Michael you are changing your tune. You wrote: "No, I haven't read it. The book had sufficiently glaring weaknesses > > that Finkelstein was able to sufficiently expose its bias and poor > > research (the plagiarism point I'm less sure about) in the brief > time > > available to him between Dershowitz's interruptions. Dershowitz's > > complete inability to provide a sensible defense of his own book on > > substantive points leaves little doubt as to its caliber" Now you say "How do you know? I only just heard of Dershowitz's book the other > day, when the debate happened. I'll probably look for it the next > time I'm in a bookstore." Which is it. Why get on me critizing your first statement when you change your view in the second. You said "I think it's interesting that you're saying this, when Dershowitz just > flat out dismisses the work of several of the most prominent human > rights organizations. " Where did he do that ? You said "My conclusion from watching the debate was that Dershowitz's point, > that the larger number would have made his case stronger, was correct > but irrelevant. Finkelstein's point was that there was an error of > fact, which qualified under the $10,000 offer. That was the only > reason Finkelstein brought up that particular paragraph." Yes but you and I weren't discussing whether finkelstein should be able to collect the money we were discussing whether or not it had "sufficiently glaring weaknesses". --- In NewPacifica@yahoogroups.com, "Caveman" <mlubin1@m...> wrote: > Comments interspersed. > > > --- In NewPacifica@yahoogroups.com, "jeff54b" <jeff54@r...> wrote: > > Oh but Finkelstein writes books that aren't biased, and Pacifica > > isn't biased. Is that what you are trying to claim? > > > I made no claims concerning either of those points. > > > > > > Face it Michael > > you have no interest in reading anything that doesn't confirm your > > present beliefs, how very open minded of you. > > > How do you know? I only just heard of Dershowitz's book the other > day, when the debate happened. I'll probably look for it the next > time I'm in a bookstore. > > I think it's interesting that you're saying this, when Dershowitz just > flat out dismisses the work of several of the most prominent human > rights organizations. These organizations are not necessarily > "neutral," any more than anyone else is -- we all have biases to some > degree, but these are several different, widely respected > organizations, none of which is controlled by a government or party, > and they are pretty unanimous in contradicting Dershowitz's claims > about human rights abuses. It's also interesting that he falsely > claimed that "low-level torture" doesn't violate international law. > > > > > If you had read the > > book you would see that Dershowitz was abosolutly correct about the > > number that Finkelstein found being wrong. A larger number only would > > have made his point stronger. > > > My conclusion from watching the debate was that Dershowitz's point, > that the larger number would have made his case stronger, was correct > but irrelevant. Finkelstein's point was that there was an error of > fact, which qualified under the $10,000 offer. That was the only > reason Finkelstein brought up that particular paragraph. > > > > > > Didn't you hear how Finkelstein shouted > > Dershowitz down when he tried to read the whole paragraph. > > > Both parties did some interrupting. Dershowitz did at least 75% of > it. He did about 90% of it until the latter parts of the broadcast, > when Finkelstein seemed to figure, "Well, this guy is interrupting me, > and he gets away with it, so why not?" > > Dershowitz wouldn't even read passages that Finkelstein asked him to > read, because they contradicted his own claims. What a coward. > > > > > > Let me ask > > you a question do you consider yourself a progressive? What kind of > > progressive just dismisses anything he doesn't agree with without > > checking it out? > > > I am a progressive, and I listened very closely to the debate. I read > lots, but unfortunately don't have time to read everything I'm > interested in. I may or may not get a chance to read the books of > either of these authors at a later date. I hope so. > > --Michael > > > > > > > That's the whole problem (well maybe not the whole > > but the one that bothers me the most) with Pacifica today it's not > > about dialouge it's only about giving one POV. > > --- In NewPacifica@yahoogroups.com, "Caveman" <mlubin1@m...> wrote: > > > No, I haven't read it. The book had sufficiently glaring weaknesses > > > that Finkelstein was able to sufficiently expose its bias and poor > > > research (the plagiarism point I'm less sure about) in the brief > > time > > > available to him between Dershowitz's interruptions. Dershowitz's > > > complete inability to provide a sensible defense of his own book on > > > substantive points leaves little doubt as to its caliber. > > > > > > However, I acknowledge that some portions of it might be better than > > > the parts Finkelstein critiqued. Usually, when a book contains a > > > glaring bias concerning its main subject, that pretty much messes up > > > the whole work, but you never know. > > > > > > If the result of the debate had been less lopsided, or if the author > > > had not been given ample opportunity to defend himself, I would not > > be > > > expressing an opinion of the book without reading it. > > > > > > --Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In NewPacifica@yahoogroups.com, "jeff54b" <jeff54@r...> wrote: > > > > You've read the book Michael? > > > > --- In NewPacifica@yahoogroups.com, "Caveman" <mlubin1@m...