There isn’t an ignore button next to Finn’s name. I swear Finn is driving further and further away from even wanting to understand Israel’s point of view. With Friends like Finn, Israel doesn’t need any enemies.
He was pointing out your hypocrisy.
He wasn’t making a rhetorical point. He was stating how he used to support Israel and how he changed his mind when Israel “flattened” lebanon, it was not germane to the discussion but that is what you focused on.
Thats not what you originally said and if you expect a chance to clarify yourself, why do you think Capt does not deserve a chance to clarify himself?
Which is all besides the point that you latched on to an irrelevant detail because you saw an opportunity to impeach Capt on some irrelevant point and then use that overstatement to impeach his credibility in other areas. I saw you do the exact same thing with me when I was off by a day on when the invasion of Israel occurred.
We were talking about Gaza neh? If I said that Israel was blockading the Palestinians, do I really NEED to say “in gaza” Can’t you figure that much out for yourself?
When you are discussing Israel’s obligations to Gaza (which turns on whether or not Israel is occupying gaza), how the hell does it make sense to quibble about Israel’s status as an occupier in the West bank? You seem too smart to be this obtuse which leads me to think you are doing it intentionally.
I don’t think I used to be a knee-jerk Israel criticiser but Finn is quickly turning me into one. I don’t sepdn time slowly digesting new facts into my gestalt of what is going on in the middle east, instead I find myself trying to fifure out how new facts can be incorporated into a narrative against Israel and I have to make a conscious effort to retain objectivity and that really bothers me. I don’t think this was the case before I encountered Finn.
Why does Capt. get moderated right along with Finn when it is clear that Finn is the one that keep dragging these things out? I don’t get into these pissing matches with Malthus or Alessan, I don’t think I’ve seen either Capt or Amanta get into these pissing matches eith anyone other than Finn either. At some point don’t you have to ask yourself if maybe the commonality isn’t the topic but the common participant and just tell THAT participant to knock it off?
Counterproductive is putting is very mildly.
When he is the common element of all these shitstorms, doesn’t it graduate from excuse-making to something more?
But why do you let him imply that people liars and anti-semites?
I don’t think he’s mindless or stupid. I think he uses some cheap tactics to score peripheral points in arguments.
That’s right because he wasn’t trying to make a point by saying that Israel flattened Lebanon. He was prefacing his arguments about the flotilla and the blockade by explaining that he used to support Israel but now he doesn’t ever since Israel “flattened” Lebanon.
Damuri isn’t a guy’s name where you come from?
Noone is a girl’s name here (try to pronounce noone like you are trying to say naomi)
Yes that’s true just like saying “You are denying that Israel has a right to defend itself” is kind of a loaded statement. Amanta has walked back from “starvation” I have yet to see Finn not try to rationalize some way to avoid saying he was wrong about something unless faced with incontrovertible fact.
But its ok for him to go around distorting what people said and picking on irrelevant shit to impeach credibility?
Does it seem like the whole world hates you? Well, its not because you are Jewish.
It wasn’t meant as a compliment.
Not really.
OK fine you didn’t call them anti-semites you said the map wasn’t reliable because the map was drawn by people who called Israel occupied Palestine, but its not the point. You were saying the map is unreliable not because you could prove anything is wrong with the map but because of who drew the map. Why does it matter if you said it was because they were anti-semites of because they were hamas sympathizers, the point is you were impeaching the veracity of the map based on who drew it.
And I pointed out that the map is on wikipedia and has been on wikipedia since the war. On hot topics, false information does not survive on wikipedia very long.
then WTF is the problem. You were wrong when you said that North Lebanon wasn’t touched and your hypocrisy in criticizing Capt is revealed. Now we can move on.
[/quote]
Now, under your own standards, you deserve moderator action.
[/quote]
I don’t think you understand your problem.
OK then why is it NOT ad hominem to impeach the veracity of the map based on who drew it?
What rhetoric was he propping up?
