It's his [iraison d'etre[/i.

Yet you have stated, at separate times, that the target was the State of Israel, Netenyahu as an individual, and now only the acts of the state of Israel under Netenyahu.

Because you did. You conflated the State of Israel, Netenyahu and the acts of the state of Israel under Netenyahu, I simply stated that as you have conflated these things, I can imagine others fearing the artist had done the same thing.

No, I don’t know what you mean without you saying it. Im not even trying to read your mind let alone succeeding in it.

So you think up until that point someone was arguing that these things didn’t happen or that they weren’t a source for criticism? No of course not, because everybody accepted, and nobody argued, that there weren’t things the state of Israel could be criticised for. If you are going to pretend that is the case, you would be a liar. We all knew full well the source of the criticism, we all accepted that people have a right, and people can and do criticise Israel, we all knew why Gerald Scarfe had chosen to do so. The debate has never been ‘are there things to be critical of Israel for’ so listing them as mintball did, was utterly pointless in the context of the debate and wasn’t, in my opinion, an attempt to add to the debate, but a chance for one poster to rant about her pet cause. That’s why it was irrelevant, that’s why it added nothing to the debate.

Seems that way.

No it isn't. It is a deliberate misquote by omission, which falsely asserts that I made a claim, when the person doing the asserting knows full well I did not. The seeming "quote" in fact completely misrepresents what was in fact written.

If you then proceed as if your deliberately falsified quote was correct, and replied to it, as in your example, you'd be pretty stupid.

It's actually embarrassing to have to explain this to an adult, but hey ho.

Can you indeed? Well, good for you.
The Board of Deputies were whinging about a possible reference to a medieval myth, not the conflation that you allege.
In this instance, such a conflation wouldn't actually make much difference, except as a bit more smoke for you use as a screen.


Steady on, that's sailing close to conflation.


I would remind you that it was you who described it in the anodyne terms of a "simple land grab".
A response pointing out what the "simple land grab" meant in terms of abject human suffering was then warranted.

Good, Im glad you have finally accepted how stupid and boring it is to respond to someone’s misquotes by omission, and editing of quotes so that they misrepresent the argument made and you now understand why I didn’t address the arguments you made when you did that.

Well, for what feels like the millionth time in this thread. I couldn’t give a monkeys tangled poo-ball what the board of deputies were whinging about. I don’t represent them and have never once mentioned what they have taken offence at. I speak only for me and where I see offence or the potential for offence.


Yet it obviously isn’t.
Why was somebody under the impression that a land grab was a peaceful event? Did something think that the history of the world would lead us to believe that conflicts over land are generally bloodless? That they were solved over a nice cup of tea and a game of checkers? Or have you fallen in to the same trap as mintball and for reasons beyond my understanding decided to equate the complexity of a situation with its moral acceptability?

The reason why I described it as a land grab was simply to highlight that it is a conflict over land. There was no further judgement inferred within it.

I thought I'd have a go, as above, but find it seems pointless so no, I'll leave you to crack on with that behaviour all by yourself.

well that was a very circular couple of pages

So are we now agreed, I wont misquote you by omission or edit your quotes to misrepresent your arguments, and you will stop doing it to mine?

Almost. I don't do that, so have no need to, whereas you regularly do, as well as regularly either spectacularly missing, or pretending not to see, the point.

I don't care whether you stop doing it or not. If I can be arrsed I'll just pull you up on it when you do, that's all.

The boy's dodging again, in order to excuse atrocities.

Well done, oh little neo-fascist, you.

Actually you do but i wont bother getting involved with your pedantic arguements.

However in this case Smokey has also spouted an incredible amount of b@ll@cks.

Personally i think you deserve each other.

I havent excused anything, i havent said anything was ok, i havent said anything was acceptable. I havent, at any stage said that any action, whatsoever by Israel was acceptable, i havent defended them. I havent posed an argument from the side of the State of Israel.

All i have said is that I can see why some people, could be offended by some of the imagery in that cartoon. Not that the Board of deputies are right, not that Gerald Scarfe is an anti-semite, I havent called anyone an anti-semite, I havent said that the image is intrinsically anti-semitic, just that some people could misinterpret it and be offended by it.

I have also said that what is happening is happening in Palestine isnt like what happened during the holocaust, I said this because it isnt, it clearly and obviously isnt a similar situation, they are different. Not better or worse just different and with that in mind, using the word holocaust to describe it, to use that word as a tool to bash Israel is wrong.

And also that Durham Giant thinks terrorists are brave and has praised them (im not sure if that is all terrorists or just the ones in Palestine and a couple of other places but thats up to them to clarify), but thats not really a debate, they have said as much.

The fact you can't even countenance an opposing view, nor even a different view, but not even a view that doesnt descend into the ridiculous levels of hyperbole you have without throwing around insults and labels like it was your last chance to use them is just silly.

This posts means you are either too stupid to know you are doing it, or a liar. Ill leave it to you to decide, i dont care either way.

Actually I don't, but thank you for your interest.




Whatever they are, you, er, just did. So keen were you, you couldn't even be bothered to spell-check your drivel.

Whilst you're here, though, perhaps you could cast a few more gratuitous barbs about my psychiatric state, my sig could do with a freshen-up, and what passes for your intellect obviously think it's clever, amusing and appropriate so it would be a win-win situation.

No, it just means what it says. And you "don't care?" - don't make me laugh, oh [ihow[/i you care, you couldn't stop yourself from coming back. I can just about see the spit flecks on your screen from here, as you bashed the keys with your sad attempt at a killer riposte. I find it amusing.

This is going well.

I honestly have no prefence between you being a moron or liar. Honest question why did you think i did? and further why did you think that preference would make me angry?

I know. It's like when you see someone with a bogey hanging out of their nose - you don't want to look, but literally can't help yourself.

Please! Stop!!