Mideast Realism: Why the prez backed Sharon
Sheldon Liberman
By George Will
Printer Friendly Version
http://www.jewishworldreview.com |
The United States government is not a speed reader, but after 37 years
of reading U.N. Resolution 242, the government finally read it
accurately on Wednesday. The government saw what is not there — the
missing definite article, "the."
Passed after the 1967 Six Day War, 242 required the withdrawal of Israel
"from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Not from "the
territories." Israel insisted on deletion of the "the" because it
implied, as Arab and other powers acknowledged by vehement opposition to
the deletion — withdrawal from all territories.
This was strategic ambiguity. On Wednesday ambiguity was abandoned. In
his letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, President Bush said:
"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing
major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the
outcome of the final status negotiations will be a full and complete
return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to
negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."
It is fine to talk about "new realities," such as patterns of
settlement, but this new U.S. policy also, and primarily, comes to terms
at long last with an old reality. It is that 242 also recognized the
right of every state in the region to "secure and recognized
boundaries," which Israel's 1967 borders were not.
But wait. Palestinian spokesmen, denouncing the new U.S. position, speak
not of the 1949 armistice lines but "the 1967 borders." It is not in the
interest of the Palestinian Authority to have the world reminded — being
willfully forgetful, it needs much reminding — that Israel's 1967
borders were accidents of the military facts on the ground 18 years
before that.
Bush, by emphasizing 1949 rather than 1967, reminds those who forever
say "Israel is being provocative" that for 56 years — since Israel's
founding in May 1948 — the problem has been that, to Israel's enemies,
Israel's being is provocative. Hostility to Israel predated 1967 and
would not be cured by a return to 1967 realities.
The territories occupied by Israel since 1967 have been lawfully held
because a nation that occupies territories in the process of repelling
aggression launched from them can hold them until the disposition of the
lands is settled by negotiations between the relevant parties.
Palestinians and their supporters have tried to erase this fact by
semantic infiltration of the world's political vocabulary, getting the
territories routinely referred to as "Palestinian lands." Actually, in
law the territories are unallocated portions of the 1922 Palestine
Mandate, the final disposition of which is still to be settled by
negotiations.
And there, for 56 years, has been the rub — the absence of a suitable
interlocutor for Israel. Meaning a negotiating partner not committed to
the destruction of the "Zionist entity," or completion of the project
interrupted but not abandoned when the last Nazi death camps were
liberated 59 Aprils ago.
It is instructive — and wonderful — how few and optional have been
references to Yasser Arafat in discussions of Wednesday's developments.
In a life of terror, his only service to peace was his demonstration, at
Camp David in July 2000 with President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Barak, that the most that Israel could ever offer in the
way of concessions is less than the current Palestinian leadership will
accept.
Which is why Wednesday's policy flowed ineluctably from Bush's June 24,
2002, pronouncement that the first prerequisite for progress is for the
Palestinian people to produce "regime change": "I call upon the
Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by
terror." That prerequisite being unattainable, Sharon has chosen
unilateral disengagement — the fence — and a long wait for the time
when, in Bush's words, "the Palestinian people have new leaders, new
institutions and new security arrangements."
In 1998 the then-governor of Texas, visited Israel and was given a
helicopter tour of the nation's vulnerabilities. Bush saw the place
where Israel, from 1949 until 1967, had been nine miles wide. Back home,
Bush said: Why, in Texas we have driveways longer than that. Bush's host
in the helicopter was Sharon.
Sharon, who is 76, is a reminder of why it is reasonable to prefer young
doctors but old politicians. Young doctors, because recently in medical
school they learned the latest panaceas. Old politicians, because,
having lived long enough to not hope for miracle cures to political
problems, they do what they can, on their own.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Sheldon Liberman wrote
in message <4084AFEC...@sympatico.ca>:
>Mideast Realism: Why the prez backed Sharon
>
>By George Will
>
Which violation of copyright has *what* to do with the historical
facts of the Holocaust and the mindless denial thereof?
Susan Cohen
"Roger" <roger@ . > wrote in message
news:2e7e662bfd1e42d4...@news.teranews.com...
It's an admission that anti-Israeli sentiment and Holocaust denial are all
rooted in Jew hatred.
Susan
Sheldon Liberman
Which violation are you speaking of? The article is in the public
domain, and is duly credited.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Sheldon Liberman wrote
No, it is *not* in the public domain. It is copyrighted (© 2004,
Washington Post Writers Group) according to the actual page, a
apparently reproduced without permission from that entity, since you
neither included the copyright notice, nor noted "by permission," nor
evidently were even aware that such was needful.
And again: the relevance to alt.revisionism?