{quote]“Israel should drop the blockade” = “Israel doesn’t have the right to defend itself”
[/quote]
spare me from your victimization complex.
No because in this case i am employing your tactics against you to show you your own hypocrisy.
I was off by one day. I guess at the time i didn’t realize that I couldn’t make these sort of footfaults around you because you would beat me over the head with them.
If your picayune nitpicking was relevant then that would be one thing but too often it is not.
How would my argument have been altered by the difference of that one day?
Actually, I’ve never heard the name before. Yes, it sounded like a guy, but I wasn’t sure.
The questions mark wasn’t intended as some kind of subtle “remark on your manhood” or something – on the contrary, it was merely me guessing at your gender, and leaving the possibility open that I was wrong.
If I came over as belittling or insulting, I obviously didn’t write clearly enough; that was not my intention; and I apologize.
And yes, I’ve been assumed to be female now and then on the boards 
Because Capt. was also dragging it out. At any point, either could have simply walked away from the pissing contest, (with or without some final dismissive comment), and let the actual thread go on without further interruption.
That, by the way, was why we Mods called you out. Not for taking one side or another in the pissing contest, but for wandering through a multiple page thread, responding to every post that caught your eye, without reading to the end to see which issues might have already been resolved and which issues had already received Moderator action. I don’t care which side of the fight you are on, but when I have posted that a hijack has to be taken to another thread and you come in pages later and restart the hijack after my post and then post a couple of more times after I have addressed you directly, (because you cannot take the time to see how the thread has progressed before you add your opinions), then you are asking for a more personal response from the staff.
In general, we do not get involved with the sort of semantic nitpicking that Finn enjoys (or feels compelled to post). If you read a lot of ATMB threads about Mod actions, they often are based on reactions against too much Mod involvement. Some portion of the SDMB population would prefer that Mods never intervene in threads except to halt egregious rule violations. In this case, we did intervene, but only because the pissing contest was driving a multi-page thread even longer to no purpose.
I’ve always figured you just dropped your first name, Peter.
Zounds! I have the audacity to disagree with you unless I’m proven wrong? Obviously, the mods must do something.
You just made the “good faith” argument that when I pointed out that you were engaging in exactly that behavior, that you had a conclusion and you were working backwards from the conclusion to try to find facts that would support it… that I was wrongly suggesting that you had an agenda, and I must have been suggesting that it was anti-Semitisic.
**And all along you knew I was right. **
Weak.
Interesting. So you think the tactics that I allegedly use are bad, and you don’t agree with them, and in fact you think that they’re so bad that the moderators should step in… but you use them in any case because you want to ‘give me a taste of my own medicine’. They’re bad enough that they warrant moderator action, but it’s okay when you use them deliberately.
Hrmmmmmm… quite interesting given your admission above.
Yes, again you prove my point. You were not off by a day. I did not point out that you were off by a day. I pointed out that you were off by months. I did so again in this very thread.
And yet even now your argument remains unchanged. No shit I pointed that out. No shit the fact that you continually get the basic timeline incorrect, especially while repeatedly claiming that timeline proves your point, is evidence of the quality of your argument. The fact is that, even now, you seemingly are still repeating the same error.
And you claim that I am debating in bad-faith, because I’m honestly disagreeing with you and other people in a manner that you don’t like.
Again you display your very odd double standards. Captain brought something up and I responded. Who was at fault? Me. Then Captain responded to what I’d said. Who was at fault? Me. Then Captain and I each responded to the other for a while. Who was at fault? Me.
Obviously this is a good-faith argument about how very disruptive I am.
Obviously.
