From: Lawrence DeBivort (email@example.com)
Date: Sun 15 Dec 2002 - 00:27:06 GMT
Thanks for letting us know you are a MEMRI supporter, Joe.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf
> Of firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 2:37 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: Another Example of the Radical Islam Memeplex
> > I do not consider memri a reliable source. Their material is
> > overwhelmingly pro-Israeli, and their source of financing hidden.
> I'm one of their hidden funding sources; I contributed $20 to their
> pledge drive, as I consider their work, which is letting the non-arabic-
> speaking world know what is being said about them in Arabic to be
> inportant to remaining informed about actual, as opposed to
> manufactured, opinions.
> > IN fairness, some of my friends view their translations as adequately
> > accurate, but that their selection of what they translate and post is
> > biased.
> They present the negative AND the positive; they have been
> extensively covering the popular revolt in Iran against conservative
> clerical rule, and columnists in Saudi Arabia calling for the end of hate-
> indoctrination in that nation's schools.
Oh well, yes, I can see that in your mind this would represent both the
"negative" and the "positive"!
> > 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?
> They were broadcast on middle east television, and the broadcasts are
> reproduced on the MEMRI site for all to see and hear.
Joe, I could not match up the materials you posted with MEMRI site
broadcasts. But even if they could be matched up, we are left with the
matter of MEMRI's own pro-Israel, anti-Muslim bias.
> > 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.
> The source was an Egyptian journalist, who, I'm quite sure, has more
> knowledge of the area's history, and more access to original news
> accounts of the time, than you ever will. Not everything is on the web.
There is no need for 'everything' to the on the web: simple primary source
citations will do. If the material you posted is authentic, there must be a
primary source for it. Why don't you simply post it, if it exists?
> > 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.
> Actually, the sources I use, such as FOREIGN AFFAIRS, POLICY
> REVIEW, FOREIGN POLICY, THE WILSON QUARTERLY, THE
> MIDDLE EAST FORUM, MEMRI, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, THE
> NEW YORKER, HARPERS, etc. are among the most respected (by the
> unagendaed and unbiased) in the field.
Yes, some of these are respected, and others are not. It is a mix. I notice,
with delight, that you have dropped references to Daniel Pipes and "ibn
Warraq." On the whole, the sources you list here are definitely a cut or
two above them.
> > 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.
> Actually, I've seen a shovel-load more referencing from myself than I've
> ever seen from you - so much, that people have actually complained
> about it here.
I don't think so, Joe. Can you cite any complaint about my references?
I know you THINK you give a lot of sources, but compromised sources, simply,
aren't worth anything, which is why I keep asking for primary ones, if you
want to be taken seriously. It's your choice, of course. No one can force
you to provide primary sources, and I don't expect my reminders to you will.
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 : Sun 15 Dec 2002 - 00:19:16 GMT