Sheldon Liberman
Roger wrote:
> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be Sheldon Liberman wrote
> in message <40850E1F...@sympatico.ca>:
>
>
>>Roger wrote:
>>
>>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>>> someone claiming to be Sheldon Liberman wrote
>>> in message <4084AFEC...@sympatico.ca>:
>>
>
>>>>Mideast Realism: Why the prez backed Sharon
>>>>
>>>>By George Will
>>>>
>>>>http://www.jewishworldreview.com |
>>>
>
>>>Which violation of copyright has *what* to do with the historical
>>>facts of the Holocaust and the mindless denial thereof?
>>
>
>>Which violation are you speaking of? The article is in the public
>>domain, and is duly credited.
>
>
> No, it is *not* in the public domain. It is copyrighted (© 2004,
> Washington Post Writers Group) according to the actual page, a
> apparently reproduced without permission from that entity, since you
> neither included the copyright notice, nor noted "by permission," nor
> evidently were even aware that such was needful.
Actually, I retrieved the article from jewishworldreview.com where no
such disclaimer is evident. By the book, yes, the copyright line should
have appeared in the line, even though the article was freely
distributed, thus no direct loss of income could be claimed by copyright
owners.
More curiously, the posting of articles to express a point is common
practice on the usenet, so it naturally begs the question: do you check
for copyright infringement on all of them? Having read many of your
posts--and having agreed with most of them--that would not seem to be
the case.
>
> And again: the relevance to alt.revisionism?
Because, IMHO, the perception of Israel's actions in the Middle East and
the denial of the holocaust are separate parts of the same body
politic that is anti-Semitism.
Moreover, you could ask the same question about the the claim in this NG
about many topics. The Kosher Tax threads leap readily to mind since it
was one I was very actively involved in, as, if memory serve, were you.
>
BTov
you are right, susie
the palistanians hate the joows
everybody hates the joows
its an antisemitism already!
enjoy already ;)
b'wahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Dave Simpson
> Mideast Realism: Why the prez backed Sharon
> The United States government is not a speed reader, but after 37 years
> of reading U.N. Resolution 242, the government finally read it
> accurately on Wednesday. The government saw what is not there ? the
> missing definite article, "the."
"We left the 'the' out" -- is the direct quote of one of the
drafters of UN Resolution 242. Israel was never legally required by
the UN to evacuate all the Territories (as if the UN rules Israel or
any other nation, which is does not), and the decades-long one-way
conduct of misbehavior by the Arabs compels them to yield first and
frequently on the dispute of "ownership" or control of the
Territories. (Also, Israel need not wait for the Arabs to end their
state of war and make other iniatives, which they are logically and
morally compelled to do.)
The 1967 boundaries are indefensible, impractial, and nobody to be
taken for real ever insisted Israel suicidally return to those
boundaries.
Israel's enemies should cease their criminal, vicious, evil
behavior.
Dave Simpson
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Sheldon Liberman wrote
>Roger wrote:
>>>>>Mideast Realism: Why the prez backed Sharon
>>>>>
>>>>>By George Will
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.jewishworldreview.com |
>>>>Which violation of copyright has *what* to do with the historical
>>>>facts of the Holocaust and the mindless denial thereof?
>>>Which violation are you speaking of? The article is in the public
>>>domain, and is duly credited.
>> No, it is *not* in the public domain. It is copyrighted (© 2004,
>> Washington Post Writers Group) according to the actual page, a
>> apparently reproduced without permission from that entity, since you
>> neither included the copyright notice, nor noted "by permission," nor
>> evidently were even aware that such was needful.
>Actually, I retrieved the article from jewishworldreview.com where no
>such disclaimer is evident.
Look at the very bottom of the page.
>By the book, yes, the copyright line should
>have appeared in the line, even though the article was freely
>distributed, thus no direct loss of income could be claimed by copyright
>owners.
Incorrect. Jewish World Review lost advertising revenue because you
did not simply link to the article, throwing more hits their way.
>More curiously, the posting of articles to express a point is common
>practice on the usenet, so it naturally begs the question: do you check
>for copyright infringement on all of them? Having read many of your
>posts--and having agreed with most of them--that would not seem to be
>the case.
Actually, I at least mention it any time I note it, regardless of
whether I agree with the article or not.
>> And again: the relevance to alt.revisionism?
>Because, IMHO, the perception of Israel's actions in the Middle East and
> the denial of the holocaust are separate parts of the same body
>politic that is anti-Semitism.
Which is fine: but this group is not for the discussion of your
opinions on anti-semitism, but the historical facts of the Holocaust
and the mindless denial thereof.
The motivation behind the Holocaust is obvious, and pointing out that
it still exists doesn't change the those facts, which are the topic in
this newsgroup.
>Moreover, you could ask the same question about the the claim in this NG
>about many topics.
And, if you've been paying attention, I do.
>The Kosher Tax threads leap readily to mind since it
>was one I was very actively involved in, as, if memory serve, were you.