> > > wrote: > > > > > --- In NewPacifica@yahoogroups.com, "jeff54b" <jeff54@r...> > > wrote: > > > > > > I think you are trying to evade the issue Greg. The queston > > isn't > > > > > > whether or not it's a debate or a discussion. The question is > > > > whether > > > > > > or not Amy presentented it as a fair forum and indeed gave > > one > > > > side > > > > > > an advantage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By allowing both sides to interrupt with only minimal, > > ineffective > > > > > interventions, Amy did indeed give one side an advantage -- > > > > > Dershowitz, because he was the one doing the vast majority of > > the > > > > > interrupting. The result was that he spoke for far more of the > > time > > > > > than Finkelstein. That was indeed unfair. Other than that, and > > > > > playing the clip of Dershowitz's offer, and reading some lines > > that > > > > > Finkelstein asked her to because Dershowitz wouldn't, Amy did > > hardly > > > > > anything. > > > > > > > > > > What WAS unfair to Dershowitz is that, being a dishonest and > > > > > self-involved person, and having written a biased and ill- > > researched > > > > > book, he was unable to defend his book against a sharp > > critique. > > > > > Instead, he became gibberingly defensive and made a complete > > ass of > > > > > himself. The superior quality of Finkelstein's research and > > logic, > > > > > and his composed and dispassionate demeanor, gave him a terribly > > > > > unfair advantage. > > > > > > > > > > --Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your proposition if I understand correctly is that even > > > > > > if one side had an advantage their is nothing wrong with > > that. > > > > Would > > > > > > you feel the same way if you found out that in the > > presidential > > > > > > debates, "staged tandem press conferences" though they be, > > some > > > > > > canidates had the questions ahead of time. Or would it > > depend, as > > > > it > > > > > > seems to for you in this case, on which candidates it was > > that > > > > had > > > > > > the questions in advance. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In NewPacifica@yahoogroups.com, "A. Gregory Wonderwheel" > > > > > > <wonderwheel@p...> wrote: > > > > > > > The academic meaning of the word debate begins with a > > > > proposition > > > > > > to > > > > > > > which one side speaks in the affirmative and the other side > > > > speaks > > > > > > > for the negative. It means that each side presents an > > opening > > > > > > > statement. There are questions, uwually from the other > > side, > > > > then > > > > > > > answers and rebuttal. Then come the closing statements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Debates outside of academia are seldom formatted like > > academic > > > > > > > debates. For example, the presidential "debates" are > > usually > > > > more > > > > > > > like staged tandem press conferences rather than debates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously Amy's use of the word debate was in the most > > generic > > > > > > sense > > > > > > > of the word, and nothing can be assumed from it other than > > that > > > > she > > > > > > > meant a discussion with two competing points of view > > > > represented. > > > > > > To > > > > > > > base an allegation of ambush on the use of the > > word "debate" is > > > > > > > fantasy and make believe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gregory Wonderwheel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In NewPacifica@yahoogroups.com, "jeff54b" <jeff54@r...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > "In common usage it has nothing to do with > > > > > > > > > the academic meaning of the word." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing Greg, nothing at all. Give me an example of where > > the > > > > > > word > > > > > > > > debate has been used in in common usage and it > > has "nothing > > > > to do > > > > > > > > with the acedemic meaning of the word" > > > > > > > > Who's being disingenuious now Greg? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In NewPacifica@yahoogroups.com, "A. Gregory > > Wonderwheel" > > > > > > > > <wonderwheel@p...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > You should know by now that the common usage of the > > > > > > term "debate" > > > > > > > > > means a pointed discussion. In common usage it has > > nothing > > > > to > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > the academic meaning of the word. Derschowitz is no > > child > > > > in > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > matters. Did he complain that he didn't know Amy would > > have > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > guest on to talk about (discuss or debate) the book? > > If he > > > > > > > thinks > > > > > > > > > that his appearances will always be like an appearance > > on > > > > > > Charlie > > > > > > > > > Rose then he is disingenuious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gregory > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In NewPacifica@yahoogroups.com, "jeff54b" > > <jeff54@r...> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The premise as Amy stated it was that it was > > a "debate" > > > > Greg > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > a "discussion" between 2 people one of whom new what > > the > > > > > > > > moderator > > > > > > > > > > would do or say in advance. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/xYTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewPacifica-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/