From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Can Mr. Perlman back up his claims? (was  Re: Israeli soldiers kill Palestinian boy)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:30:23 GMT

In article <23107@venera.isi.edu> arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.152908.6275@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>
>> In article <23100@venera.isi.edu> arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
>> >
>> >Instead of backing up your voluntary assertion
>> >that "[You] do know that numerous PLO-affiliated activists who've stated
>> >even slightly non-standard opinions have been forced to seek protection
>> >from Israeli authorities", you are continuing to argue with me about my
>> >comments on Damiri's words.  As though if it were shown that I even
>> >INTENTIONALLY LIED about Damiri this would somehow establish the truth
>> >of your original claim.
>>
>> You're misconstruing my argument.  You twisted Damiri's words.  Period.
>> You made what was only a hair's breadth from a guilt-by-association
>> argument based on that twisting.  
>>
>> I'm not confusing Usenet with reality, Dr. Arens.  But I think you are
>> being extremely spiteful, and I for one do not have to respond to pure,
>> unadulterated sour grapes.  
>
>What do "sour grapes" "extreme spiteful[ness]" on my part or anything
>else have to do with this?  Prove me wrong.  Post evidence for your
>claim that "numerous PLO-affiliated activists who've stated even
>slightly non-standard opinions have been forced to seek protection from
>Israeli authorites".  You can't.

It has plenty to do with it, Dr. Arens.  First of all, I've already
provided evidence for one such case where a PLO-affiliated activist whose
only crime was stating a somewhat non-standard opinion, nay, honesty,
who had to seek protection from Israeli authorities.  I've also proven
that the vast majority of those killed in the intifada are innocent.
Others have provided evidence that protection money and the like are
common occurrences.  It also has to do with the fact that now that your
terms are met, you have to twist around what the person whose case I
pointed out said, in a futile attempt to minimize its impact.  And
further, you try to raise the ante once again.  Yet you're trying to
prove that it doesn't happen, and for that you've provided absolutely no
evidence at all.  You have the same burden of proof as I do.  I've
already gone a fair distance.  You haven't.  You want any more, you'll
have to ante up as well.

>> >So now your "know[ing] that numerous PLO-affiliated activists ..." is a
>> >*trend* of some sort?  If you publicly claim to know "numerous", you
>> >better be able to back that up.  You can (maybe) show one (1).  That's
>> >no evidence of knowing "numerous".  That is as much evidence of a
>> >"trend" as it is evidence of making things up based on insufficient data
>> >and an overeager imagination.
>>
>> How?  Enough evidence that numerous newspapers have made the same
>> comment.  You yourself admitted this on Usenet when you pointed out as
>> an introduction to your original message that it's a "commonly made"
>> accusation.  If you want to show I'm making things up, you had better
>> provide some evidence yourself.  I'll remind you and the rest of the net
>> that you have not provided the slightest shred thereof.
>
>Look.  YOU said you KNEW something.  Tell us HOW.  OK?  Now you claim
>that "numerous newspapers have made the same comment"?  Fine -- PROVE
>that numerous newspapers have made YOUR comment: that "numerous
>PLO-affiliated activists, etc...".  You can't.

And you even agreed that it was an oft-repeated claim, to use your own
words.  This has a name, Dr. Arens:  hypocrisy.

>(I can't help but notice that you have a fondness for the quatifier
>"numerous", a fondness which seems to be getting you deeper and deeper
>into trouble.  Why can't you just say, "I have read in an article
>that...", or "I have heard of a case of...".  That would probably be
>true, and you could back it up if anyone called you on it.  You are
>falsely generating "trends" that don't exist from snippets of fact that
>you read somewhere.)

Excuse me?  I have provided one instance, and collateral evidence on
related subjects.  You have yet to provide the net with one single piece
of evidence, when you're trying to disprove it, and you expect to get
away with that?  Nope.

>> >I wasn't aware that you accepted my authority to set the standard for
>> >evidence...  As I noted last time, even if you prove conclusively that I
>> >am in ignorant fool, or worse, that will not provide even the slightest
>> >bit of additional evidence for YOUR claim.  This is a red herring.  If
>> >you have specific objections concerning evidence I gave for claims of
>> >mine, I will gladly discuss them elsewhere.  But that is a different
>> >issue.
>>
>> I'm not.  Once again, you're trying to distract from the issue. The
>> point now is that you're being very, very hypocritical.  You expect
>> everything from those whose points of view you attempt to contradict,
>> and cannot meet the standard yorself.
>
>As I've already said, we can discuss your disappointement with the level
>of justification I provide for things elsewhere.  YOU were the one to
>make a claim this time, and we're trying to find out what kind of
>justification YOU have for it.  None, obviously.

Excuse me?  I met your challenge.  You attempted to state it wasn't
true, but have presented no evidence for that.  It is *you*, not I, who
has no evidence for the claims he is making.

>> >> I have provided an instance.
>> >
>> >But, unfortunately, you claimed that there were "numerous".  A "trend".
>>
>> And, once again, I ask you to present even the slightest evidence to the
>> contrary.  You have not, instead deliberately twisting the words written
>> by Mr. Damiri to attempt to diminish the instance, and then spouted more
>> platitudes and exhibited a severe case, frankly, of sour grapes.
>
>What does what I might have done with Damiri's words have to do with
>anything?  ONE example does not prove NUMEROUS, a TREND -- and you
>claimed there were MANY examples.  You cannot back that up.

It has a lot to do with it.  If you can't take peoples' words at face
value - and indeed, have a fondness for twisting their words in order to
make your points - something I have proven over and over again,
including repeatedly over the last few days in numerous circumstances, I
don't think you should be taken seriously if you don't change.

>This is getting tiresome, you know.  Why don't you just admit that you
>misspoke and we'll leave it at that?  We all make mistakes.

Indeed it is.  But I think it's ironic that Dr. Arens is asking me to
admit he misspoke when during the last few days he has twisted my words
and the evidence I have presented, taking it out of context to make
points which the evidence and my statements often expressly
contradicted.  That's completely unethical.  Dr. Arens, you, not I, owe
the net an apology.


-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:23925 talk.politics.soviet:9913 soc.culture.greek:11780 soc.culture.europe:10714 soc.history:10320 soc.culture.soviet:11437