Nods -- and I start my participation in those kinds of threads, at
least since my recent return, by noting the off-topic nature of them.
Note any of the various off-topic threads started by joe-joe or lying
little tommie and see my very first response to them.
Regardless, this article was both a violation of copyright and
off-topic to the discussion of the historical facts of the Holocaust
and their denial.
Sheldon Liberman
Roger wrote:
> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be Sheldon Liberman wrote
> in message <40855908...@sympatico.ca>:
>
>
>>Roger wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>>Mideast Realism: Why the prez backed Sharon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>By George Will
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.jewishworldreview.com |
>>>>>
>
>>>>>Which violation of copyright has *what* to do with the historical
>>>>>facts of the Holocaust and the mindless denial thereof?
>>>>
>
>>>>Which violation are you speaking of? The article is in the public
>>>>domain, and is duly credited.
>>>
>
>>>No, it is *not* in the public domain. It is copyrighted (© 2004,
>>>Washington Post Writers Group) according to the actual page, a
>>>apparently reproduced without permission from that entity, since you
>>>neither included the copyright notice, nor noted "by permission," nor
>>>evidently were even aware that such was needful.
>>
>
>>Actually, I retrieved the article from jewishworldreview.com where no
>>such disclaimer is evident.
>
>
> Look at the very bottom of the page.
I saw it, and normally I include the article copyright and all. Although
most people would not have known what the initials stood for.
Notwithstanding, there was no disclaimer against recopy, therefore one
could assume that JWR would lose no sleep over the article being reposted.
>
>
>>By the book, yes, the copyright line should
>>have appeared in the line, even though the article was freely
>>distributed, thus no direct loss of income could be claimed by copyright
>>owners.
>
>
> Incorrect. Jewish World Review lost advertising revenue because you
> did not simply link to the article, throwing more hits their way.
Look again. There was indeed a link to JWR home page, meaning that
anyone clicking on it would have seen the link not only to that specific
article, but all current offerings as well as JWR's ads, such as it is.
>
>
>>More curiously, the posting of articles to express a point is common
>>practice on the usenet, so it naturally begs the question: do you check
>>for copyright infringement on all of them? Having read many of your
>>posts--and having agreed with most of them--that would not seem to be
>>the case.
>
>
> Actually, I at least mention it any time I note it, regardless of
> whether I agree with the article or not.
>
Fine, but do you notice it often enough to give off the impression that
it's important enough for the typical poster to more judicious in
reprinting? If you don't, and you seem to have greater awareness of it,
how would we?
>
>>>And again: the relevance to alt.revisionism?
>>
>
>>Because, IMHO, the perception of Israel's actions in the Middle East and
>> the denial of the holocaust are separate parts of the same body
>>politic that is anti-Semitism.
>
>
> Which is fine: but this group is not for the discussion of your
> opinions on anti-semitism, but the historical facts of the Holocaust
> and the mindless denial thereof.
>
> The motivation behind the Holocaust is obvious, and pointing out that
> it still exists doesn't change the those facts, which are the topic in
> this newsgroup.
The motivation for the discussion of the holocaust may be obvious to you
and to myself, but the very existence of this NG is indicative of a
certain mindset within it, one for which nothing can be taken for
granted as to what's obvious. That, indeed, should be obvious to both of
us and others who have gone into battle against those whose mindsets
whose presence have made this NG a necessity.
On a simpler level, this NG is where anti-Semites gather, and they feel
no particular propensity to strictly adhere to its posting protocols, if
indeed they exist.
>
>
>>Moreover, you could ask the same question about the the claim in this NG
>>about many topics.
>
>
> And, if you've been paying attention, I do.
>
>
>>The Kosher Tax threads leap readily to mind since it
>>was one I was very actively involved in, as, if memory serve, were you.
>
>
> Nods -- and I start my participation in those kinds of threads, at
> least since my recent return, by noting the off-topic nature of them.
> Note any of the various off-topic threads started by joe-joe or lying
> little tommie and see my very first response to them.
I'll take your word for it, since you seem honorable. But you ratity
somthing by becoming an active participant in its original intent.
>
> Regardless, this article was both a violation of copyright and
> off-topic to the discussion of the historical facts of the Holocaust
> and their denial.
If that's your opinion, fine. Although we are generally on the same side
of isuues we encounter here, we need not agree on everything.
Cheers.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Sheldon Liberman wrote
>Roger wrote:
>> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Sheldon Liberman wrote
>> in message <40855908...@sympatico.ca>:
>>>>>>>Mideast Realism: Why the prez backed Sharon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>By George Will
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.jewishworldreview.com |
>>>>>>Which violation of copyright has *what* to do with the historical
>>>>>>facts of the Holocaust and the mindless denial thereof?
>>>>>Which violation are you speaking of? The article is in the public
>>>>>domain, and is duly credited.
