bud Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 ah. right. okay. i guess you're the new iraqi information minister. "the poll shows that 35% would rather remain israeli, therefore that holds a lot of value since majority want to stay israeli. you're so thick for not understanding this." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) ah. right. okay. i guess you're the new iraqi information minister. "the poll shows that 35% would rather remain israeli, therefore that holds a lot of value since majority want to stay israeli. you're so thick for not understanding this." Yes you can re write what I wrote..but that's not what I wrote so quite clearly you are a liar as well as a moron. Edited January 17, 2011 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 ah. right. okay. i guess you're the new iraqi information minister. "the poll shows that 35% would rather remain israeli, therefore that holds a lot of value since majority want to stay israeli. you're so thick for not understanding this." Way to go! Simply change "if" to "since" in your (mis)quote, completely changing the meaning of what was actually said. Nice attempt to save face! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) Yes you can re write what I wrote..but that's not what I wrote so quite clearly you are a liar as well as a moron. poll and article says: A poll this week shows that 35 per cent of Jerusalem's Palestinian residents would choose Israeli citizenship over Palestinian citizenship. you wrote: The poll has value because Jeruslaem as a capital of a Palsestian state won't fly if a majority of Arabs would rather stay Israeli. that's a quote from you. i wrote: 35% is not majority. you wrote: Boy are you thick... Where did I say that 35% is a majority? Are you really this stupid? go on, tell us more Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf. Edited January 17, 2011 by bud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Poor Dub....unable to grasp the nuance of a two letter word or the plurality of 35% decided over 30% decided and 35% undecided... If he ever grasps the conjuction.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) Way to go! Simply change "if" to "since" in your (mis)quote, completely changing the meaning of what was actually said. Nice attempt to save face! It is different, but it does not "completely" change the meaning. In the rhetorical context he used it, "if" is presented not as a speculative, but as pointing to an established fact. Here it is again: The poll has value because Jeruslaem as a capital of a Palsestian state won't fly if a majority of Arabs would rather stay Israeli.. It is the way the English language works that in this sort of construction, it is nominally a hypothetical, but not really; it is a declaration. "If" is only speculative in the sense of "if the polling information I supplied was correct" (and ignoring whether or not he has interpreted it correctly for purposes of his "Palestinians suck" argument, which of course is the underlying thesis). For example: "If Harper is going to lead a minority government, he has to work with the opposition." There's no possibility in such a sentence to claim afterwards that "if" means what "if" means in every other context. "If" is not speculative here. It's used in the manner of rhetorical construct. Unless, of course, he did not mean it as he wrote it; a possibility, because he is monumentally ignorant. Edited January 17, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Poor Dub....unable to grasp the nuance of a two letter word or the plurality of 35% decided over 30% decided and 35% undecided... If he ever grasps the conjuction.... did the information ministry give you the permission to include the 35% undecided as decided? if so, i understand. go on, tell us more muhammad saeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) It is different, but it does not "completely" change the meaning. In the rhetorical context he used it, "if" is presented not as a spculative, but as a fact. Yes, it does completely change the meaning. When using "since," it's a declarative statement; a statement that the majority want Israeli citizenship. Since there are so many undecided, IF a majority want Israeli citizenship, safely assuming that the undecided will have to choose one or the other, then Jerusalem as a capital of a Palsestian state won't fly, is a different statement. There's no claim that the majority want Israeli citizenship, only an observation in regards to IF they do. He is not saying that the majority want Israeli citizenship, he's clearly saying IF. Bud is wrong. He is falsely accusing M.Dancer of saying something he didn't, and his attempts to make it into something he didn't say doesn't change that fact. This isn't about M.Dancer and/or whether or not he's ignorant; it's about bud making a false claim, accusing someone of saying something that they didn't say. Edited January 17, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Majority means over 50%, 35% is not a majority. If 35%is a majority, then Harper has always had a majority government. I just want to point out M. Dancers reading comprehension issue. The above is what I had said... with his reply of Incorrect as always. 50.01% is a majority and no where did I say 35% was a majority. I did say that 35% is a lot bigger than 30%... Please try and pay attention. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 LOL @ This thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Yes, it does completely change the meaning. When using "since," it's a declarative statement; a statement that the majority want Israeli citizenship. Since there are so many undecided, IF a majority want Israeli citizenship, assuming that the undecided will have to choose one or the other, then Jerusalem as a capital of a Palsestian state won't fly, is a different statement. There's no claim that the majority want Israeli citizenship, only an observation in regards to IF they do. He is not saying that the majority want Israeli citizenship, he's clearly saying IF. Bud is wrong. No, he isn't. You're wrong. I tried to explain the thetorical distinctions of "if" used in such a context; you completely ignore it. If you disagree with my assessment, take it on and explain how I'm mistaken rather than repeating the argument I already attempted to navigate....you act as if I didn't write anything at all on the matter. In fact, you didn't read my argument at all. You read that one sentence, and then responded to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) No, he isn't. You're wrong. Ummm. No. I'm not. I tried to explain the thetorical distinctions of "if" used in such a context; you completely ignore it. Wrong. I didn't completely ignore it. I just chose not to outright say that you're wrong. Which you are. If you disagree with my assessment, take it on and explain how I'm mistaken rather than repeating the argument I already attempted to navigate....you act as if I didn't write anything at all on the matter. I did explain it. Quite clearly. In fact, you didn't read my argument at all. You read that one sentence, and then responded to it. Wrong again. That's a completely false accusation. But do carry on. And have a great day. Edited January 17, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Yes, it does completely change the meaning. When using "since," it's a declarative statement; a statement that the majority want Israeli citizenship. Since there are so many undecided, IF a majority want Israeli citizenship, safely assuming