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: 18 Dec 92 22:06:14 GMT
	<23086@venera.isi.edu> <1992Dec18.170407.8565@colorado.edu>
Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute
In-reply-to: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU's message of 18 Dec 92 17:04:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.170407.8565@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>
> In article <23086@venera.isi.edu> arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec17.151119.29483@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
> >>
> >> In article <23075@venera.isi.edu> arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
> >> >As for Mr. Perlman himself, I can only end by reminding our readers that
> >> >while he has responded to my challenge (to find ONE example -- which
> >> >although not perfect, I'm willing to accept for now), he has done
> >> >absolutely NOTHING to defend his original claim, which I reproduce
> >> >below, in case he's forgotten it:
> >>
> >> Don't bother.  You've provided absolutely no evidence to impugn it, Dr.
> >> Arens.  You've tried to impugn it by innuendo, deliberate twisting of
> >> Mr. Damiri's writings, and the like.  That simply will not wash. 
> >
> >Mr. Perlman is, as he has done in past arguments with me and possibly
> >others, confusing Usenet arguments ABOUT the state of the world with the
> >ACTUAL state of the world.  I included my reminder above, to try to
> >bring reality back to his attention.
>
> No, I haven't.  I will remind the Usenet public that I directly refuted
> his misstatements about Mr. Damiri.  Mr. Arens twisted Mr. Damiri's
> words in order to form a basis for his reply.  I pointed that out, and I
> reiterate it here.  I confuse no arguments, Dr. Arens.  You, on the
> other hand, seemingly can't take a person at face value when that person
> says something that contradicts your world-view.

You not only do confuse Usenet with reality, but you continue to
demonstrate it here.  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.

> >Mr. Perlman can accuse me of anything he wants, but for him to be
> >considered credible, he should be able to back up this statement that he
> >made.  Even if he succeeds in demonstrating to the whole world that I am
> >an ignorant fool -- he still needs to be able to back his statement up.
> >
> >Simply claiming that "[Yigal has] provided absolutely no evidence to
> >impugn it" will not suffice, I'm afraid.  Mr. Perlman said that HE KNOWS
> >something.  There is little *I* can do to expose much about his state of
> >mind, nor is it my responsibility.  The truth of his claim to such
> >knowledge as he describes above is, unfortunately for Mr. Perlman,
> >something that only he needs to conclusively demonstrate.
>
> Come now, Dr. Arens.  One claim can be evidence of a trend.

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.

> You have certainly tried to use far far less evidence to push far
> larger claims on this net.

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 have provided an instance.

But, unfortunately, you claimed that there were "numerous".  A "trend".

> I have also provided evidence that the vast majority of those killed
> by Palestinian factions in the Intifada are completely innocent.
> That's quite a lot of circumstantial evidence.

Even if I accept your statement above as true, it is evidence for
something else, not for you claim.  I did not dispute any claim of yours
that many or even most of those killed in the intifada are innocent.  I
didn't dispute such a claim because you never made it.  You added it
later to shift the argument from its original course.  You originally
asserted 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".  This has nothing to do with
killings, nor with attacks in general, nor with guilt or innocence.  It
talks about attacking people for minor deviations from political
"correctness".  Let's see evidence for THAT.

> Whether I have more is not the point.

It most certainly is, if you expect us to believe you spoke the truth
when you claimed to KNOW there were more.

> You have yet to produce one shred of evidence for any of your
> statements on the matter.  I think I am quite justified in waiting
> even for that first shred.  I'm not holding my breath.

I am under no obligation to produce anything.  You said you KNEW
something.  I would think you should be able to back that up.  It
doesn't look like you can.  Too bad for you.  I hope you don't make such
sweeping assertions again in the future without actual evidence for
them.

(If you want to discuss other issues, we can do it in separate postings
devoted to them.)
--
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI                                                TV made me do it!
arens@isi.edu