william.scherk

Emir McWillliam, if the only two posters and readers in this thread of 2,418 views were you and me, your post would make sense. You can block me from your screen as I now block Grand Mufti Wiig, if you choose, but what you need not block out are the impressions on other readers and discussants. If you mark off verbatim borrowings from other people and give a URL, it's simply good, standard practice in itself. It has nothing to do with whether or not I am incoherent in your eyes, or whether or not I am incoherent in other people's eyes. It's about your ability to advance your own argument. Improve your game and the benefit accrues to you.

William, I want to add to this thought. Beck is often labeled as a fear-monger. I can see how those who say that can think this. I have noticed that there are two kinds of mentality: those interested in controlling others as a primary and those interested in controlling themselves as a primary. I have a slightly different take on the 'two kinds' trope: There are two kinds of people in the world -- those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't think there are two kinds of people in the world. It's a fun little trope that I use in real world discussion to gently point out that positing mutually exclusive entities ('two kinds of mentality') bears little fruit. You and I have had some interesting discussions over the years, and you know that the most heated discussions between us often become a wrangle over the usefulness or appropriateness of analogies; other heated discussions have come about when I have been rather persistent in asking for specifics. Now, I know you don't add me in to one or the other of the two mentalities you posit above, and I am confident that you haven't sorted me into one of only two possible views of Beck. Moreover, I am certain that you do not place me in the camp of an unspecified horde that dismisses Beck as a 'fearmonger.' You acknowledge that my opinions are my own, and not a result of membership in a collective that we might label "Beck-bashers." I will answer your other Beck thoughts later, in detail -- I will even give the entire first episodes you posted a hearing and take notes on the specifics that I find wanting. I don't expect you to accept much/any of my opinions or point of view, or even the fairness or accuracy of my own observations, but I do appreciate that you want me make a case. There are two kinds of mentality with regard to Beck, those who accept everthing that Beck says, and those who reject everything that Beck says. Or not.

Bullshit - you don't withdraw at all you reaccuse. Bob, I'll try to explain one more time. 1) If you take a verbatim text passage from a web source (or any source), you should distinctly mark off the borrowed passage somehow. OL's editing widgets let you use indent, quotebox, italic to set off passages from the flow of your own words. If you don't wish to use the editing widgets, you can mark off the borrowed passage with quotation marks: "borrowed . . . material" 2) If you take verbatim information from another site, you should give an actual link to the material you reference as well as marking off the material. These are simple, straightforward guides. Use them consistently and you will be a better discussant.

I watched the first video until I heard the following nonsense, and then just could not take any more. Please tell us, Michael, that you do not buy the whole package from Beck. Plus maybe the Netherlands? You're not really sure, Glenn? Holy jeezus fuck.

Thanks for spotting the return of TheValliants. Below is the first time TheValliants have acknowledge actually reading the repeated warnings against abusing Wikipedia, in a comment on the latest ban, from the Talk page of IP160 (final paragraph, in italics). What is so sad about this is that many of the since-November improvements/edits would pass muster if only TheValliants had worked with the community and discussed the edits beforehand. TheValliants MO seems to be 'Do not play with others. Ignore every attempt at collegiality until banned, then pretend to be victims of unfair practices.' I just don't understand why anyone/two person would ignore all warnings and cautions. I have cut and pasted some of the cautions, warnings and announcements that TheValliants ignored up until the latest ban. I think we might need the services of top forensic analyst Ellen Stuttle to tell which member of the Valliant household penned that final yawp.

Carol, NOBODY will get this; only you, me and our respective Old Aunties will admit to watching CPAC. I can't imagine any non-Canuckistani doing so. I would be like them volunteering to be waterboarded. Non-Cs: CPAC is the C-SPAN of Canuckistan, only one thousand times more boring.