Yet another one of your good-faith arguments? I have pointed out to you, many times, that I was responding in-context to what I saw as Captain’s claims about the whole of Lebanon being reduced to rubble, and pointed out that the bombing campaigns that really had reduced parts of the south to rubble had not touched the north. Yes, he later claimed that he’d really meant that “flattened” just meant to be hit with a bomb. But then he talked about various zones being “completely flattened”, which would be impossible if he was actually using it to mean “hit by a bomb.” It’s a bit like virginity, actually. There is no point to saying “She is completely not a virgin!” because it means the same thing as “she is not a virgin.” But Captain directly contrasted something being “completely flattened” with something else only being partially “flattened”. To say nothing (well, actually to yet again repeat a dynamic that you’re still ignoring) the fact that Captain’s own metric should have mean that he’d say that Hezbollah “flattened absolutely all of Israel within range!”. But of course he didn’t say that.
Yes yes, “But Captain clarified that he wasn’t claiming that the South was completely reduced to rubble. What’s that? Later on he did indeed say that the south was completely obliterated? You should be Warned for talking about this for so long!”
How dare you insinuate that I am British! :mad:
For shame, sir, for shame!
(FTR, nothing against real Brits. Would have done the same for any other nationality!)
Damuri, I got warned for a post that went too far in attacking FinnAgain personally. I can’t claim to be shocked that I got a warning; it was I who reported the post after I realised it was too late to edit it.
Dismissing what a source states because you don’t think it’s credible is a fallacy (notice the italicisation of the important part: you don’t get to unilaterally declare what cites are credible or not). Let’s make a familiar analogy: dismissing tobacco company funded reports on the carcinogenic effects of tobacco because of who funded them is a fallacy. Those reports aren’t incorrect because big tobacco funded them, they’re incorrect because they play fast and loose with the facts and engage in shockingly bad science.
For instance, here’s a textbook definition of an ad hominem fallacy:
(Italicisation mine.) Now has it clicked in your head what point I was advancing in accusing you of making an ad hominem attack?
This was, again, the point I was getting at. You want to unilaterally declare cites as biased and therefore ipso facto worthless, whilst at the same time relying on cites from the Israeli press to make your own points (when in fact you do bother to cite your own claims, I note with some amusement you still haven’t been able to dig up a cite demonstrating that the Hezbollah spokesman stated what you claimed he did, that isn’t ultimately from an Israeli source). In this debate, there are no unbiased cites.
However, what’s even stranger is your schizophrenic approach to the map. The map was produced to show, excuse me, that you were full of shit when you claimed only a portion of Lebanon had been affected by the Israeli bombardment. Belatedly, you accepted, that in fact, the north of Lebanon had been bombed. Therein, the origin of the map is a complete diversion. It was sufficient for me to bring up a single instance of bombing in northern Lebanon to demonstrate what you claimed was false. The map, thankfully, led me to search for “bombing, Israel, Tripoli” in Google, which pointed me to a Fox news report detailing Israel taking out the bridges in Tripoli with an airstrike.
Two things:
-
It was 92 minutes. I posted about the decision at 5:25pm and my next post in the thread was at 6:24pm (Swedish time). I first mentioned waiting for your answer at 6:57pm
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12525998&postcount=641
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12526523&postcount=650 -
You posted in the thread between those two posts at 5:43pm, 77 minutes before I inquired as to wether you were going to reply:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12526091&postcount=645
Again, facts are clearly not FinnAgain’s strong point.
The difference being, as I have said several times, is that I researched the answer before making any statements regarding it. You didn’t.
Now he’s bringing it up again. It seems that pointing out the one factual error he’s found from me, that I immediately agreed was an error and retracted, is a very big deal. 
As I have said already, I have made no comment on moderation. I have merely responded to specific points brought up in this thread about other things.
Again, I researched the exact answer instead of just making wild claims without the relevant knowledge.
See above.
No it isn’t. I’ve explained to you why it isn’t. I’ve given you another example showing why it isn’t.
Regarding warning, see above.
Except with me FinnAgain’s “facts” appear to be “fictions”.
In my defence I moved to discussing malnutrition when it became clear that FinnAgain wasn’t going to accept the dictionary definition of starve.
Ajashi, please use multiquote.