Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[jdobbin]

Numbers were posted for everybody (but apparently not yourself) to see.

To whit I said the deal also includes a deal on a freeze on new settlements and expropriation that were planned for this year. You have those numbers?

According to TV New Zealand, dismantled outpost (not "settlement", Dobbin - even in Israel's government own terminology - so why use these confusing and misleading words?

Perhaps you were not reading my full response which included the freeze and no new settlements. Mitchell was briefing the President about how it would work and he heads back to the Middle East next week to continue the process.

The next step was Israel opening the Jordan-Israeli border 24 hours a day which they did yesterday.

The next stage is the Egyptian and Israeli presidential meetings and the return of an Israeli soldier from Gaza. That triggers the next main settlement decision beyond a freeze.

Do the Grade 3 math, our peaceful genius.

Why don't you get a grip on your insults? I have seen a few like yourself who end up getting suspended for lack of control.

[punked]

Perhaps you were not reading my full response which included the freeze and no new settlements. Mitchell was briefing the President about how it would work and he heads back to the Middle East next week to continue the process.

Accept top Israeli officials are saying there will be no freeze.

[jdobbin]

Accept top Israeli officials are saying there will be no freeze.

Really? Where?

Mitchell goes back in a few days to discuss the freeze.

[myata]

To whit I said the deal also includes a deal on a freeze on new settlements and expropriation that were planned for this year. You have those numbers?

Dobbin, the only facts actually posted in this thread, are referenced approval of 2,500 new settler homes and a description of a removed "illegal" outpost. I'm not discussing your talk anymore, I know that you can produce it in volumes and for all its worth it may not have any serious relation to reality.

Perhaps you were not reading my full response which included the freeze and no new settlements. Mitchell was briefing the President about how it would work and he heads back to the Middle East next week to continue the process.

I'm sorry, but do we have to take your word on it? Everybody else substantiates their claims with references. In any case, briefings and discussions are not yet actual physical results. Every time there was an activation of negotiation process in the past, Israels found a reason, cause, loophole to build up settlements just as your praised policy looked the other way. When and if it's provably different this time around, I'll be very excited to hear the news.

Why don't you get a grip on your insults? I have seen a few like yourself who end up getting suspended for lack of control.

It was hardly an offensive term Dobbin, besides you yourself asked for help, ostensibly being unable to put together two numbers (5 and 23) in a grade 3 (or is it 1?) calculation, so I simply couldn't refuse, as it'd have been grossly impolite. I do appologise for using inappropriate term (as should be obvious to everybody by now) and promise to never call you "genius" ever again.

Edited July 9, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, the only facts actually posted in this thread, are referenced approval of 2,500 new settler homes and a description of a removed "illegal" outpost. I'm not discussing your talk anymore, I know that you can produce it in volumes and for all its worth it may not have any serious relation to reality.

Actually, you posted that and it was from May.

I posted that 23 settlements along with a wider freeze was in the works.

I'm sorry, but do we have to take your word on it? Everybody else substantiates their claims with references. In any case, briefings and discussions are not yet actual physical results. Every time there was an activation of negotiation process in the past, Israels found a reason, cause, loophole to build up settlements just as your praised policy looked the other way. When and if it's provably different this time around, I'll be very excited to hear the news.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3743001,00.html

Mitchell is expected to visit a number of Arab capitals during his upcoming tour of the region towards this end. He is scheduled to meet Netanyahu in Jerusalem sometime after the expected approval of the State Budget on July 15.

This is part of the wider peace initiative and details on a freeze.

It was hardly an offensive term Dobbin, besides you yourself asked for help, ostensibly being unable to put together two numbers (5 and 23) in a grade 3 (or is it 1?) calculation, so I simply couldn't refuse, as it'd have been grossly impolite. I do appologise for using inappropriate term (as should be obvious to everybody by now) and promise to never call you "genius" ever again.

Your insults and anger are getting pretty common in your posts. As I said, I have seen it happen enough times to wonder if you are letting your anger get the best of you.

[myata]

I posted that 23 settlements along with a wider freeze was in the works.

Your link says nothing about "23 settlements" but it does refer to to "23 illegal outposts". So do you genuinely not understand the difference or ....????

