Paste material is not allowed on Urban yet Rach is allowed free rein to post what is in effect almost identical to a C&P post.
Every post directed at Rach appears to be a chance for him to post huge swathes of stuff sometimes not even pertinent to the point being made.
You seem to forget that the Mods have the ability to discern whether or not Cut and Paste is used. Do you really think that they have not exolored my being here, in hopes of having less headaches? Problem though is that I follow the Forum Rules while still managing to exercvise my rights. IF alot of information upsets you, I have no question as to just why you are unable to research issues on yourt own.
You claim to do just that and in the next breath complain when I offer alot of subject matter. How sensible is THAT?
It would be oh so easy to post what you ask on Tutu but I want ti to be beyond reprach as much as humanly possible which really means nothing when dealing with such partisan characters such as yourself. What will be will be.
I expect that you will have your little list and I also expect that it will make no difference to you and that the sniping will continue unabated so really, why bother?
You claim to do just that and in the next breath complain when I offer alot of subject matter. How sensible is THAT?
It would be oh so easy to post what you ask on Tutu but I want ti to be beyond reprach as much as humanly possible which really means nothing when dealing with such partisan characters such as yourself. What will be will be.
I expect that you will have your little list and I also expect that it will make no difference to you and that the sniping will continue unabated so really, why bother?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
You understand what is meant by the word "libel", don't you?
Just thought I'd put you in the picture.
Just thought I'd put you in the picture.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Of course they do which is why I said:
rachamim18 said:
I can handle reams of information relevant to the debate. The real problem is a great deal of the time you dont discuss the debate in hand but go off on a complete tangent. Proof of the pudding is the two threads about Tutu. You've waffled on and on and gone right off the subject and surprise surprise....a debate you joined in with a rather lofty claim you haven't been able to back it up.
rachamim18 said:
See above post.
rachamim18 said:
Except lets face it you can't. Thats pretty fucking evident for all to see.
rachamim18 said:
Why bother? Why do you think? That's what people do when they debate-they provide evidence to substantiate their claims when asked. Thus far when pressed you seem evasive and make excuse after excuse. Its not on Rach and if you want to continue enjoying vigorous debate then its the very least you can do.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
I see that nutter Tutu was in the worlds media yesterday criticising the behaviour of Mugabe........which by Rach's logic makes him a confirmed hater of Zimbabweans. 
This interests me, why would Desmon tutu be pro israel?
Maybe he just doesn't care, he took a look at the situation and liked palestine better. Now that isn't being anti israel just not careing enough about them to be pro.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Well Rach its been nearly a week. Can I assume now that your claim regarding Tutu is infact factually incorrect seeing as this and the other thread is completely devoid of this promised list?
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
The lack of silence proceeded by excuse after excuse would suggest that's a no then.
Rach you need to think before you type-if you did then you wouldn't get yourself in a such a mess.
Rach you need to think before you type-if you did then you wouldn't get yourself in a such a mess.
Nino:"Libel,": I libeled who? Tutu? He is a fop. So what?
Grandma.": Cut and Paste and Rachamim.": Yep, you did say that but what was your point? Posting alot of information, and composing it yourself is not "Cut and Paste." Cut and Paste is simply a form of plagerism (at worst) but while my posts might indeed be long winded they are not others' words.
All my posts are original compositions unless otherwise noted.
"Lofty claim, has not been met. Rachamim has not proven his assertion that Tutu hated Jews.": CORRECT. I have NOT proved a list. First, I still assert this. Second, I feel most rational people can see this for themselves IF they listen to, or read what he said in two primary speeches. 1 was in 89 where he tarred ALL Jews, and in 2003 when he compared the Jewish Lobby in America to Nazis, Satlin, and a couple of other choice analogies.
The man is a tool, nothing less and possibly ALOT more. He not only hangs out with blood sucking terrorists but is a hypocrite and a liar. He criticises Mugabe in one speech and in the enxt says Mugabe is a great man. This is something he has done on several issues including Jews.
While he is careful now to talk about all the friends he had who are Jewish and fought Apartheid, he does not act way with regard to Israel. In that area he proudly proclaims his bias.
