From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Can Mr. Perlman back up his claims? (was  Re: Israeli soldiers kill Palestinian boy)
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:03:57 GMT
	<23100@venera.isi.edu> <1992Dec19.152908.6275@colorado.edu>
Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute
In-reply-to: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU's message of 19 Dec 92 15:29:08 GMT

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.

> >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.

(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.)

> >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.

> >> 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.

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.
--
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI                                                TV made me do it!
arens@isi.edu