that the undecided will have to choose one or the other, then Jerusalem as a capital of a Palsestian state won't fly, is a different statement. There's no claim that the majority want Israeli citizenship, only an observation in regards to IF they do. He is not saying that the majority want Israeli citizenship, he's clearly saying IF. Bud is wrong. He is falsely accusing M.Dancer of saying something he didn't, and his attempts to make it into something he didn't say doesn't change that fact. This isn't about M.Dancer and/or whether or not he's ignorant; it's about bud making a false claim, accusing someone of saying something that they didn't say. dancer mentions the poll in his statement: The poll has value because Jeruslaem as a capital of a Palsestian state won't fly if a majority of Arabs would rather stay Israeli. the poll says 35% would rather remain israeli, which is not majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 The poll has value because Jeruslaem as a capital of a Palsestian state won't fly if a majority of Arabs would rather stay Israeli.. A reasonable person WOULD read that and think the poll showed a majority. Nobody with a grasp of english would dispute that. But that doesnt mean Morris was trying to mislead anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Ummm. No. I'm not. Oh yes. You are. Wrong. I didn't completely ignore it. I just chose not to outright say that you're wrong. Which you are. You say this without explaining it. I tried to explain why I think you're wrong; you don't even attempt to take on my argument. Why not? I did explain it. Quite clearly. No you didn't. You didn't say how I was wrong to parse the difference between the nominally speculative and the actual speculative; you ignore the rhetorical uses of figures of speech in favour of a simplistic literalism which simply doesn't apply (as is displayed by the example I used, about "If Harper is leading a minority government..." which is precisely the same rhetorical context used, consciously or not, by M. Dancer). No, you just claim I'm wrong, then you favour a literalist reading over the more nuanced, rhetorical one (even though the literalist one can't be accurate, because M. Dancer already told us he believes it...so there is no speculation.... ....According to the very person making the declaration in the first place. You're using "plausible deniability," misinterpreting the word "if" as used here; unless you will take on my argument itself, rather than blandly repeating the argument I've already tried to parse, then it's pointless. We already have a Saipan and a Bush-Cheney on this board. On the other hand, if you don't feel like debating the matter honestly...why bother at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 dancer mentions the poll in his statement: The poll has value because Jeruslaem as a capital of a Palsestian state won't fly if a majority of Arabs would rather stay Israeli. the poll says 35% would rather remain israeli, which is not majority. Which is why he said "if" in his observation, not "since" the way you misquoted him. The poll also shows a lot of "undecided," so IF enough of the undecided end up wanting Israeli citizenship, IF after the undecideds do decide a majority want Israeli citizenship ........ It's not a given, it's not stated as the way it is; it's an IF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Which is why he said "if" in his observation, not "since" the way you misquoted him. The poll also shows a lot of "undecided," so IF enough of the undecided end up wanting Israeli citizenship, IF after the undecideds do decide a majority want Israeli citizenship ........ It's not a given, it's not stated as the way it is; it's an IF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 On the other hand, if you don't feel like debating the matter honestly...why bother at all? I am debating it honestly, and I did so without insulting you/resorting to comparing you to posters I obviously don't think highly of the way you did. You might want to practice what you preach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Which is why he said "if" in his observation, not "since" the way you misquoted him. The poll also shows a lot of "undecided," so IF enough of the undecided end up wanting Israeli citizenship, IF after the undecideds do decide a majority want Israeli citizenship ........ It's not a given, it's not stated as the way it is; it's an IF. hasbara bots usually don't give up until they're ignored. it doesn't matter how much reality you shove down their throats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) I am debating it honestly, and I did so without insulting you/resorting to comparing you to posters I obviously don't think highly of the way you did. You might want to practice what you preach. M. Dancer is a douchebag, who called me a pedophile, and insults me to others, but refuses to debate me head on (conversely, I will discuss things with him any time he wants). Saipan and Bush-Cheney are trolls; they come here only to mock and and belittle. Everyone knows this. All of this is not related to my points about rhetorical word usages in English. Edited January 17, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 M. Dancer is a douchebag, who called me a pedophile, and insults me to others, but refuses to debate me head on (conversely, I will discuss things with him any time he wants). Saipan and Bush-Cheney are trolls; they come here only to mock and and belittle. Everyone knows this. All of this is not related to my points about rhetorical word usages in English. Its all a waste of time anyways, because all the people answering can do is guess about what such a site might be like to live on... so for the most part its based on what life is like there now... under a brutal military occupation where the residents arent even allowed to drill wells to irrigate crops. The OP was really just a transparent potshot at folks on the other side of the CONFLICT: DIRTFARM debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Given Bloodystupid's continued reminding me of my first impression of him, I wonder if I hit a nerve and perhaps I was right...something crooked about someone who won't let something go even after an apology was given and accepted by bloodystupid. I think he's more miffed that I ignore him than the actual insult...which again, speaks volumes about the underlying narcissism of the poster... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Its all a waste of time anyways, because all the people answering can do is guess about what such a site might be like to live on... so for the most part its based on what life is like there now... under a brutal military occupation where the residents arent even allowed to drill wells to irrigate crops. Is there a lot of farming in Jerusalem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Is there a lot of farming in Jerusalem? Doesnt matter whether there is or not. Those people were asked whether they wanted to be citizens of a potential palestinian state, and since such a state doesnt exist all they can do is guess what it might be like, and that view is going to colored by what its like in the occupied territories now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Doesnt matter whether there is or not. Sure it does....farmers have different priorities...not to mention that palestinian farmers aren't living in Israel where as the p[alestinians in east jerusalem are living in Isreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.