"Face it, you cannot.": No. It is rather that I already know this, offered what I know to be fact, and do not have that much motivation to spend more than the 3 or 4 hours I have already spent trying to make YOU a list.
I feel, that if you are REALLY interested you can esily find these things...just as with the "Captain R/UVDA/Channel 2" nonsense. I am happy that you seem to be acting more civil. That is great. However, it still does not negate the fact that you are trying to turn things into a contest.
IF you do not agree with my take on things, that is more than fine. I find my assertion to be factual but it really comes down to perception. I know at least one person who believes Hitler was a good person. All depends on yuor take. If you think Mugabe likes Jews, fine. In soemthing like this I can never win with you.
If I rant on and on and on about how he calls Jews who care about ISrael Nazis, or how in 89 he tarred all Jews, you will rationalise it because hs hated Apartheid. I find THAT to be silly but then , it is ALL peception.
Should I EVER find myself incredibly bored for more than a couple of hours I am sure I will produce such a list. For me to trawl through many thousands of sources so as to make a list for you that will not change anything you think or perceive is kind of silly. It MIGHT happen but ass I said, what would it matter?
You will suddenly believe me? I give you much more than I should as in the list of specific commodities and amounts concerning goods going into Gaza and in the end it is silly. I take actual risks in posting such things, for what? Believe what you wish.
"Why bother?": See above. Apart from that, it is not data. It is perception coerning words expressed by another human. Most rational adults will be horrified by a prominent clergyman who represents a religion of peace that proclaims itself independant of earthly politics who manages to offend many disparate demographics with such nuggets as "Those Jews are Nazis." You see nothing wrong with it and that is your right.
Grandma.": Cut and Paste and Rachamim.": Yep, you did say that but what was your point? Posting alot of information, and composing it yourself is not "Cut and Paste." Cut and Paste is simply a form of plagerism (at worst) but while my posts might indeed be long winded they are not others' words.
All my posts are original compositions unless otherwise noted.
"Lofty claim, has not been met. Rachamim has not proven his assertion that Tutu hated Jews.": CORRECT. I have NOT proved a list. First, I still assert this. Second, I feel most rational people can see this for themselves IF they listen to, or read what he said in two primary speeches. 1 was in 89 where he tarred ALL Jews, and in 2003 when he compared the Jewish Lobby in America to Nazis, Satlin, and a couple of other choice analogies.
The man is a tool, nothing less and possibly ALOT more. He not only hangs out with blood sucking terrorists but is a hypocrite and a liar. He criticises Mugabe in one speech and in the enxt says Mugabe is a great man. This is something he has done on several issues including Jews.
While he is careful now to talk about all the friends he had who are Jewish and fought Apartheid, he does not act way with regard to Israel. In that area he proudly proclaims his bias.
"Face it, you cannot.": No. It is rather that I already know this, offered what I know to be fact, and do not have that much motivation to spend more than the 3 or 4 hours I have already spent trying to make YOU a list.
I feel, that if you are REALLY interested you can esily find these things...just as with the "Captain R/UVDA/Channel 2" nonsense. I am happy that you seem to be acting more civil. That is great. However, it still does not negate the fact that you are trying to turn things into a contest.
IF you do not agree with my take on things, that is more than fine. I find my assertion to be factual but it really comes down to perception. I know at least one person who believes Hitler was a good person. All depends on yuor take. If you think Mugabe likes Jews, fine. In soemthing like this I can never win with you.
If I rant on and on and on about how he calls Jews who care about ISrael Nazis, or how in 89 he tarred all Jews, you will rationalise it because hs hated Apartheid. I find THAT to be silly but then , it is ALL peception.
Should I EVER find myself incredibly bored for more than a couple of hours I am sure I will produce such a list. For me to trawl through many thousands of sources so as to make a list for you that will not change anything you think or perceive is kind of silly. It MIGHT happen but ass I said, what would it matter?
You will suddenly believe me? I give you much more than I should as in the list of specific commodities and amounts concerning goods going into Gaza and in the end it is silly. I take actual risks in posting such things, for what? Believe what you wish.
