----- Original Message -----
From: "Mermaid ." <britannica@hotmail.com>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 8:16 PM
Subject: virus: Attn: Jonathan Davis.
> [Jonathan Davis]You are the one who made the claim about me ( and Joe). I
> invite you to support it.
>
> [Mermaid]Is it really necessary? The evidence is all over the mailing
list.
Yes it is. Make claim then back it up.
>
> [Jonathan Davis]I have a massive range of readings and sources of
> information. All that is relevant is the quality of the arguments I
present
> - nothing more.
>
> [Mermaid]And the massive range of readings and sources of information have
> not one word about the truly deplorable conditions of the homeless
> Palestinians?
Oh yes, Mermaid. Plenty. Here is shock for you: I don't post everything I
read.
>It has nudged you to conclude that Palestinians are barbarians
> and out of the two, Israelis are civilised? How wide is this massive
range?
Massive.
>
> [Jonathan Davis]What I am, what my motives are irrelevant. My sources of
> information are only relevant in the context of their relationship to a
> claim or argument. You have said in essence "He is wrong because he only
> reads one sided propaganda". I am telling you this is rubbish.
>
> [Mermaid]I am not sure I get this right. It sounds like you are telling me
> that you pick your sources to support your opinions? Do correct me if I
got
> that wrong.
Yes, you got it wrong.
>
> [Mermaid]What I said is your reading material might be nothing more than
> propaganda because of why and how and by whom Arabic sources are
translated.
> From these translations comes a slew of articles that support the alleged
> skewed bias of MEMRI.
What follows is not my reply to the above, which is new.
>
> [Jonathan Davis]That is of course is a speculation, again something you
> cannot know so you choose to claim.
Ummm....It looks like I am replying to your insert. Is this another mistake
or another trick?
>
> [Mermaid]I cannot claim that you and Joe Dees are not idiots and that you
> guys might see something in a different light if you chose to explore the
> sources???..:)
You do not know what I have an have not read. I read accounts from all sides
as well as from disinterested parties.
>
> [Jonathan Davis]I claim that you are received all your information in a
> digest from Hermit. See, no need for evidence. It just IS.
>
> [Mermaid]You can. But not bloody likely.
Exactly. You can claim what you like about Joe and I. In this case you are
either lying or just plain wrong (but with a malicious edge).
>
> [Hermit]To assert that Joe and I uncritically absorb the opinions of the
> organs we read and that those organs are biased and one sided is
> unsupported.
>
> [Mermaid]There are two statements here. One is an alleged accusation about
> Joe Dees and your reading habits.
You have agreed you were making this allegation.
> The other is an assertion that the sources
> are biased and one sided.
The poisoned platter.
>I dont know how you got that. In essence, what I
> said was meant to ring to you as ...look jonathan and dees, there is an
> article that is curious about MEMRI's motivations.
I had not even heard of them until you posted the link.
> information incest is not
> uncommon in the journalistic world. if the very source is biased, all the
> news that is based on certain translations will be biased too....
Indeed. Why does this apply to Joe and I any more than anyone else? It does
not.
>
> So I asked you...in not so many words...jonathan and dees, would you care
to
> read the article and tell me if you are sure your information is not
biased?
I am sure that virtually everything published is biased in some way. That
does not mean I believe it. It also does not necessarily mean that something
is incorrect. I ask you again: Why should I be any more at risk from bias
and propaganda than anyone else? I have a whole armoury of learning to help
me avoid becoming the victim of coercive persuasion. Why don't you examine
my "Thinking Straight: Internet Resources" page here:
http://tinyurl.com/10dv . You might find the section on Media Literacy
helpful - http://tinyurl.com/10du .
> After all, MEMRI is headed by the same interests that cherish characters
like
> Daniel Pipes. Richard Pearle is also a noted neo-con.
What is this? Guilt by association? Bad company fallacy, dearie...look it
up.
>It doesnt take much
> for curiosity to peak. The knee jerk reaction on your part is mostly
> self-defense for an accusation that was not uttered.
More mind reading. You are piling lies on top of lies here. I resented being
singled out in your posts and having the implicit accusation (which you
confirmed) that I unthinkingly propagate biased articles.
You imagine that because I disagree with you, I must be contaminated by
bias. It has probably not occurred to you that I have weighed the evidence
and come to my conclusions and have arguments to defend those conclusions.
You are either incapable or unwilling to take on the arguments, so you play
the man as they might say in football. It is form of cheating Mermaid.
>
> [Jonathan Davis]In fact, it borders on a deliberate falsehood. Can you
> provide reasons for this accusation? Evidence?
>
> [Mermaid]I cannot because no such accusation was made.
So what did you mean and why were Joe and I singled out? Was it simply
because you disagree with us?
>Your critical enquiry
> might have no standing if the very core source translations was nothing
more
> than propaganda which you cannot investigate.(unless you live in an
> Arab/Moslem country and speak the language) You didnt know about it
before.
> Now you do. Would you care to investigate it? Or would you still maintain
> that your sources are immaculate?
Ummm I have never maintained anything about my sources. let me repeat: I
distrust everything. I am a sceptic. I am cynical about the media. Where
have you dreamed up this idea that I think 'my' sources are immaculate?
> [Mermaid]And how exactly do you absorb your database of news and
information
> uncritically? Do tell us.
No, you tell us. I cannot do it, but many do.
> It will be most useful during times of confusion
> and propaganda. I hope that when I make a judgement I do not unwittingly
> play into the hands of those with questionable motives. I cannot always be
> sure, tho.
Indeed.
>What about you, Jonathan Davis? How are you sure your information
> is without bias?
Mermaid, for the last time: Every human authored publication is likely to
reflect some bias of some sort! Where have you come to this idiotic notion
that I (or anyone) belives that sources are bias free?
>I have asked myself this question again and again and again
> after a very interesting exchange with Ben.(Thank you, ben) and I have
come
> to the conclusion that there is no such thing as an unbiased source of
> information although there is such a thing as fact and there is another
> called 'opinion'. How do you judge? Do you give more importance to fact or
> to opinions?
Oh..boy, finally. What makes you think I am any different to you Mermaid?
>
> [Jonathan Davis]No it is not. It is a claim that 1. We uncritically accept
> information frombiased sources and 2. propagate them. This is false and
> insulting. It is a classic ad hominem. "You are wrong because you reads
the
> Daily Worker". Do I really need to be explaining this to anyone?
>
> [Mermaid]Based upon the what has been quoted by both of you, I have come
to
> the conclusion that those articles might be based on biased sources. That
is
> what the Guardian link I posted attempts to uncover.
Now I know you are talking out of your arse. My chief source is the UK
Guardian. Go on. Have a look. Post some examples of my biased articles
then. Post even one. How about it? Come on - just one. Here are my last 50
posts- http://tinyurl.com/10e6. Show me the biased articles. Show me a
single the article I posted with a biased source.
Over to you.
Regards
Jonathan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT