Matheta wrote:...You 'dervan, are beginning to p1ss me off with this. YOU are the one who snidely rejected the Tweet I used, dismissing it because I didn't provide enough source information for you...".
"Snidely"? Please: let's review the exchange in question dispassionately:
Matheta: "Hamas claimed that 50 of the more than 60 killed along the border between Gaza and Israel during an outbreak of violent protests following the U.S. Embassy’s opening in Jerusalem Monday were part of its terror organization Wednesday."
vebiltdervan: "'Part of their terror organization'?? Something tells me that, no, Hamas did not claim it that way. Source please."
Sorry, I'm not seeing the "snide" part. Not too surprising, because I never posted a "snide" part. What I did was to question (as gently as possible) the idea that Hamas would refer to themselves as a "terror organization". Your post appeared to be a mash-up of an uncited source ("Hamas claimed...") and your own characterizations, without providing the reader a way to differentiate between the two. So I respectfully ("Please...") requested the identity of your uncited source.
Let's talk about providing sources. To my mind, it's simply a matter of being respectful, in any serious thread, to one's readers to provide a link (or at least sufficient information to make Googling efficient) to any quoted/paraphrased source. It's a matter of simple respect to differentiate what's being quoted from what is the writer's personal beliefs.
Matheta wrote:...You sought to bolster your position by your assertion re: several IDF friends. Stuff like that doesn't impress me...
It was never intended to "impress" you. It was intended to underscore the fact that the IDF's official spokespersons (i.e., your source
) should properly be expected to be biased, potentially laughably biased, rather than any kind of objective, arms-length judge of the IDF-Hamas-Gazans confrontation. Israelis, with the exception of the majority of the ultra-orthodox population, are essentially all required to serve in the IDF. But at the same time, Israelis are fiercely proud of their individual intellectual independence and remarkably argumentative. On the whole, they would be quite resistant to abdicating their own judgment, in favor of any spokesperson, including their own IDF's. You need not take my word for this, but I am setting the idea forth as a good & valuable thing, per se.
So I wasn't "trying to bolster my position", I was trying to bolster the idea of using one's brain to question authority, in this case, the authority of the IDF, as they are not a disinterested party, they are a party to the conflict and indeed they are precisely the ones responsible for the deaths in question. As such, there is valid cause to question the objectivity of the material they post on the internet. That, unfortunately, is something you did not bother to do. Nor did you differentiate what the IDF source claimed from what you personally added to the same sentence.
I would hope that, in general, if one is citing a biased or potentially biased source on this forum, it should be a matter of respect to one's readers to warn them of this fact, not to obscure it.
Matheta wrote:...The slight you imagined was not there except that OUR history causes it...
Count me dubious. You claim now that you intended no personal slight with your suggested "I'm not racist" "equivalence", but consider this: A definitively correct equivalence of my citing friends in the IDF to someone claiming "I'm not racist; I've got black friends" would have been if (& only if) I had cited my IDF friends as evidence that I am not an anti-Semite
. I was obviously not bothering to do any such thing. I had a different point entirely, one that, unlike "I'm not racist..." was a respectable point, not a laughable one. No matter how many time you repeat your "equivalence" in an attempt to obscure its inappropriateness, its inappropriateness is not going away. If you failed to comprehend this inappropriateness, the proper follow-up is an apology, not an announcement that you're p1ssed off. I'm p1ssed off more, & for cause.
Matheta wrote:...I don't recall the last time when you have unreservedly given apology. NEVER!!
I rely on the many posters here who have better-functioning memories.