"Why bother?": See above. Apart from that, it is not data. It is perception coerning words expressed by another human. Most rational adults will be horrified by a prominent clergyman who represents a religion of peace that proclaims itself independant of earthly politics who manages to offend many disparate demographics with such nuggets as "Those Jews are Nazis." You see nothing wrong with it and that is your right.
Grandma: "Mugabe criticising Mugabe and Rachamim will find that this makes Mugabe a nutter...": Hahahaha. Seeing as how I just made a point about that I find it very ironic that you tried to disparage me for this exact issue in your very next post.
Not knowing you had posted this, I already dealt with it. In fact, it seems you do not research things too much or you might have made a different post. Given that Tutu criticises him in April but condemns him in June (and of course apparently in July as well), yes, absolutely he is a nutter...OR simply a nefarious and nasty little man. To each their own as far as opinions go.
"Rachamim is a confirmed hater of Zimbabwe.": Hahahahah. Yep. I do hate it. I hated it when Israel sent me to Rhodesia long ago, and hate it with what the racist Mugabe has done to it. I ESPECIALLY hate it with what the African Union did with him in Sharm el Shiekh last week. What a stinking bunch of dictatorial hypocrites. hen again, I am a foreigner to them and that is entirely their business.
I do not focus on Mugabe, only Tutu because only Tutu hates Jews. I am sure Mugabe has no love for them either but I could not possibly qualify that since I have not seen anything with regard to that possible dynamic.
Bloody: First, I wish to regress for a minute. In the quote of my words I see that I stated I was not sure about Tutu's hatred of Jews in general, just his anti-Israel nonsense. That was before I spent 3 or 4 hours trying to please Grandma and saw a few pieces that sparked my meory.
"Why would Tutu be pro-Israel.": I would not care if he was. I HOPE that he remains merely objective. He can support any objective he wants and can do so without disparaging me and mine. It is pretty simple. Liking the idea of "Palestine," etc. does not mean he has to then automatically and ignorantly hate Israel.
If he hates Israel for a good reason, that is also cool. A good reason ebing things such as "Israel exists where some Arabs formerly existed," etc. Instead he claims soemthing else entirely. He engages inlies and deceit. I mean, how does one make a judgement on a possible crime without examining the evidence?
He was charged, by the UN, with taking part in a Human
Rights Investigation. That UN agency is notriously biased against Israel, but one would hope that this would not automatically translate into all people tasked by it with being automatically biased as well. He declared Israel guilty in that particular case before even entering the Middle East.
Grandma: "Rachamim, think before you type." :OK, thanks for the tip.
Not knowing you had posted this, I already dealt with it. In fact, it seems you do not research things too much or you might have made a different post. Given that Tutu criticises him in April but condemns him in June (and of course apparently in July as well), yes, absolutely he is a nutter...OR simply a nefarious and nasty little man. To each their own as far as opinions go.
"Rachamim is a confirmed hater of Zimbabwe.": Hahahahah. Yep. I do hate it. I hated it when Israel sent me to Rhodesia long ago, and hate it with what the racist Mugabe has done to it. I ESPECIALLY hate it with what the African Union did with him in Sharm el Shiekh last week. What a stinking bunch of dictatorial hypocrites. hen again, I am a foreigner to them and that is entirely their business.
I do not focus on Mugabe, only Tutu because only Tutu hates Jews. I am sure Mugabe has no love for them either but I could not possibly qualify that since I have not seen anything with regard to that possible dynamic.
Bloody: First, I wish to regress for a minute. In the quote of my words I see that I stated I was not sure about Tutu's hatred of Jews in general, just his anti-Israel nonsense. That was before I spent 3 or 4 hours trying to please Grandma and saw a few pieces that sparked my meory.
"Why would Tutu be pro-Israel.": I would not care if he was. I HOPE that he remains merely objective. He can support any objective he wants and can do so without disparaging me and mine. It is pretty simple. Liking the idea of "Palestine," etc. does not mean he has to then automatically and ignorantly hate Israel.
