RE: Another Example of the Radical Islam Memeplex

Date: Sun 15 Dec 2002 - 22:42:59 GMT

  • Next message: "RE: Pax Americana Imperium"

    > 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 know that many Islamofascists would be only too eager to shut them up, as MEMRI is exposing them ffor what they are, and using their own words to do it. Just ask Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasrin how radical Muslims respond to criticism. Recent history has shown such precautions to be eminently justified.
    > > > > 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.
    But the site is NOT dubious, in the sense that the information it provides is incorrect; it most certainly IS NOT INCORRECT! MEMRI even provides those who wish to verify same with the media outlet, the date of issuance, the author, and in most cases a link to it in its original Arabic or Farsi.
    > > > > > 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....
    People cannot criticize the character of the absent, except to note its absence, as I have noted in my discuessions with you. I do not recall your providing me with any references with which to ground your diatribes. And you have to slander the messenger, and me, who makes the MEMRI messenger available here, because you cannot refute the message, for the simple reason that it is exactly what it says it is, horses' mouth translations with references and links copiously provided, and is thus irrefutable. You call me a bigot, simply because I bring such memetic intolerance, spoken by the infectees themselves, to light on this list. Sech actions and stances do not, to say the least, speak highly of either your character or your objectivity.
    > > 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.
    No, the memeplex is the issue; you keep attempting, unsuccessfully, to divert attention from it by futilely trying to make it about me instead. Everyone with eyes to read sees this tactic being attempted by you, and what it says of you, that you would prefer to slander me than to discuss issues upon which your apologian position would clearly lose.
    > Ted and others nailed you pretty accurately, some time back, and you,
    > and the issue of you, have not changed since then.
    So, you're associating yourself with the likes of MP Ted, I suspected as much; you are both pursuing your own little emotion-invested religio- ideological jihads, and you both get really steamed when someone intervenes with (gasp! horrors!) actual facts.
    > 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.
    Actuall, that is what you have done for (or to) yourself, and not only to me, I'm shure, dewde!
    > 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.
    What accusation? That your position is groundless, and unsoupported, thus you must resort to ad hominem character-impugning slander? I think the veracity of that accusation shines through in your rabid screeds with crystalline clarity.
    > ===============================================================
    > 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:

    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 15 Dec 2002 - 22:44:41 GMT