BTW and also from your reference the only quote mentioning freeze on "settlements" would be this:

The defense minister, who is willing to offer a temporary freeze on settlement building as a confidence building measure, said he informed Mitchell of the complexities a complete settlement freeze would involve.

Note the highlights in case it could be missed otherwise as it happens sometimes (a lot). So shall we assume that your earlier interpertations of complete and comprehensive freeze on ALL settlements would be what? another honest confusion? (oops - I did it again )); or what? a thing of mind, i.e fantasy? I wouldn't ever think it's a deliberate misleading of course.

This is part of the wider peace initiative and details on a freeze.

What is, Dobbin, exactly? Theoretical temporary freeze following another massive expansion? Or "complexities"? I'm afraid you haven't provided much else to hop around singing about.

Your insults and anger are getting pretty common in your posts. As I said, I have seen it happen enough times to wonder if you are letting your anger get the best of you.

Thank you for your concern, can I return the favour by advising you to think about your strange hopscotch vision of reality, not admitting obvious facts, using misleading and confusing terminology, unreferenced, unexisting or known only to yourself notions, distracting on irrelevant tangents to avoid answering direct questions, misinterpreting your opponent, etc, all in all, that appears more and more likely, not disputing in good faith? Of course continuation of such discussion becomes more and more pointless from the perspective of finding solutions, but I'll have to continue to expose your tactics for as long as necessary, just so that at least here we wouldn't have to take them for granted and fall into our usual complacency.

[jdobbin]

Your link says nothing about "23 settlements" but it does refer to to "23 illegal outposts". So do you genuinely not understand the difference or ....????

My post also talked about the freeze on new settlements and expanded regional talks. You seem to keep missing that.

BTW and also from your reference the only quote mentioning freeze on "settlements" would be this:

Freeze contingent on continued talks starting next week as the link says.

Note the highlights in case it could be missed otherwise as it happens sometimes (a lot). So shall we assume that your earlier interpertations of complete and comprehensive freeze on ALL settlements would be what? another honest confusion? (oops - I did it again )); or what? a thing of mind, i.e fantasy? I wouldn't ever think it's a deliberate misleading of course.

The Israelis are angling for some responses from the other side for anything they do. The return of their soldier from Gaza is foremost. An expanded regional security agreement is another.

This is a list that the Israeli press says was being discussed.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1098430.html

Arab countries in the Gulf would allow Israeli passenger and civilian cargo aircraft to fly over their territory. The move would save long detours on flights to Asia, a popular destination for Israeli travelers.

etc.

Mitchell returns next week and will be visit Israel as well as various Arab states.

What is, Dobbin, exactly? Theoretical temporary freeze following another massive expansion? Or "complexities"? I'm afraid you haven't provided much else to hop around singing about.

Just explained.

Thank you for your concern, can I return the favour by advising you to think about your strange hopscotch vision of reality, not admitting obvious facts, using misleading and confusing terminology, unreferenced, unexisting or known only to yourself notions, distracting on irrelevant tangents to avoid answering direct questions, misinterpreting your opponent, etc, all in all, that appears more and more likely, not disputing in good faith? Of course continuation of such discussion becomes more and more pointless from the perspective of finding solutions, but I'll have to continue to expose your tactics for as long as necessary, just so that at least here we wouldn't have to take them for granted and fall into our usual complacency.

I always provide a reference and a reason. You are free to accept or not accept. What you are not free to do in these forums is have a temper tantrum and lash out with insults.

Edited July 9, 2009 by jdobbin

[myata]

My post also talked about the freeze on new settlements

I indeed missed that because it simply does not exist in your reference (other than in above mentioned hypothetical context). I'm not discusssing your talking I already stated that very clearly.

and expanded regional talks. You seem to keep missing that.

...

Freeze contingent on continued talks starting next week as the link says.

..

The Israelis are angling for some responses from the other side..

I see, you want to deviate into talking about talking. We could do that once we're done with the evaluation of our progress so far. So do you admit that your advocated strategy has failed to bring a halt to expansion of illegal settlements, yes or no?

With your weasiling around it's becoming increasingly doubtful that real, practical reduction of illegal settlements is anywhere serious on your real agenda, and therefore, genuine progress toward peace.

The return of their soldier from Gaza is foremost.