If he hates Israel for a good reason, that is also cool. A good reason ebing things such as "Israel exists where some Arabs formerly existed," etc. Instead he claims soemthing else entirely. He engages inlies and deceit. I mean, how does one make a judgement on a possible crime without examining the evidence?
He was charged, by the UN, with taking part in a Human
Rights Investigation. That UN agency is notriously biased against Israel, but one would hope that this would not automatically translate into all people tasked by it with being automatically biased as well. He declared Israel guilty in that particular case before even entering the Middle East.
Grandma: "Rachamim, think before you type." :OK, thanks for the tip.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Yes, it's libel. By claiming, as you have done here, that Bishop Tutu is an "anti-Semite", you have libelled him.
It's also clear that you have no idea what a "fop" actually is. You'll be describing him as a "dandy" next.
Just to clear up any confusion, this is a fop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Le-bourgeois-gentilhomme.jpg
And this is a dandy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dandys_1830.jpg
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Try go back and reading what I posted I'm not repeating myself. I would also add that I'm not the only poster that has noticed how you quite often post stuff totally superflous to the point being made.
rachamim18 said:
I know thats why I said it was like C&P-thats the second time Ive said that. Do you ever read what other people post?
rachamim18 said:
Ive never claimed that was the case. But ho hum.....when's the next display of your piss poor reading skills then....
rachamim18 said:
Oh look there it is.....
rachamim18 said:
What after promising at least half a dozen times you would do so. Care to explain why now you're going back on your promise?
rachamim18 said:
This means nothing Rach. Nobody is siding with you on this one. You made a claim-you've failed to back it up and clearly your are mistaking 'hatred of jews' with criticisms of the actions of the Israeli state. You dropped a bollock son and *sigh* once again you're in a corner where you are desperatly clutching at straws.
rachamim18 said:
I'm not interested in your perceptions of Desmond Tutu-this doesn't prove your claim he was a hater of jews.
rachamim18 said:
There is no list-stop lying Rach.
rachamim18 said:
You just keep digging yourself into a bigger hole Rach. When people make claims then promise to back them up and subsequently fail they look rather silly. Please stop trotting out this 'The evidence is there if you can be bothered to find it' line-its tedious. If the evidence was there why could nobody find it?
rachamim18 said:
Its called debating not a contest.
rachamim18 said:
What a silly statement. Facts are not perception-if they were they wouldnt by facts now would they.
rachamim18 said:
Oh there it is.....another promise
rachamim18 said:
Hang on you said the information was readily available-now you're saying there's thousands of sources to trawl through. Jesus wept you're all over the place mate
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
rachamim18 said:
Jesus christ you are blatantly misquoting me
I see that nutter Tutu was in the worlds media yesterday criticising the behaviour of Mugabe........which by Rach's logic makes him a confirmed hater of Zimbabweans.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Jesus christ you are blatantly misquoting me
He has a habit of doing that, though, so why expect any better?
Nino: "Tut as a 'fop' or 'dandy.": First, I do not accept Wiki as a valid source given its pis^ poor editorial policy which was not even instituted until about 18 months ago. Even now one may edit any entry they please, in any manner they please.
That said...In terms of the definition of English words I would imagine that it was pretty accurate being the very low threshold of research required.
I , without looking at your Wikis, would imagine that it correctly stated that a "fop" is an archiac term used to describe those people usually of the upper classes who exhibited somewhat effeminate characteristics, and so on.
Does Tutu shake his sagging moneymaker (How would Rachamim know it is sagging? See? Saved you some time)? I do not know. I do know though that since it is a gentle disparagement, and that was my aim, I will stick to my words. The man is at best, a political tool.
Most humans waste a good portion of their lives. Tutu of course is no exception. It is only that his wasterfulness is on exhibit for all to see. He should never be using the pulpit as a political grandstand ( maybe he is thinking of changing his name to Aristede) but even if for some reason he felt it neccessary, why then commit yourself to partisan ideology?
The man is disgusting.
Oh, and as for a "dandy," see fop. Not identical in meaning but close enough. Still have no idea what your Wikis say but assume it is the same.
