RE: Another Example of the Radical Islam Memeplex

From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Sun 15 Dec 2002 - 21:57:40 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "RE: Another Example of the Radical Islam Memeplex"

    Well, Joe, your posts become more and more revealing.

    Now you say, about MEMRI:

    I said:
    > > NOTHINGS about WHO is behind the [MEMRI] site -- not a word!

    And now you say:
    > Yeah; they wanna continue living, so they can continue to inform. NO
    > one has successfully challenged the legitimacy of their media sources
    > or the veracity of their translations - least of all you.

    Now, how in the world could you possibly know that, Joe, unless you know something about MEMRI that you are not admitting here....or are making it up as you go along? Joe, I think is clear that you don't have a clue who is behind MEMRI, don't want to admit it, that you are embarrassed about relying so much on an anonymous site, have conjured up some bogus explanation to excuse it, and are now trying to throw dust in our eyes about that. You don't know who they are, but now pretend to speak for them?

    > > > I suppose they're kinda like Ibn Warraq in a way; certain that if
    > > > their identities were known to Radical Muslims, that the bullets and
    > > > bombs would be forthcoming for daring to translate for the world
    > > > what they are saying to each other.
    > >
    > > Sure, Joe. With offices in London, Berlin, and Jerusalem -- they are
    > > just so vulnerable.
    > >
    > Yu Betcha; Islamofascist terror actions have occurred in all those
    > places.
    > >
    > > At least your friend Pipes doesn't hide his
    > > identity. Nor does his ubiquitous participation in any forum he is
    > > invited to seem to suggest that he fears for his life. You are
    > > grasping at straws to cover up your inability to state WHO is behind
    > > the MEMRI site, and the site's own conspicuous hiding of that
    > > information.
    > >
    > Actually, Pipes is very careful outside the US, and also careful
    > within it.
    > And you bring up the MEMRI identity issue simply to deflect attention
    > from the information they DO provide - accurate Eglish-language
    > translations what hatred and bigotry many Muslims in the media are
    > spewing in Arabic and Farsi. Deal with THAT on it's 'merits'!

    I have. And here, helpfully, you reveal your motives in even depending on such a dubious site.

    > > > > I notice that you ignore my challenge to you to produce ANY
    > > > > complaints that have been made of my provision of references. If
    > > > > indeed you can't find any, a simple apology on your part will
    > > > > suffice. Not that I'm holding my breath. Your callousness about
    > > > > people I know who died in the WTC has not been forgotten by
    > > > > members of this list.
    > > > >
    > > > Most people complain about the inadequacy of the present rather than
    > > > the lack of the absent. I noticed that, despite my request, you did
    > > > not provide me with any credible academic references you have
    > > > previously posted/cited. I can not only not find complaints about
    > > > your references; I can't find your references.
    > >
    > > Well, gosh, YOU are the one who said that people had complained about
    > > my references, so I would think that you might be able to rise to the
    > > challenge of actually providing an instance in which that has
    > > happened. Instead, you are trying to divert attention from your empty
    > > accusation to my having to copy of citations of primary sources that I
    > > HAVE provided! But then, Joe, it would seem you have a VERY short
    > > term and 'convenient' memory. You have merely to go back to the very
    > > interesting discussion that several of us had on the entry of the
    > > Allies into Damascus to see primary source citations aplenty, from
    > > myself, and from others on this list who know the difference between a
    > > primary sources and mere punditry or anonymous posting. And then, of
    > > course, there is the more recent listing of sources that help explore
    > > the question of 'what happened' to the Islamic world....
    > >
    > No, you are the one complaining about my references, and your chief
    > complaint seems to be that I have them, and can support what I post
    > here.
    > >
    > > So, again, Joe: please provide us with ANY example of where anyone on
    > > this list has criticized my references. It is YOUR accusation, made to
    > > everyone on the list, so now you must provide some evidence to back it
    > > up, or honor should require you to retract the accusation, not try and
    > > divert attention with red herrings
    > >
    > Whyncha present a case where anyone but you has tried to criticize
    > mine? And I have seen no references provided by you in your
    > discussions with me - just a knee-jerk distaste for mine, for they
    > introduced dissonance into your cognitive preconceptions.

    Oh, so now, your latest red herring is my references in emails to YOU? But Joe, I am not having a substantive debate with you: I comment on your persona and methods and motives. No independent citations are needed for this; I'll stand by my characterization of you, and my conclusion that discussing substantive questions with you is a simple waste of time.

    So you are now left without any substance for your accusation that others have criticized any of my references, and still do not have the integrity to admit it....

    > You don't WANT the debate to be about the Islamofascist memeplex,
    > because you would lose a debate on its fundamental nature hands
    > down. Thus you try to make me, or anything else on Allah's sandy
    > eareth, the issue but that. And you fail, simple because the sources for
    > the stories are heavily footnoted, with links, so anyone who wishes can
    > check both sources and translations.

    Joe, I have had several discussions with others on this list about that
    'memeplex,' and they have indeed been interesting discussions. You, though, or this matter are far beyond the Pale. For yourself, yes, YOU are the issue.

    Ted and others nailed you pretty accurately, some time back, and you, and the issue of you, have not changed since then.

    So unless you have anything new to say, I think you have now revealed yourself, your motives and your methods adequately for my purposes, and I have no need to continue interacting with you.

    Of course, if you should wish simply to apologize for your accusation, or provide information on WHO is in reality behind your website, MEMRI, please feel free to go ahead.

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 15 Dec 2002 - 21:50:04 GMT