If you give a web reference, Bob, you might consider giving an actual link. That allows other folks to approach the issue on the same grounds, and costs you pennies. You are an ass of the highest order. I clearly stated where the numbers came from. Go fuck yourself. I withdraw the suggestion of plagiarism, Emir McWilliam. But I will underline a point that escapes you, and hope against hope that you pay attention: if you quote something use quotation marks. You clearly took words verbatim from Gallop Gallup and allowed folks to think that they were your own words. It is basic high-school stuff, Emir. When you quote, quote. When you cite, link. Otherwise you come off as a grade-school ranter and a lazy, sloppy ideologue.

If you give a web reference, Bob, you might consider giving an actual link. That allows other folks to approach the issue on the same grounds, and costs you pennies. Gallup is a big site. I mean, I could confidently assert something like this -- 'from the Gallop site, in Turkey 9% want Sharia as the only source of legislation," and you would have a heck of a time finding the context when you went to Gallop. Of course, if you went to Gallup.com, you might do better. So, let's see if we can examine whatever it is you cited. We assume, since you didn't give a link, you went to Gallop Gallup and found this story: Do Muslims Want Democracy and Theocracy? An excerpt from the book Who Speaks for Islam? I will quote the preamble to the report, and let OLers have a look themselves. I mean, having a hysterical Grand Mufti or Emir to tell us what is in the black heart of Islam is surely a good thing, but a better thing might be to think for ourselves, or at least consider what you left out in your cite plagiarism. Bobjectively, yes. Objectively, no. But how about you make an estimation of the chances in Egypt, given your status as one of OL's finest interpreters of Islam? +++++++++++++++++++++++ In 1979 there was a revolution in Iran that led a longtime US ally to become an implacable enemy. The regime change proceeded roughly like this: Revolution, transitional government...Islamists take over, execute the generals, dissidents in prison, exile other elements. Some people think the present events in Egypt will run through the same course. Given that background, and considering a post Mubarak Egyptian political landscape, what probability would you assign to the likelihood of the Muslim Brotherhood establishing an Egyptian Islamic state? 0 == zero percent likelihood 100 = one hundred percent likelihood

Congressman Ron Paul weighs in with his policy suggestions for Egypt. They make Correspondent Selene's prescriptions, above, seem like obamarxism . . .

Joel, you should flesh out what you mean by disappearances and theft (we can likely guess at the repression you mean) and spell out what you mean by general Israel-ness. Bizarro-World Grand Mufti Wiig slops all Islamic people together in a stew pot of bile, in an effort to dim any hope we in the West might feel at the departure of the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators. Adam Selene claims a coming Brotherly Muslim Killing Spree under the stooge ElBaradei, and demonizes Carter, the guy who forced peace between Egypt and Israel. We even have the 100 year old Avenging Angel of Kolker dropping in to imply Egypt is a worthless shithole. Did you really mean to add to that kind of raisin-hearted sloganeering? Your comments are a kind of 'all Prods are Motherfuckers' greeting to an already riled and ornery Orange Picnic. There is lots to question in Israel's socialist land policies, in its Separation Barrier, in its settlements and landgrabs in the territories, and in its extra-legal disappearances, but if you only dodge in and dodge out with a one-liner you will appear to be pitching a cocktail, not adding or aiding discussion. Your comment about 'general Israel-ness is a cheap shot. Not every Jew is Netanyahu, and plenty of Israelis work to prevent and roll back injustice in Israel. Please get back in here and continue your thought, or I will have to write another one of my dreary six thousand word snorefests in aid of reason . . .

Here's a ten-hour old story from Ha'aretz, the Israeli newspaper of record. Not quite as strong a source as our valiant correspondent and analyst Adam 'I heard it somewhere' Selene, but hey. Careful readers will note the implicit connection made in the Ha'aretz report to the Brotherhood thugs in Cairo . . .

Intriguing report from Laura Rozen of Politico. I haven't seen any other reports that get into this kind of detail of the behind the scenes maneouvers.