That said...In terms of the definition of English words I would imagine that it was pretty accurate being the very low threshold of research required.
I , without looking at your Wikis, would imagine that it correctly stated that a "fop" is an archiac term used to describe those people usually of the upper classes who exhibited somewhat effeminate characteristics, and so on.
Does Tutu shake his sagging moneymaker (How would Rachamim know it is sagging? See? Saved you some time)? I do not know. I do know though that since it is a gentle disparagement, and that was my aim, I will stick to my words. The man is at best, a political tool.
Most humans waste a good portion of their lives. Tutu of course is no exception. It is only that his wasterfulness is on exhibit for all to see. He should never be using the pulpit as a political grandstand ( maybe he is thinking of changing his name to Aristede) but even if for some reason he felt it neccessary, why then commit yourself to partisan ideology?
The man is disgusting.
Oh, and as for a "dandy," see fop. Not identical in meaning but close enough. Still have no idea what your Wikis say but assume it is the same.
Grandma: "Cut and Paste and Rcahmim, Part II.": Again, what is your point? Who said you are repating yourself? In any event, you have said that more than once so if you really want to split hairs, the statement is true.
"Rachamim often offers superfulous infromation when replying to posts and posters other than Grandma know this.": OK, if you say so. And?
Fact is, I do not iniate different subject matter and hijack threads. Not in my view anyway. I do however try to post as much infromation AS NEEDED, as well as respond personally to every point addressed towards me...as well as to some points not made to me. When I see ignorance it is my responsibility, if able, to try and correct that ignorance.
Both the Jewish Worldview AND religion require this of me. It is also considered a civic duty in Israel.
"Grandma made a point, more than once, that Rachamim's style of composition is LIKE Cut and Paste...": OK, so what would be your point then? Just another personal criticism of me? A person you have never met let alone tried to get to know?
More to the point, what would it ever have to do with a thread in this forum in terms of subject matter?
"Pis% poor reading skilles.": See above.
In addition, your post there did not seem to make any sense at all. You quote me saying how "Cut and Paste can be a form of plagiarism but offer no context whatsoever. It seems like a waste of time to me, for an "asult" to be spoending such an amount of time trying to disparage a person they have never met. To each their own.
I think that I will simply revert to ignoring all posters who fail to engage in actual subject matter. I think my responding to these type of posts is just dragging the forum down as a whole. Many good subjects here will never be discussed because posters concern themselves with Rachamim's style of posting, or Rachamim not agreeing with them, and so forth.
The only thing that should be discussed is thread subject matter.
I will now skip the rest of that long (for you) post , except for the last sentence. Even that last sentence is an insult and not even a veiled one at that.
"Why does Rachamim claim that there thousands of sources to trawl through, and at the same time claim that infromation on the thread's subject matter is 'readily available'?": EXACTLY. What Is your point? There is no contradiction whatsoever in the referenced quotes.
For perhaps the hundredth time: THIS FORUM IS NOT THE "RACHAMIM AND HIS SHI##Y PERSONALITY" Forum.
Grandma's Next Post:
"Rachamim is blatantly misquoting Grandma.": Aside from yet again, surpise, another clear insult, it might have occurred to you by this point that I do not think in English. I communicate with you in your language. While I am certainly more than capable in this language it is not my natural tongue and as a result there are times where I misunderstand what is being said.
This particular statement has nothing do with my habit for paraphrasing,etc. It rests entirely upon my deficiency in your language.
At this late juncture it is clear that you had meant , sarcastically, that I consider Tutu to be a hater of Zimbabwe. Never mind that I hold and express the direct opposite in viewpoints, but your post sees ambiguous to me even now. I do not know if you speak any other language(s) but you might want to consider how it looks to a person who does not think in English. Even now I do not understand what would be your point in stating what you did so...
"Rachamim often offers superfulous infromation when replying to posts and posters other than Grandma know this.": OK, if you say so. And?
Fact is, I do not iniate different subject matter and hijack threads. Not in my view anyway. I do however try to post as much infromation AS NEEDED, as well as respond personally to every point addressed towards me...as well as to some points not made to me. When I see ignorance it is my responsibility, if able, to try and correct that ignorance.