How have you determined, what is "foremost"? Why transgressions by one side are on your "foremost" agenda, while obvoius, massive, continuous, and ongoing, by the other, barely even recognized? Is that a sign of balance and impariality of your approach?

I always provide a reference and a reason.

When explicitly and repeatedly asked for it.. and then losing something (and bringing something of your own) on the way.

What you are not free to do in these forums is have a temper tantrum and lash out with insults.

I'm so sorry, but I really haven't imagined that you'd take friendly assistence with that truly complicated subject as an insult.

Edited July 9, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

I indeed missed that because it simply does not exist in your reference (other than in above mentioned hypothetical context). I'm not discusssing your talking I already stated that very clearly.

It does.

I see, you want to deviate into talking about talking. We could do that once we're done with the evaluation of our progress so far. So do you admit that your advocated strategy has failed to bring a halt to expansion of illegal settlements, yes or no?

With your weasiling around it's becoming increasingly doubtful that real reduction of illegal settlements is really anywhere serious on your real agenda, and therefore, genuine, real progress toward peace.

There has been success. Gaza. Now, the focus is on the West Bank.

How have you determined, what is "foremost"? Why transgressions by one side are on your "foremost" agenda, while obvoius, massive, continuous, and ongoing, by the other, barely even recognized? Is that a sign of balance and impariality of your approach?

In any negotiation, there will be two sides looking for something. The Israelis obviously want to get their soldier back before committing to a freeze.

You made something up and then explained it to yourself? Job well done!

I didn't make it up. I told you all along that talks in London and next week covered a lot of areas about settlements and peace and security.

When explicitly and repeatedly asked for it.. and then losing something (and bringing something of your own) on the way.

I believe it is you who provides links that go back to May as if they are current to what is being discussed in July.

I'm so sorry, but I really haven't imagined that you'd take friendly assistence with that truly complicated subject as an insult.

Your insults are clear enough. As I said, I have seen it happen here a few times to know when someone is likely about to go off the deep end.

[myata]

It does.

And again, we'll have to take your word. I don't and I read the whole article end to end, of course I could still have missed something, and if so, you'll certainly oblige me by posting the exact, unaltered in any way, quote from your prevously referenced link?

There has been success. Gaza. Now, the focus is on the West Bank.

Sounds like a broken tape recorder. That's what I find insulting to common sense and intelligence.

In any negotiation, there will be two sides looking for something. The Israelis obviously want to get their soldier back before committing to a freeze.

While your advocated approach looked the other way all the while massive expansion of settlements was happening over the last two decades. "Israeli soldier" would certainly explain that phonomenon.

I didn't make it up. I told you all along that talks in London and next week covered a lot of areas about settlements and peace and security.

Call when there's actual real result. The first ever reduction of illegal settlements in ALL occupied territories. Also if you have any news about what you (i.e your party and leader) would do in real, practical terms, if it won't happen. As it never did before, talks or no talks. Till then, I do not believe you have anything of real substance to contribute to this discussion, am I wrong?

I believe it is you who provides links that go back to May as if they are current to what is being discussed in July.

You mean those 2,500 approved new houses aren't being constructed as we speak? If you have some factual confirmation to that, I'll be genuinly glad. If not though, should we assume that this is yet another of multiple facts that you want to dismiss because they wouldn't fit into your view of reality?

As I said, I have seen it happen here a few times to know when someone is likely about to go off the deep end.

This sounds really scary, could that be a threat of physical insult? Help!!!!

[jdobbin]

And again, we'll have to take your word. I don't and I read the whole article end to end, of course I could still have missed something, and if so, you'll certainly oblige me by posting the exact, unaltered in any way, quote from your prevously referenced link?

I give the link and the first paragraph or so as per posting rules. I haven't left anything off if it is the link is there to follow. The moderators are pretty specific about quoting the whole thing.

Sounds like a broken tape recorder. That's what I find insulting to common sense and intelligence.

The problem is that these are the terms that all sides agreed to in the beginning. Focus on one area at a time and move to the next.

While your advocated approach looked the other way all the while massive expansion of settlements was happening over the last two decades. "Israeli soldier" would certainly explain that phonomenon.