Some 75% of Egyptians believe that 9-11 was perpetrated by the CIA or the US government.

I asked for a cite/support for a confident statement of fact, and you gave none upon challenge; instead you changed the meaning of your statement. Now the story changes once again. Please try harder to give support for your supposedly factual statements when you make them and say what you mean by a statement when you make it. You will save yourself the embarrassment of having to alter the statement, and appear much more credible in your presentation. In 1979 there was a revolution in Iran that led a longtime US ally to become an implacable enemy. The regime change proceeded roughly like this: Revolution, transitional government...Islamists take over, execute the generals, dissidents in prison, exile other elements. Some people think the present events in Egypt will run through the same course. Given that background, and considering a post Mubarak Egyptian political landscape, what probability would you assign to the likelihood of the Muslim Brotherhood establishing an Egyptian Islamic state? 0 == zero percent likelihood 100 = one hundred percent likelihood

Jackie, don't pay any attention to Shayne Wissler. He appears to have a bit of a personality disorder; when he finds himself in disagreement with someone, he calls the other person names and denigrates them personally with the first item in range. He cannot stand to be wrong, and if it seems he might be wrong, he calls the other person insane, deluded, stupid, fucked in the head, crazy or worse. It is sad. A few rounds of cognitive-behavioural therapy might get Shayne closer to realizing his life goal of Master Of The Universe. Or at least give him a chance of getting laid once in a while.

What? Let's check this out: Said: "Some 75% of Egyptians believe that 9-11 was perpetrated by the CIA or the US government." Meant: "2/3 of Egyptians believed that elements other than Al Qaeda were responsible for 9-11." Not even fucking close. Nobody could guess what you meant by what you wrote, Adam. Here's what I figure. You pulled the first confident statement out of thin air, and you would have let that statement stand as fact if you hadn't been challenged. This does not augur well for any of your future claims of fact, Adam. How will anyone know if what you say is what you mean? I will gladly answer a question like that. But I want you to do two things beforehand. Describe your vision of a repressive Egyptian Islamic State explicitly (I ask you that because you described such a state as emerging like this -- revolution, transitional government...Islamists take over, execute the generals, dissidents in prison, exile other elements -- and we cannot be sure that what you wrote is what you actually mean). The second thing I want you to do is lay out the question a bit more intelligibly and simply. A one to ten scale is fine (though a 0-100% scale is better), but if you are asking me or anyone to assign probability to an event/situation, you need one event/situation described explicitly. I mean, as it stands there is a slightly different descripto for the one and the ten end of the scale, and you have added in the meaningless term 'political landscape.' An answer to such a garbled formulation would have little value. So, please redraft the query, answer it yourself, and I am sure I won't be the only one to weigh in.

Yikes. On first glance I thought I was reading Grand Mufti Richard Wiig's prognosis for Egypt. On second glance, I don't see much difference between his prognosis and yours -- they are equally dire and paranoid. I will be asking you to cite something in support of this claim, Adam. Something that wasn't pulled out of Pamela Geller's ass. There have been many polls that have plumbed world opinion on 9/11 perpetrators. In just a couple minutes of searching I found a site that commissions and collects credible international polls on the question. Another few minutes and I found a visual aid** that compares the results of these credible samplings on 9/11 perpetrators. I also found credible polls of American beliefs about 9/11 perpetrators. The most recent poll I could find reported on the notion that "the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East." Likely: 16% ; Somewhat Likely: 20%. I will continue looking for something, anything, to support your confident claim. Let us restate that uncited claim for the record: Some 75% of Egyptians believe that 9-11 was perpetrated by the CIA or the US government. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ **

That may be true, but do you honestly think that a Republican Senator could mix up the three branches? Here's another sobering reminder that Democrats are uninformed about civics, from a 2005 Harris Poll sponsored by the American Bar Association, as reported by CBS News:

Hilarious. I suspect the only ill-informed people in the Senate are Democrats, since no Republican has ever said anything quite as off-putting. Mind you, the next generation of Democrats is likely to be just as stupid. Remember the National Constitution Center's poll in 1998?