Both the Jewish Worldview AND religion require this of me. It is also considered a civic duty in Israel.
"Grandma made a point, more than once, that Rachamim's style of composition is LIKE Cut and Paste...": OK, so what would be your point then? Just another personal criticism of me? A person you have never met let alone tried to get to know?
More to the point, what would it ever have to do with a thread in this forum in terms of subject matter?
"Pis% poor reading skilles.": See above.
In addition, your post there did not seem to make any sense at all. You quote me saying how "Cut and Paste can be a form of plagiarism but offer no context whatsoever. It seems like a waste of time to me, for an "asult" to be spoending such an amount of time trying to disparage a person they have never met. To each their own.
I think that I will simply revert to ignoring all posters who fail to engage in actual subject matter. I think my responding to these type of posts is just dragging the forum down as a whole. Many good subjects here will never be discussed because posters concern themselves with Rachamim's style of posting, or Rachamim not agreeing with them, and so forth.
The only thing that should be discussed is thread subject matter.
I will now skip the rest of that long (for you) post , except for the last sentence. Even that last sentence is an insult and not even a veiled one at that.
"Why does Rachamim claim that there thousands of sources to trawl through, and at the same time claim that infromation on the thread's subject matter is 'readily available'?": EXACTLY. What Is your point? There is no contradiction whatsoever in the referenced quotes.
For perhaps the hundredth time: THIS FORUM IS NOT THE "RACHAMIM AND HIS SHI##Y PERSONALITY" Forum.
Grandma's Next Post:
"Rachamim is blatantly misquoting Grandma.": Aside from yet again, surpise, another clear insult, it might have occurred to you by this point that I do not think in English. I communicate with you in your language. While I am certainly more than capable in this language it is not my natural tongue and as a result there are times where I misunderstand what is being said.
This particular statement has nothing do with my habit for paraphrasing,etc. It rests entirely upon my deficiency in your language.
At this late juncture it is clear that you had meant , sarcastically, that I consider Tutu to be a hater of Zimbabwe. Never mind that I hold and express the direct opposite in viewpoints, but your post sees ambiguous to me even now. I do not know if you speak any other language(s) but you might want to consider how it looks to a person who does not think in English. Even now I do not understand what would be your point in stating what you did so...
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
I'm not repeating myself. If you can't be arsed to read what I have posted then that my friend is your issue not mine.
rachamim18 said:
You ramble....on and on and on and on.... That and your refusal to learn to use the quote button; constant misquoting; half baked promises; constant evading blah de blah makes it difficult and frustrating for the majority of forum users to debate with you.
rachamim18 said:
You can ask as many times as you like-my answer will always be the same. Try reading what I have posted.
rachamim18 said:
...or when several posters ask you for evidence as per Tutu threads.
rachamim18 said:
Great idea-so where were we??? Arr yes something about providing a list....
rachamim18 said:
The evidence you claimed was 'easy to find' and 'readily available'. Having to trawl through 'thousands of sources' (your words not mine) is by anybodys reckoning not 'readily available' evidence or indeed 'easy to find'.
rachamim18 said:
To be fair this is yet one of another of your piss poor excuses to pile on top of all the rest of your excuses that you churn out. Use the quote button-its simple that even my 17 month old son could master. Trust me when you have learnt to use it you wont make so many silly mistakes which lets face it appear to have come about because of your selective poor grasp of english -which I don't believe for one minute by the way.
Oh and whilst you're reading my reply care to point out the clear insult in my post criticising your misquoting.
Actually don't answer that-we already know that you often mistake criticism as personal-whether its the Israeli state or indeed you as an individual....
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
You don't have to accept Wikipedia's definition of the words "dandy" or "fop", the same definition appears in the dictionary. I merely provided you with illustrated examples. Was I insulting you by doing this?
Dandies and fops are two distinctly different things. I know, I have written about both.
You have libelled Desmond Tutu and no amount of wriggling is going to help you.
Similar threads