>>>>No, it is *not* in the public domain. It is copyrighted (© 2004,
>>>>Washington Post Writers Group) according to the actual page, a
>>>>apparently reproduced without permission from that entity, since you
>>>>neither included the copyright notice, nor noted "by permission," nor
>>>>evidently were even aware that such was needful.
>>>Actually, I retrieved the article from jewishworldreview.com where no
>>>such disclaimer is evident.
>> Look at the very bottom of the page.
>I saw it, and normally I include the article copyright and all. Although
>most people would not have known what the initials stood for.
Which makes absolutely no difference.
>Notwithstanding, there was no disclaimer against recopy, therefore one
>could assume that JWR would lose no sleep over the article being reposted.
That's not the way copyright works: unless permission is explicitly
given, it is assumed in law to be reserved.
>>>By the book, yes, the copyright line should
>>>have appeared in the line, even though the article was freely
>>>distributed, thus no direct loss of income could be claimed by copyright
>>>owners.
>> Incorrect. Jewish World Review lost advertising revenue because you
>> did not simply link to the article, throwing more hits their way.
>Look again. There was indeed a link to JWR home page, meaning that
>anyone clicking on it would have seen the link not only to that specific
>article, but all current offerings as well as JWR's ads, such as it is.
Yes, but if all they wanted to look at was that article, you removed
any reason to go to their site at all.
That's why it was a copyright violation.
>>>More curiously, the posting of articles to express a point is common
>>>practice on the usenet, so it naturally begs the question: do you check
>>>for copyright infringement on all of them? Having read many of your
>>>posts--and having agreed with most of them--that would not seem to be
>>>the case.
>> Actually, I at least mention it any time I note it, regardless of
>> whether I agree with the article or not.
>Fine, but do you notice it often enough to give off the impression that
>it's important enough for the typical poster to more judicious in
>reprinting? If you don't, and you seem to have greater awareness of it,
>how would we?
I am not responsible for your impressions. I point it out any time it
occurs in the couple three groups I monitor.
>>>>And again: the relevance to alt.revisionism?
>>>Because, IMHO, the perception of Israel's actions in the Middle East and
>>> the denial of the holocaust are separate parts of the same body
>>>politic that is anti-Semitism.
>> Which is fine: but this group is not for the discussion of your
>> opinions on anti-semitism, but the historical facts of the Holocaust
>> and the mindless denial thereof.
>>
>> The motivation behind the Holocaust is obvious, and pointing out that
>> it still exists doesn't change the those facts, which are the topic in
>> this newsgroup.
>The motivation for the discussion of the holocaust may be obvious to you
>and to myself, but the very existence of this NG is indicative of a
>certain mindset within it, one for which nothing can be taken for
>granted as to what's obvious. That, indeed, should be obvious to both of
>us and others who have gone into battle against those whose mindsets
>whose presence have made this NG a necessity.
And you think that this article, or any like it no matter how many,
are going to have *any* impact on that motivation or the
acknowledgement of the same?
>On a simpler level, this NG is where anti-Semites gather, and they feel
>no particular propensity to strictly adhere to its posting protocols, if
>indeed they exist.
That's right -- but we should hold ourselves to a higher standard,
especially as regards legalities and netiquette.
>>>Moreover, you could ask the same question about the the claim in this NG
>>>about many topics.
>> And, if you've been paying attention, I do.
>>>The Kosher Tax threads leap readily to mind since it
>>>was one I was very actively involved in, as, if memory serve, were you.
>> Nods -- and I start my participation in those kinds of threads, at
>> least since my recent return, by noting the off-topic nature of them.
>> Note any of the various off-topic threads started by joe-joe or lying
>> little tommie and see my very first response to them.
>I'll take your word for it, since you seem honorable. But you ratity
>somthing by becoming an active participant in its original intent.
I make my point, and then try to return the thread back to the topic.
>> Regardless, this article was both a violation of copyright and
>> off-topic to the discussion of the historical facts of the Holocaust
>> and their denial.
>If that's your opinion, fine. Although we are generally on the same side
>of isuues we encounter here, we need not agree on everything.
That's more than my opinion, it's the bare facts of the matter.
Susan Cohen
"NOT BTov" <dkas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd24d00f.0404...@posting.google.com...
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<785hc.23617$G_.1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>
all
> > rooted in Jew hatred.
> >
> > Susan
>
> you are right,
I always am.
Nice of him to finally admit it.
Sheldon Liberman
Are we to assume that JWR takes comfort in the fact that they can
intentionally leave out a disclaimer about reproduction, expect visitors
to their site to nevertheless be aware of them, then seek redress in
court if necessary claiming loss of revenue? I hardly think so.
>
>
>>>>By the book, yes, the copyright line should
>>>>have appeared in the line, even though the article was freely
>>>>distributed, thus no direct loss of income could be claimed by copyright
>>>>owners.