There was a lot of things going during the last two decades including suicide and rocket attacks and the call for Israel to be wiped off the map. Your only focus is on settlements though which you beleive will all solve all problems. For Hamas though, it was take back the territories and then take back all of Israel.

It was only last week that Hamas has talked about two states.

Call when there's actual real result. The first ever reduction of illegal settlements in ALL occupied territories. Also if you have any news about what you (i.e your party and leader) would do in real, practical terms, if it won't happen. As it never did before, talks or no talks. Till then, I do not believe you have anything of real substance to contribute to this discussion, am I wrong?

Once again if your focus is all or nothing and all at once, you are going to be disappointed.

If you are looking at moving from one area to the next, there is progress.

Much like what happened in Northern Ireland. There were talks with all parties, moves to reduce violence and then military presence, political representation and then coming up with a lasting solution. Even so, this year we saw sectarian violence but it hasn't derailed the committment to resolving things.

You mean those 2,500 approved new houses aren't being constructed as we speak? If you have some factual confirmation to that, I'll be genuinly glad. If not though, should we assume that this is yet another of multiple facts that you want to dismiss because they wouldn't fit into your view of reality?

According to your own link, some of them have not been approved yet.

This sounds really scary, could that be a threat of physical insult? Help!!!!

For yourself? I don't know you well enough to know if you are violent?

[myata]

I give the link and the first paragraph or so as per posting rules. I haven't left anything off if it is the link is there to follow.

No reference to "expected announcement" appears in your posted links, and no such announcement has been made either, so we'll have to treat this statement:

And Mitchell is briefing the President about the freeze expected to be announced on settlements according to the Israeli and U.S. press.

as still unsubstantied, despite all your definite promises otherwise.

And then, as we already established, the only context full, i.e. permanent and unconditional "freeze" is referenced in your link, is negative. Yet this statement:

The construction of buildings already in progress also came with a freeze and no new expropriation or new building.

make it sound is if it (the freeze) is a done deal. That is a misleading to say the least, use of references.

And you know what, Dobbin? I'm not going to waste my time solving your creative charades anymore. Somehow I think that you're proliferate enough to keep a whole office busy with that pointless activity and then. But you can also be absolutely certain that I'm not going to give in to your intellectual bullying. So here's what we'll do. From now on, any "creative" tactics, such as, but not limited to: not admitting confirmed and referenced fact; not responding to clear and direct questions; misinterpretation of opponent and/or referenced material; repeating already addressed arguments as if nothing has happend, and so on; i.e. any tactics used to avoid disputing in good faith, will cause this small tag:

<"success!"> to appear, with a brief description of reason but no serious comment as those have to be earned with a genuine, meaningful argument. So here Dobbin, is your first:

<"success!"> unconfirmed statement and misrepresentation of referenced material

The problem is that these are the terms that all sides agreed to in the beginning. Focus on one area at a time and move to the next.

If you're implying that the agreement implicitly or explicitly agreed to a massive deterioration of situation outside of miniscule area of "focus", then it's simply a bad agreement, and its results would lead not toward the peace, but away from it, just what we see in reality. Congratulations on claiming success with the result that any sane individual would consider an accomplished failure (yourself included, e.g. in that reno project, am I wrong?).

There was a lot of things going during the last two decades including suicide and rocket attacks and the call for Israel to be wiped off the map. Your only focus is on settlements though which you beleive will all solve all problems.

I'll restate it one last time, next time you'll get a "success" for pointless repetion. Settlements agenda is one of the three main areas of deescalation, and also the only one of them that has seen consistent, ongoing deterioration of situation. It's very telling that in all real and practical terms, it simply does not exist in your "peaceful" strategy, I mean it never going to do anything real and practical about continous and ongoing expansion of settlements, as it never did, correct?

Once again if your focus is all or nothing and all at once, you are going to be disappointed.

<"success!"> misrepresentation of opponent

If you are looking at moving from one area to the next, there is progress.

And you close your eyes to not see the entire situation, where there's massive deterioration. By moving one step forward and 4 / 25 and so on, back, do you move to the goal or away from it? Of course if your genuine goal is the same as what you claim it to be.

Much like what happened in Northern Ireland. There were talks with all parties, moves to reduce violence and then military presence, political representation and then coming up with a lasting solution. Even so, this year we saw sectarian violence but it hasn't derailed the committment to resolving things.

