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: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 15:29:08 GMT

In article <23100@venera.isi.edu> arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
>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.

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.  

>> >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.

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.

>> 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'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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

This is a lie, and Dr. Arens knows it.  I've been not only claiming
such, but proving such rather regularly on Usenet for months now.  How
does it feel, Dr. Arens, to have to misstate what someone else is saying
to "prove a point?"

>  You added it
>later to shift the argument from its original course.  

Hogwash.

>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".  

Yes, in direct, and immediately obvious connection with the fact that
the vast majority of those killed by Palestinians in the intifada are
innocent.

>This has nothing to do with
>killings, nor with attacks in general, nor with guilt or innocence.  

Wrong.  It has *everything* to do with them.  I made that point crystal
clear in my argument.

>It
>talks about attacking people for minor deviations from political
>"correctness".  Let's see evidence for THAT.

I've already provided one case thereof. 

>> 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.

You are indeed under such an obligation.  You claimed that my assertion
was not true.  I brought up one such case, and supporting collateral
evidence.  Now, if you want your claim that the assertion is untrue, you
are under an obligation to either provide evidence to call mine into
question - which you have not done - or otherwise confute the argument
with evidence - which you have also not done.  It looks like you don't
know what logical argument is, either, Dr. Arens. 

I am finished arguing with someone who cannot take others' words at
their face value, and who refuses to realize that he cannot bandy about
accusations either about evidence, arguments, or facts without backing
them up - even when the things he wishes to contradict have been backed
up.  

Good-bye, Dr. Arens.

>(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


-- 
"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