>>>
>
>>>Incorrect. Jewish World Review lost advertising revenue because you
>>>did not simply link to the article, throwing more hits their way.
>>
>
>>Look again. There was indeed a link to JWR home page, meaning that
>>anyone clicking on it would have seen the link not only to that specific
>>article, but all current offerings as well as JWR's ads, such as it is.
>
>
> Yes, but if all they wanted to look at was that article, you removed
> any reason to go to their site at all.
I couldn't disagree more. If you post an article then there's no reason
to have a link to that particular article. If you post only the link,
most people won't follow it. But if the article is in front of them and
the viewer reads the first few lines, and, as a result reads the rest of
the article, then he is much more likely to visit the sight to see what
else is posted there. JWR must feel this way too, hence the lack of the
aforementioned disclaimer.
>
> That's why it was a copyright violation.
>
>
>>>>More curiously, the posting of articles to express a point is common
>>>>practice on the usenet, so it naturally begs the question: do you check
>>>>for copyright infringement on all of them? Having read many of your
>>>>posts--and having agreed with most of them--that would not seem to be
>>>>the case.
>>>
>
>>>Actually, I at least mention it any time I note it, regardless of
>>>whether I agree with the article or not.
>>
>
>>Fine, but do you notice it often enough to give off the impression that
>>it's important enough for the typical poster to more judicious in
>>reprinting? If you don't, and you seem to have greater awareness of it,
>>how would we?
>
>
> I am not responsible for your impressions. I point it out any time it
> occurs in the couple three groups I monitor.
Actually, you are. You engender impressions by your own actions. Insofar
as you post opinions in the newsgroup, then the question of whether your
criticisms are random or are in conformance with a certain
pattern--and if so, which one--is a legitimate one.
>
>
>>>>>And again: the relevance to alt.revisionism?
>>>>
>
>>>>Because, IMHO, the perception of Israel's actions in the Middle East and
>>>>the denial of the holocaust are separate parts of the same body
>>>>politic that is anti-Semitism.
>>>
>
>>>Which is fine: but this group is not for the discussion of your
>>>opinions on anti-semitism, but the historical facts of the Holocaust
>>>and the mindless denial thereof.
>>>
>>>The motivation behind the Holocaust is obvious, and pointing out that
>>>it still exists doesn't change the those facts, which are the topic in
>>>this newsgroup.
>>
>
>>The motivation for the discussion of the holocaust may be obvious to you
>>and to myself, but the very existence of this NG is indicative of a
>>certain mindset within it, one for which nothing can be taken for
>>granted as to what's obvious. That, indeed, should be obvious to both of
>>us and others who have gone into battle against those whose mindsets
>>whose presence have made this NG a necessity.
>
>
> And you think that this article, or any like it no matter how many,
> are going to have *any* impact on that motivation or the
> acknowledgement of the same?
>
As any politician will tell you, you don't win elections by wastng
resources on the hardliners, either those in your corner or those
opposed. You concentrate your efforts on the undecided.
How do you think anti-Semitism spreads, if not by virtue of the ability
of those hardliners' ability to bring others into way of thinking? And
if one person in this NG gives one moment's thought of anything in the
article, then I will not considered the effort of posting it to have
been in vane.
Dante wrote: The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in
time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.
>
>>On a simpler level, this NG is where anti-Semites gather, and they feel
>>no particular propensity to strictly adhere to its posting protocols, if
>>indeed they exist.
>
>
> That's right -- but we should hold ourselves to a higher standard,
> especially as regards legalities and netiquette.
>
>
>>>>Moreover, you could ask the same question about the the claim in this NG
>>>>about many topics.
>>>
>
>>>And, if you've been paying attention, I do.
>>
>
>>>>The Kosher Tax threads leap readily to mind since it
>>>>was one I was very actively involved in, as, if memory serve, were you.
>>>
>
>>>Nods -- and I start my participation in those kinds of threads, at
>>>least since my recent return, by noting the off-topic nature of them.
>>>Note any of the various off-topic threads started by joe-joe or lying
>>>little tommie and see my very first response to them.
>>
>
>>I'll take your word for it, since you seem honorable. But you ratity
>>somthing by becoming an active participant in its original intent.
>
>
> I make my point, and then try to return the thread back to the topic.
>
But you do make your point, don't you?
>
>>>Regardless, this article was both a violation of copyright and
>>>off-topic to the discussion of the historical facts of the Holocaust
>>>and their denial.
>>
>
>>If that's your opinion, fine. Although we are generally on the same side
>>of isuues we encounter here, we need not agree on everything.
>
>
> That's more than my opinion, it's the bare facts of the matter.
As regards to the copywrite, then yes. Technically. But I think you'll
find that, in life, sometimes you can be wrong, even when you're right.