Northern Ireland situation isn't even remotely similar to Middle East, for once there's no occupation and creeping annexation by one state of another. So, Dobbin, it has to be another

<"success!"> pointless distraction from issue at hand

According to your own link, some of them have not been approved yet.

This is a direct quote from the reference:

"US officials nevertheless agreed to allow the construction of an additional 2,500 housing unites spanning across 700 buildings in a number of settlement outposts"

So it must be yet another

<"success!"> misrepresenation of referenced material.

(Of course the original reference wasn't mine, can't take credit for somebody else's good work).

Four "successes" in one post, not bad at all, but I'm sure you can do better still.

For yourself? I don't know you well enough to know if you are violent?

Yet it was you Dobbin, who said it, why going shy all of a sudden? And now that ridiculous comment about my character. As said, once started on the path of absurdity, there's no telling where one'd end up.

Edited July 10, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

No reference to "expected announcement" appears in your posted links, and no such announcement has been made either, so we'll have to treat this statement:

as still unsubstantied, despite all your definite promises otherwise.

Just as the deal for 2500 settlements is unsubstantiated?

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/07/09/100...mpromise-report

The United States denied a report that it would allow the completion of 2,500 housing units in the West Bank as part of a compromise on settlements.

"No, that report, and that Israeli media outlet, is inaccurate," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Wednesday, referring to the story that day in Ma'ariv. "Our position has not changed."

You have been saying it is a done deal. I said it hasn't been approved.

And then, as we already established, the only context full, i.e. permanent and unconditional "freeze" is referenced in your link, is negative. Yet this statement:

Yes, I was incorrect. The U.S. has not made a deal yet where they approve 2500 settlements. That was the Israeli press take on but the news conference in the U.S. pretty much kiboshed that yesterday.

If you're implying that the agreement implicitly or explicitly agreed to a massive deterioration of situation outside of miniscule area of "focus", then it's simply a bad agreement, and its results would lead not toward the peace, but away from it, just what we see in reality. Congratulations on claiming success with the result that any sane individual would consider an accomplished failure (yourself included, e.g. in that reno project, am I wrong?).

I am saying the roadmap was concentrating on getting results in one geographic area first.

I'll restate it one last time, next time you'll get a "success" for pointless repetion. Settlements agenda is one of the three main areas of deescalation, and also the only one of them that has seen consistent, ongoing deterioration of situation. It's very telling that in all real and practical terms, it simply does not exist in your "peaceful" strategy, I mean it never going to do anything real and practical about continous and ongoing expansion of settlements, as it never did, correct?

Violent attacks don't seem to be part of your vocabulary. You seem to think they will stop if the settlements are all gone without knowing that the stated goals of Hamas was to push all Israelis everywhere into the sea.

And you close your eyes to not see the entire situation, where there's massive deterioration. By moving one step forward and 4 / 25 and so on, back, do you move to the goal or away from it? Of course if your genuine goal is the same as what you claim it to be.

Your unilateral approach doesn't work, never has.

Northern Ireland situation isn't even remotely similar to Middle East, for once there's no occupation and creeping annexation by one state of another. So, Dobbin, it has to be another

There wasn't?

Yet it was you Dobbin, who said it, why going shy all of a sudden? And now that ridiculous comment about my character. As was said, once started on the path of absurdity, there's no telling where one'd end up.

I was referring to you. However, I am now starting to think the behaviour would a lot more passive in the presence of another person.

[myata]

Just as the deal for 2500 settlements is unsubstantiated?

Of course it is, Dobbin. It is substantiated by the original reference, and this direct quote from your own reference:

"Israel says the building of the 2,500 units is already under way and cannot be lawfully stopped"

Thank you for confirming my earlier assertion that the construction of this new expansion of illegal settlements, which you did not want to notice, is under way.

Yes, I was incorrect. The U.S. has not made a deal yet where they approve 2500 settlements.

Apparently (of course you didn't noticed, did you?) Israel only needs US "approval" in the matters of its massive financial and military aid. Expansion of settlements is going equally well with or without such "approval". That is what we were talking about, and it's now a fact confirmed yet again.

I am saying the roadmap was concentrating on getting results in one geographic area first.

