xcise me that was Ben Gurion againThis one gets translated from English to English
Do you have a cite for the full speech? If so, link it in.
-XT
What “Times interview”
New York Times? London Times? LA Times?
1948 interview? 2006 interview?
Do you not know how to cite things?
In addition, a google search for that phrase yields zero hits. Not one. Did you retype it?
Note that the quote is again nonsensical as Palestine was never a pan-Arab country, and ‘they’ (the various Arab countries other than Egypt and Jordan) never had any claim to it at all. Even if you’re claiming he’s talking about the countryside. :rolleyes:
Or can you explain why Saudi Arabia would have a claim to the Israeli “countryside”? Didn’t think so.
And yes, I know he died in '73.
But we still don’t know the date of cite for this publication, which was the point.
And, heck, it might’ve been from a 2006 piece which used quotes from an earlier unpublished interview. Who knows? It’s not like we were given a real cite or any elaboration or analysis.
Along those same lines, a search for “A gulf and nobody can bridge it” yields one hit, to a blog in French. Using google’s translation software on the cite, it seems to be saying that this quote is from 1919. If that’s the case, then it seems dubious that it could be an accurate presentation of events nearly 30 years later. The Partition was largely accepted by the proto-Israelis, which means they would indeed have shared the country. (Or countryside :rolleyes: ) Likewise, after '67 Israel again offered to share gains it had made, but was responded to with the Three Noes.
In any case, I never got the memo were Ben Gurion became the Voice of Zionism and Israel. Ah well.
I could engage in an in depth analysis of exactly what Ben Gurion’s influence and power were in various timeframes, and how accurately he reflected various opinions of the time, but something tells me I’d be wasting the effort.
Rather than telling others to not debate themselves,why do you not actually participate in the discussion? “Drive-by” is a particularly apt description of your posting style and I do not believe that it is intended to “give time for some to think about it,” particularly when you almost never return to enlarge upon whatever vague point you thought you were making.
Your posts directed toward Finn Again are every bit as much ad hominem attacks as his are on you.
If you do not have the time to participate, then refrain from participating until you have the time.
EVERYONE, there is no rule that requires anyone to respond to nonsense or to half-formed ideas. If a post is unworthy of a response, then do not bother responding. If a poster will not engage in debate, then do not bother framing responses that will not carry forward a debate.
[ /Moderating ]
Point taken.
I do have to say that, for instance, my most recent spate of posts was more for the Peanut Gallery than anything else.
Much like one might rebut a silly creationist argument that distorts a quote a makes a claim out of context. And sometimes even the best of us respond with a bit of ad hominem observation. 
But you are right, and once the facts have been made clear, there’s no point in soldiering on .
Though I’d nitpick and say I don’t engage in ad hominem fallacies even if my text may sometimes verge on/include ad hominem discussions. I’ll try to cut that out too.
My apologies.
[ bolding mine]
gonzomax, your typing has been sufficiently odd that I will give you the benefit of the doubt that this was a typo. It is, however, against the rules to attempt to mock another poster by distorting the username, so you would be well advised to proof-read your posts to ensure that you do not repeat this error.
(In fact, it would probably be a good idea for you to begin to proofread all your posts, just to ensure clarity and coherence.)
[ /Moderating ]
Tom, I think he was trying to say “excuse me” with excuse abbreviated “xcuse”.
<hijack>
Apologies, I’m having email problems, hence the MIA.
<end hijack>
Not only did I not know it was a rule ,it would never occur to me to do so. It was Excuse me. I have a sticky keyboard .
Sure, Finn. But bear in mind that what you’re getting is an unprofessional English translation from a Hebrew translation of French book featuring an edited version of conversation in which Goldman remembered a conversation he had 20 years before in Hebrew (or was it some other language?)
Also, in order to give a somewhat broader context, for the 3-4 pages before Goldman talks about how he was right about things and BG wrong.
I am not computer adept. I do not know how to pick areas of quotes out .So I include the whole thing. In the back of my mind ,I justify by saying reading the whole thing will provide mood and context. Never hurts anyone to read. I have begun to read a lot of internet articles on Ben Gurion. When I was young he was given great respect , so I decided to learn a bit more. There are thousands of sites and I have read lots of them.
Trust me the quotes are real. I have not used quotes from sites like Jew Watch" which mught have a bias. I am not attempting to prove anything by subterfuge. When Finn boxes quote after quote and furnishes rebuttal ,I wish I knew how to do that. Not that I always agree with him, He appears to have a bias contrary to the one he erroniously thinks I have… My point endlessly ,is the truth is in the middle. More toward mine I believe. When someone states over and over that the Israeli position is 100 % justifiable and correct, my bs meter goes off. I would never say anyones opinions are stupid. I am generally impressed with the articulation of the views, though not always with the conclusions.
You should probably read through the rules at somepoint in any case…for your own protection. Coming as it did right after my post, I thought you were playing off my name with some form of insult. If you say you didn’t then you didn’t…no harm done. Least you are aware of the rule now, so you come out ahead.
-XT
There is no trust here. If you want trust, or to make statements that won’t be challenged (well, sort of), you would be better off in one of the other forums (though not in GQ either).
I can accept that you don’t know how to cut and paste things (though why you would join a message board without such knowledge is beyond me), or use some of the board features like quote (you seem to have figured out hyperlink though…not like it works any differently). However, the main problem is that you rarely try and explain WHY you are posting you links (save with cryptic one line sentences which mean…gods know what). You rarely actually try and debate any point…just drop in a link and then expect us to figure out what the hell your point is and how it fits into the discussion. Have you noticed that when anyone else posts links they actually bother writing some accompanying texts explaining why they think the link is important, what the key points are that they are trying to make, and maybe some amplification? Have you noticed that you never do this? Do you understand why people are frustrated with you?
Maybe this time it will get through. It will be worth the effort if it does.
-XT
Ya think? Sounds like a charming source. By the way, if you want to learn about more “quotes” that are distorted or outright fakes but are cited on numerous websites, check out this thread.
Could you clarify who has said this? I don’t recall such a statement.
I wouldn’t worry so much about who or what is biased (everyone brings his/her subjective appraisal into play on any given issue), unless the words and/or tactics used are classically associated with bigotry. What’s important when somone rebuts your statements is whether they are correct.
No problem, the context was certainly worth knowing.
The fact that it’s translated back and forth to reach English also goes to its precision.
And, of course, the fact that it’s a twenty year old conversation quoted from memory goes to its accuracy.
And there’s the previous objection I raised, as the quote in its current form makes absolutely no sense. It’d be like some former President of the United States saying that no European power would want to have dilpomatic relations after we fought Britain, because we took “their” land.
But I suppose a twenty year old, thrice translated, nonsensical quote done from memory is all some folk need.
I think we’ve done our part in the fight against ignorance today, thank you very much for taking the time to translate that block of text.
How would it have been an insult. It didnt name call or anything. I thought this was about ideas. I never even attempted to type until I was in my 60’s. It was never part of my professional life. I have very nice printing and handwriting though.
Because in other threads you’ve called people childish, etc. When I read “xcise me” coming right after a post of mine directed at you I interpereted it as an insulting play on my board name…xtisme. You say it wasn’t, and I accepted that once you posted it (and I further accept that you aren’t very comfortable with a computer)…why not just let it go? No harm done…and it doesn’t further the discussion in any case.
-XT
Nice bit of selective quoting there. It should be noted that I explicitly said that it was not a nice solution.