I'm sure our common detractors are enjoying this disagreement, if
they're viewing it. Personally, I wouldn't give them the satisfaction.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Sheldon Liberman wrote
>>>Roger wrote:
Then educate yourself about what a copyright *is*.
>>>>>By the book, yes, the copyright line should
>>>>>have appeared in the line, even though the article was freely
>>>>>distributed, thus no direct loss of income could be claimed by copyright
>>>>>owners.
>>>>Incorrect. Jewish World Review lost advertising revenue because you
>>>>did not simply link to the article, throwing more hits their way.
>>>Look again. There was indeed a link to JWR home page, meaning that
>>>anyone clicking on it would have seen the link not only to that specific
>>>article, but all current offerings as well as JWR's ads, such as it is.
>> Yes, but if all they wanted to look at was that article, you removed
>> any reason to go to their site at all.
>I couldn't disagree more. If you post an article then there's no reason
>to have a link to that particular article. If you post only the link,
>most people won't follow it. But if the article is in front of them and
>the viewer reads the first few lines, and, as a result reads the rest of
>the article, then he is much more likely to visit the sight to see what
>else is posted there. JWR must feel this way too, hence the lack of the
>aforementioned disclaimer.
Once again: the "disclaimer" you refer to is the copyright notice
itself, contradicting the rest of your statement.
>> That's why it was a copyright violation.
>>>>>More curiously, the posting of articles to express a point is common
>>>>>practice on the usenet, so it naturally begs the question: do you check
>>>>>for copyright infringement on all of them? Having read many of your
>>>>>posts--and having agreed with most of them--that would not seem to be
>>>>>the case.
>>>>Actually, I at least mention it any time I note it, regardless of
>>>>whether I agree with the article or not.
>>>Fine, but do you notice it often enough to give off the impression that
>>>it's important enough for the typical poster to more judicious in
>>>reprinting? If you don't, and you seem to have greater awareness of it,
>>>how would we?
>> I am not responsible for your impressions. I point it out any time it
>> occurs in the couple three groups I monitor.
>Actually, you are. You engender impressions by your own actions. Insofar
>as you post opinions in the newsgroup, then the question of whether your
> criticisms are random or are in conformance with a certain
>pattern--and if so, which one--is a legitimate one.
And impressions are formed by perceptions. I have no control over
perceptions, otherwise I would alter the perception that Holocaust
denial (to its practitioners) was a rational response to anything.
My record is clear and documented on Google.
>>>>>>And again: the relevance to alt.revisionism?
>>>>>Because, IMHO, the perception of Israel's actions in the Middle East and
>>>>>the denial of the holocaust are separate parts of the same body
>>>>>politic that is anti-Semitism.
>>>>Which is fine: but this group is not for the discussion of your
>>>>opinions on anti-semitism, but the historical facts of the Holocaust
>>>>and the mindless denial thereof.
>>>>
>>>>The motivation behind the Holocaust is obvious, and pointing out that
>>>>it still exists doesn't change the those facts, which are the topic in
>>>>this newsgroup.
>>>The motivation for the discussion of the holocaust may be obvious to you
>>>and to myself, but the very existence of this NG is indicative of a
>>>certain mindset within it, one for which nothing can be taken for
>>>granted as to what's obvious. That, indeed, should be obvious to both of
>>>us and others who have gone into battle against those whose mindsets
>>>whose presence have made this NG a necessity.
>> And you think that this article, or any like it no matter how many,
>> are going to have *any* impact on that motivation or the
>> acknowledgement of the same?
>As any politician will tell you, you don't win elections by wastng
>resources on the hardliners, either those in your corner or those
>opposed. You concentrate your efforts on the undecided.
That might work, were there any "undecideds" on the question of
historical fact, and if they needed the blatant anti-semitism pointed
out to them.
And even so, examples from *this* group would be more effective in
demonstrating that link, than random articles about things that have
taken place after the time period under discussion.
Or do you agree with "fa...@painlessdeath.com" that if it's Jewish, it
belongs here?
>How do you think anti-Semitism spreads, if not by virtue of the ability
>of those hardliners' ability to bring others into way of thinking? And
>if one person in this NG gives one moment's thought of anything in the
>article, then I will not considered the effort of posting it to have
>been in vane.
Even if you have to steal an off-topic article to do so.
How noble.
>Dante wrote: The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in
>time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.
Which is relevant to our discussion ... how?
>>>On a simpler level, this NG is where anti-Semites gather, and they feel
>>>no particular propensity to strictly adhere to its posting protocols, if
>>>indeed they exist.
>> That's right -- but we should hold ourselves to a higher standard,
>> especially as regards legalities and netiquette.
Well? Do you not agree?
>>>>>Moreover, you could ask the same question about the the claim in this NG
>>>>>about many topics.