<"success!"> repetion of alraeady addressed argument.

Violent attacks don't seem to be part of your vocabulary.

<"success!"> misreading, ignoring opponent's argument or misrepresentation of opponent.

You seem to think they will stop if the settlements are all gone without knowing that the stated goals of Hamas was to push all Israelis everywhere into the sea.

I said that showing real progress in halting the constrution of settlements would be a genuine progress toward deescalation of conflict and eventual peace. No such progress has been seen so far, and your approach makes it highly doubtful it'll happen anytime soon, because it ignores gross and persistent violations of this critical agenda.

BTW next time you'll get a "success!" for thinking for the opponent, rather than responding to their clearly stated arguments.

Your unilateral approach doesn't work, never has.

<"success!> repeating argument that has been already addressed

I was referring to you. However, I am now starting to think the behaviour would a lot more passive in the presence of another person.

What you said is on record here, and that you think about my behaviour or anything else related to my persona for that matter, does not interest, nor concern me one tiny, little, miniscule and insignificant bit.

[jdobbin]

Of course it is, Dobbin. It is substantiated by the original reference, and this direct quote from your own reference:

"Israel says the building of the 2,500 units is already under way and cannot be lawfully stopped"

That is what some are saying. Others like the State Department are saying those units have not been approved.

Thank you for confirming my earlier assertion that the construction of this new expansion of illegal settlements, which you did not want to notice, is under way.

Actually, the link said they are not all under way.

Apparently (of course you didn't noticed, did you?) Israel only needs US "approval" in the matters of its massive financial and military aid. Expansion of settlements is going equally well with or without such "approval". That is what we were talking about, and it's now a fact confirmed yet again.

Not according to the reports.

<"success!"> repetion of alraeady addressed argument.

<"success!"> misreading, ignoring opponent's argument or misrepresentation of opponent.

How old are you? I am really starting to think you must be in high school or something.

I said that showing real progress in halting the constrution of settlements would be a genuine progress toward deescalation of conflict and eventual peace. No such progress has been seen so far, and your approach makes it highly doubtful it'll happen anytime soon, because it ignores gross and persistent violations of this critical agenda.

BTW next time you'll get a "success!" for thinking for the opponent, rather than responding to their clearly stated arguments.

I'll let you know when I think you have clearly responded. I don't think you have.

What you said is on record here, and that you think about my behaviour or anything else related to my persona for that matter, does not interest, nor concern me one tiny, little, miniscule and insignificant bit.

Then I'm sure you'll not respond to where I think your behaviour is something I doubt would be been seen in face to face discussion.

Edited July 10, 2009 by jdobbin

[myata]

That is what some are saying. Others like the State Department are saying those units have not been approved.

OK, I'll explain that paradox for your. They haven't been "approved" by SD (from which could one conclude that there're some that were? anyways), but their construction is indeed underway, according to this very clear and inambiguous in any way statement from your own link:

"Israel says the building of the 2,500 units is already under way and cannot be lawfully stopped."

So this:

Actually, the link said they are not all under way.

Dobbin, is a

<"success!"> misrepresentation of referenced material.

Not according to the reports.

Your own posted report says that construction is under way, so it must be yet another

<"success!"> unsing unconfermed references as facts or misrepresenting referenced material.

I am really starting to think you must be in high school or something.

I'll take it as a complement any time as long as my reasoning is sound, and it obviously is, if you have to resort to this kind of "arguments".

I'll let you know when I think you have clearly responded. I don't think you have.

And this is also a clear

<"success!"> ignoring an argument by the opponent that has been clearly stated.

You're making real strides here, and getting tantalizingly close to the perfect score.

Then I'm sure you'll not respond to where I think your behaviour is something I doubt would be been seen in face to face discussion.

I already said that I can't care less about what you think about my persona, but I'm also quite doubtful you'd exhibitt the same methods of disputing were it held in public.

Edited July 10, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

OK, I'll explain that paradox for your. They haven't been "approved" by SD (from which could one conclude that there're some that were? anyways), but their construction is indeed underway, according to this very clear and inambiguous in any way statement from your own link:

"Israel says the building of the 2,500 units is already under way and cannot be lawfully stopped."

You really are acting like a child.