If by us you mean USA and its allies, Egypt has maintained peace with Israel, cooperated and coordinated security with Israel against Hamas, stood against the Mullahs in Iran, and generally supported long-term strategic policies of the US during the last seven US presidencies. Hope that answers your question.

I'm assuming that Adam made his comment because of the source. I get that Carter is not on Adam's Xmas card list, sure, but I don't know how Carter's Sunday School lessons seals the USA's doom. I understand that Carter stands near Pol Pot/Obama/Dracula/Whittaker Chambers in the rankings of evul, sure -- in Objectivish estimations at least. But Carter stands in the middle of the pack in approval ratings by the general public -- at least as tracked by Gallup.* I sometimes think Adam exists in an alternative universe, however, with his birther-ish insistance that Obama is obviously a marxist. By Adam's standards, all Canadians labour under a Trotskyite regime, and inhabit an alien horror world far beyond Obamadracula's communist fantasies. I mean, using Adam's criteria, every single modern Canucki PM has also been to the left of Obamadracula, including our current PM. For a Canadian observer like me, that kind of thinking is kooked out nonsense. But that's not what puzzles me here. I don't see a gaping chasm between Adam's prescriptions for US Egypt policy as excerpted from his earlier post and the observations of Carter. Maybe Adam agrees with everything Carter said, but feels his flesh crawl at the idea that a monster like Carter can share his opinions. Maybe if Adam agrees in some way with the former President, the USA cannot stand. I mean, what does Adam take issue with? what's the difference? -- Carter watches Al Jazeera closely. So does Adam -- Carter believes the Egyptian leader has become more politically corrupt. Adam won't deny this -- Carter says Mubarak has perpetuated himself in office. Adam can't deny this obvious remark. -- Carter guesses Mubarak will have to leave. Adam's guess is the same. -- Carter tells us that US presidents privately tell Mubarak that 'you have got to have freedom.' This is not only part of Adam's prescriptions, but a fact that Adam highlighted in his reporting from the Wikileaks. So, forgive me, Robert for hoping Adam could explain his "we are officially screwed" comment with regard to Carter. I am not asking for the use of decoder rings, just a straightforward explanation of how the Carter statements should be taken as proof that "we are officially screwed." If Adam can explain how he gets to his conclusion using the example of the Carter story, great. If not, it gives me another data point in my assessment of Adam's grasp on reality and his ability to sustain rational discussion. As for your reading of Carter, I do appreciate it, and understand your context. I do have a question based on what you wrote above, though. Which elections has Carter 'blessed' that were actually rigged? I checked the relevant pages at the Carter Center. _________________ **

Okay, you the US are officially screwed, so you say. Care to elaborate on that point? I ask because you earlier had laid out the correct US policy for Egypt:

Internet forum slang for 'original poster,' I think.

The latest report from Egypt suggest Tuesday will see a massive showdown in Cairo.

Be that as it may, Adam -- Pippi writes of the danger of ElBaradei and you tell her he has been paid off by Iran "for covering up their nuclear development." You confidently state that ElBaradei "is out of touch with the young people who are giving this movement the juice." Batchelor reports partisan fearmongering and you pass it what you heard on the radio without checking it: 'a stooge of the jihad, a shill for the Ikhwan, and a hired agent for Tehran's mischief.' Your post reinforces Pippi's unwarranted concerns about ElBaradei. I challenge you to follow that NYT story and report back on what you discover about ElBaradei's involvement with 'the young.' Of course you don't need the NYT to tell you what you saw. But the story might tell you what you did not see . . . and thus extend your knowledge and your ability to offer fair and balanced information to someone like Pippi who has honestly told us she doesn't know a lot. I write Wiig off as incorrigible. You can do better.