>>>>And, if you've been paying attention, I do.
>>>>>The Kosher Tax threads leap readily to mind since it
>>>>>was one I was very actively involved in, as, if memory serve, were you.
>>>>Nods -- and I start my participation in those kinds of threads, at
>>>>least since my recent return, by noting the off-topic nature of them.
>>>>Note any of the various off-topic threads started by joe-joe or lying
>>>>little tommie and see my very first response to them.
>>>I'll take your word for it, since you seem honorable. But you ratity
>>>somthing by becoming an active participant in its original intent.
>> I make my point, and then try to return the thread back to the topic.
>But you do make your point, don't you?
About off topic violations of copyright? Yes.
>>>>Regardless, this article was both a violation of copyright and
>>>>off-topic to the discussion of the historical facts of the Holocaust
>>>>and their denial.
>>>If that's your opinion, fine. Although we are generally on the same side
>>>of isuues we encounter here, we need not agree on everything.
>> That's more than my opinion, it's the bare facts of the matter.
>As regards to the copywrite, then yes. Technically. But I think you'll
>find that, in life, sometimes you can be wrong, even when you're right.
>I'm sure our common detractors are enjoying this disagreement, if
>they're viewing it. Personally, I wouldn't give them the satisfaction.
And yet you keep trying to justify your violation.
And, as has been pointed out in some many words here recently,
agreement that Holocaust denial is a Bad Thing <t.m.> and that
confronting those lies necessary does not suggest agreement on any
other area, thus shattering the denier canard of some centralized
authority enforcing orthodoxy.
webm...@liberman.com
I'd be aiming for a moving target, Roger. The question is, "are you
sure YOU know what it is?". The music industry thought it did when it
marched into court trying to enjoin thousands of internet users from
uploading mp3 files onto public servers, but the courts did not
provide the relief it was looking for (much to the surprise of many
'legal' experts, I might add). And the music industry's losses were
substantive, substantial, and demostrable.
So it would seem that application of copyright law has room for
discretion. Given that, and given that this type of law is of a civil
nature, then someone choosing to use copyrighted material would
analyze the risks and benefits, then govern himselfaccordingly. It's
called "liability management", and is a common business practice.
>
> >>>>>By the book, yes, the copyright line should
> >>>>>have appeared in the line, even though the article was freely
> >>>>>distributed, thus no direct loss of income could be claimed by copyright
> >>>>>owners.
>
> >>>>Incorrect. Jewish World Review lost advertising revenue because you
> >>>>did not simply link to the article, throwing more hits their way.
>
> >>>Look again. There was indeed a link to JWR home page, meaning that
> >>>anyone clicking on it would have seen the link not only to that specific
> >>>article, but all current offerings as well as JWR's ads, such as it is.
>
> >> Yes, but if all they wanted to look at was that article, you removed
> >> any reason to go to their site at all.
>
> >I couldn't disagree more. If you post an article then there's no reason
> >to have a link to that particular article. If you post only the link,
> >most people won't follow it. But if the article is in front of them and
> >the viewer reads the first few lines, and, as a result reads the rest of
> >the article, then he is much more likely to visit the sight to see what
> >else is posted there. JWR must feel this way too, hence the lack of the
> >aforementioned disclaimer.
>
> Once again: the "disclaimer" you refer to is the copyright notice
> itself, contradicting the rest of your statement.
So you keep saying. But the issue at hand was whether readers of the
article in question would have more incentive to follow a link to the
publishers home page than a link to the article itself. You still
haven't refuted my point, much less demonstrate that such a refute
would reveal a contradiction.
> >> That's why it was a copyright violation.
>
> >>>>>More curiously, the posting of articles to express a point is common
> >>>>>practice on the usenet, so it naturally begs the question: do you check
> >>>>>for copyright infringement on all of them? Having read many of your
> >>>>>posts--and having agreed with most of them--that would not seem to be
> >>>>>the case.
>
> >>>>Actually, I at least mention it any time I note it, regardless of
> >>>>whether I agree with the article or not.
>
> >>>Fine, but do you notice it often enough to give off the impression that
> >>>it's important enough for the typical poster to more judicious in
> >>>reprinting? If you don't, and you seem to have greater awareness of it,
> >>>how would we?
>
> >> I am not responsible for your impressions. I point it out any time it
> >> occurs in the couple three groups I monitor.
>
> >Actually, you are. You engender impressions by your own actions. Insofar
> >as you post opinions in the newsgroup, then the question of whether your
> > criticisms are random or are in conformance with a certain
> >pattern--and if so, which one--is a legitimate one.
>
> And impressions are formed by perceptions. I have no control over
> perceptions, otherwise I would alter the perception that Holocaust
> denial (to its practitioners) was a rational response to anything.
