From: Lawrence DeBivort (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat 14 Dec 2002 - 15:21:42 GMT
I do not consider memri a reliable source. Their material is overwhelmingly
pro-Israeli, and their source of financing hidden.
IN fairness, some of my friends view their translations as adequately
accurate, but that their selection of what they translate and post is
If indeed the materials that Joe posted are from authentic sources, I
would -- as always -- like to see the primary source reference.
There is a huge amount of disinformation being posted to the Web re. the
Middle East. Web standards of authenticity are poor, largely, I think, due
to the fact that the Web is so populist, and much of the Web public is
gullible. There are specialized lists in which this is not the case. Our
list here is pretty good on memetics, but our discussions on the Middle
East, and our use of sources, is pretty weak, though better than many!
So, back to the original question: what are the primary sources?
Joe -- do you remember a bunch of sound-bite quotes you put up here about
the Palestinians evacuating their lands in 47-48? I think you got back to
your 'pro-Israeli' site to try and find the source, and that you got back a
reference to yet another derivative site, but no primary source.
It is easy, on the Web, so stuff to be invented and then circulated enough
that it takes on patina if not veracity. That is why primary sources are
essential. You will note that when Jeremy, I, and others were discussing,
for example, the WWI liberation of Damascus, we all used primary sources. I
think that if you really want to argue your anti-Islamic case, you will have
to do the same. But you rely endlessly and naively on such as Daniel Pipes,
"ibn Warraq", the Hoover Institute, MEMRI, etc. Could you not simply discipline yourself to use primary sources? They do exist in profusion. Journalists publish in specific newspapers, which have specific dates. Academics publish in Journals and books, with dates, publishers and titles. Experts give talks at conferences that publish proceedings, on certain dates and places.
You do a lot of cutting and pasting, but severely weaken your case by
depending on derivative, inexpert, or biased sources, or, indeed, pasting
things without any references at all.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf
> Of email@example.com
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 11:19 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Another Example of the Radical Islam Memeplex
> > On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 10:29 PM, Lawrence DeBivort wrote:
> > > Well, Joe, are you going to provide us with a reference on this? Or
> > > do you expect us to take your word for its authenticity?
> > I find it below. Can't answer for veracity.
> > - Wade
> You can find them all by accessing this page and clicking on "read
> > http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/355b
> > qppp. asp
> > ===============================================================
> > 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 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 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 14 Dec 2002 - 15:14:14 GMT