Some in Israel says the units are already underway but others say that story is unsourced.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ent-freeze.html

The unsourced front page story of an Israeli newspaper conflicts with U.S calls for a halt to construction.

I already said that I can't care less about what you think about my persona, but I'm also quite doubtful you'd exhibitt the same methods of disputing were it held in public.

I am in public. I am not anonymous. Care to reveal who you are?

[myata]

You really are acting like a child.

<"success!"> attacking the opponent rather than arguments

Some in Israel says the units are already underway but others say that story is unsourced.

If so, you forgot to confirm it with a reference. Again. Because this is what you own reference has to say on the matter:

Israel estimates that 2,500 units are in the process of being built and cannot be stopped under Israeli law.

There's also a picture of a labourer working on construction of new housing units in settlements.

The "unsourced" part only relates to the purported US "approval" of this new massive expansion (0.5% of the entire settlement population in this one event), with strong suggestions that such approval may indeed be in the works.

Just as was explained to you earlier, but again, you simply refuse to take in facts.

So this has to be an astounding multiple

<"success!"> misrepresentation of referenced material.

and

<"success!"> using unsubstantiated statements as facts and ignoring arguments of the opponent.

And you know what, Dobbin? You did it! You have achieved the perfect 100% absolute score! I.e. none of the statements in this last post could be confirmed factually, or supported by logical arguments. Congratulations, keep on great job of promoting peace in the world, but hopefully (in my private view, of course) with somewhat opposite results to your glorious string of "successes" so far.

I am in public. I am not anonymous. Care to reveal who you are?

That would somehow improve, or alter your position in this discussion?

[jdobbin]

<"success!"> attacking the opponent rather than arguments

Just pointing out your behaviour seems quite childish. Attacking and insults seems to be more your forte.

That would somehow improve, or alter your position in this discussion?

Yes, it would actually. Care to stop being anonymous? Because at the moment, I find it hard to believe that anyone would act as you do if their actual names were attached to the post.

Your disengagement policy seems to extend to voting in general. It appears your argument of not voting or participating is the answer to meaningful change. It isn't.

Edited July 11, 2009 by jdobbin

[myata]

Just pointing out your behaviour seems quite childish. Attacking and insults seems to be more your forte.

Strange how it goes in your logic, isn't it? You call somebody a name, and then accuse them of "attacking and insults"? Although we've already established that logic and rationality has not been your forte in this discussion (what is?)

Yes, it would actually. Care to stop being anonymous? Because at the moment, I find it hard to believe that anyone would act as you do if their actual names were attached to the post.

I'm sorry Dobbin, but this has to be a

<"success!"> failing to substantite request for private information with fact or logical argument

Your disengagement policy seems to extend to voting in general.

And this too:

<"success!"> misrepresenting opponent and failing to stay on topic under discussion

It appears your argument of not voting or participating is the answer to meaningful change. It isn't.

Because the absence of such change (and on the contrary, presence of very meaningful deterioration) has been factually demonstrated, I cannot but to call it yet another great:

<"success!">using unsubstantiated statements as facts.

Edited July 11, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

Strange how it goes in your logic, isn't it? You call somebody a name, and then accuse them of "attacking and insults"? Although we've already established that logic and rationality has not been your forte in this discussion (what is?)

As I said, just pointing out your behaviour appears childish and angry. And I think the reason you do it is because you can remain anonymous and not have to be personally accountable to it.

[myata]

As I said, just pointing out your behaviour appears childish and angry. And I think the reason you do it is because you can remain anonymous and not have to be personally accountable to it.

Looks like another bunch of successes. And I already stopped counting. And I don't really care to.

[jdobbin]

Looks like another bunch of successes. And I already stopped counting. And I don't really care to.

Avoided the observation altogether that you only say what you are saying because you can do it anonymously.

I can't imagine that any party or political leader in Canada is willing to follow your course of action. They certainly won't do it if you don't participate in voting since how would they even know your view existed or had real support?

[myata]

Using your imagination and changing the subject? More "successes"!

[jdobbin]

Using your imagination and changing the subject? More "successes"!

Your anonymous nature is not likely to have any influence on the present situation. Put a name to your political convictions instead of hiding.

Not voting and disengaging and choosing to be anonymous don't sound very politically influential.