Given that certain actions are likely to cause certain perceptions to
form, you do indeed have control over perceptions, at least to some
degree. Otherwise, people just justify fraud, misleading advertising,
and a host of other malevolent acts by making the same claim you did.
>
> My record is clear and documented on Google.
I don't doubt you sincerity about our common goal. But we each
contribute towards the success of that goal in a manner consistent
with our personal values and our abilities. I wish you all the
success..
What makes you think there aren't? If there are those who
categorically deny historical fact, then there would have to be those
who entertain various degrees of doubt about it for the ranks of
revisionists to grow. Moreover, with the passage of time the holocaust
will fade further into history, making the facts easier to distort,
and providing revionists more time to "invent" contradictory evidence.
The truth is not necessarily an effective weapon against either the
feeble-minded, especially whose who may have a pre-disposition to
distrust Jews, such distrust not yet having been made mainifest.
> And even so, examples from *this* group would be more effective in
> demonstrating that link, than random articles about things that have
> taken place after the time period under discussion.
>
The articles pertaining to modern day Israel are far from random in
the mind of the revisionist. If current events, to which the entire
world bears witness, can be distorted to make Israel appear the
villian, then all the more so can historical ones. Most of the Arab
world today believes that Israel is resposible for 9/11, even those wo
were dancing in the streets at the time. Moreover, such beliefs are
gathering adherents in Europe and North American campuses.
> Or do you agree with "fa...@painlessdeath.com" that if it's Jewish, it
> belongs here?
I wouldn't post my bubby's recipe for potato latkes here, if that's
what you mean.
>
> >How do you think anti-Semitism spreads, if not by virtue of the ability
> >of those hardliners' ability to bring others into way of thinking? And
> >if one person in this NG gives one moment's thought of anything in the
> >article, then I will not considered the effort of posting it to have
> >been in vane.
>
> Even if you have to steal an off-topic article to do so.
>
> How noble.
Steal? Well,Roger, now you're starting to border on rudeness, and I
respectfully ask that you back off from that stance.
>
> >Dante wrote: The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in
> >time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.
>
> Which is relevant to our discussion ... how?
You're a bright boy; give it some more thought.
>
> >>>On a simpler level, this NG is where anti-Semites gather, and they feel
> >>>no particular propensity to strictly adhere to its posting protocols, if
> >>>indeed they exist.
>
> >> That's right -- but we should hold ourselves to a higher standard,
> >> especially as regards legalities and netiquette.
>
> Well? Do you not agree?
I'm not sure who you mean by "we". But in any event, I don't consider
complacency in the face of moral crisis to be a higher standard. The
Jews have always spoken out against social injustice, even when not
directed against them, and hence have been instrumental in bring about
change for the better. For specific examples, see
http://www.worldperfect.com .
>
> >>>>>Moreover, you could ask the same question about the the claim in this NG
> >>>>>about many topics.
>
> >>>>And, if you've been paying attention, I do.
>
> >>>>>The Kosher Tax threads leap readily to mind since it
> >>>>>was one I was very actively involved in, as, if memory serve, were you.
>
> >>>>Nods -- and I start my participation in those kinds of threads, at
> >>>>least since my recent return, by noting the off-topic nature of them.
> >>>>Note any of the various off-topic threads started by joe-joe or lying
> >>>>little tommie and see my very first response to them.
>
> >>>I'll take your word for it, since you seem honorable. But you ratity
> >>>somthing by becoming an active participant in its original intent.
>
> >> I make my point, and then try to return the thread back to the topic.
>
> >But you do make your point, don't you?
>
> About off topic violations of copyright? Yes.
And not about the actual subject of the debate as well? It seems to me
that if you disagree in principle about the topic of a thread, you
should, on principle, disassociate yourself with it, and not prolong
the discussion by posting comments that are guaranteed to elicit a
response.
>
> >>>>Regardless, this article was both a violation of copyright and
> >>>>off-topic to the discussion of the historical facts of the Holocaust
> >>>>and their denial.
>
> >>>If that's your opinion, fine. Although we are generally on the same side
> >>>of isuues we encounter here, we need not agree on everything.
>
> >> That's more than my opinion, it's the bare facts of the matter.
>
> >As regards to the copywrite, then yes. Technically. But I think you'll
> >find that, in life, sometimes you can be wrong, even when you're right.
> >I'm sure our common detractors are enjoying this disagreement, if
> >they're viewing it. Personally, I wouldn't give them the satisfaction.
>
> And yet you keep trying to justify your violation.
My reasons and my explanations notwithstanding, you could have
expressed your concerns privately.
>
> And, as has been pointed out in some many words here recently,
> agreement that Holocaust denial is a Bad Thing <t.m.> and that
> confronting those lies necessary does not suggest agreement on any
> other area, thus shattering the denier canard of some centralized
> authority enforcing orthodoxy.
Well, since you put THAT way, huh?