Sorting all news into one thing or another is just an extension of this mentality, and it is harmful. Would you tolerate it if they sorted it into Black News and White News? Or into News for Women, and News for Men? Put the gardening and housekeeping on News for Women, and the tech and business stuff on News for Men...
You were the first to make racist claims: you should be first to give reliable evidence.
What you're CLAIMING is that the Arab residents of al-Majdal CHOSE to abandon their homes, property, etc. because they hated the Jews so much that they were willing to see their homes destroyed just to kill a few Jews.
Many of them did hate the Jews: anti-Semitism has always been popular and was perpetuated among the Arab population during the 1940's by certain elements siding with various sides in the Second World War. This is why the Zionist militias were formed in the first place: if a Jew wanted to buy a home in Palestine during the British mandate, his Arab neighbors would often either get in his way or try to force him out of town. (For a historical parallel, consider what happened in 20th century America when blacks started to become affluent enough to move into predominantly white neighborhoods.) Many more simply did not want to get in the way of the Arab states who invaded the region, and many more did it out of self-interest: the belief that if they evacuated during the war, the Arab states would let them return, take back their own homes and property, and take back the homes and property of their Jewish neighbors as well. Pure greed.
"Distrust" is one way to put it, and obviously an element of what's going on. It's more that every single war Israel gets involved in happens to be against Arabs. While Israel is probably better off not forcing its Arab citizens to take up arms against other Arabs, I'm sure all of the Arabs involved prefer it that way too.
No, the poster's point was that he doesn't like the Jews and that they should be driven out of Israel. The Madagascar Plan is a favorite topic of anti-Semites because, in most cases, if they're anyone they hate more than the Jews it's Africans.
You're right, there is a difference between the rights of Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews: Arabs have the additional right to not serve in the military. Israel's universal conscription does not apply to its Arab citizens.
The Palestinians, historically, are the Arabs who left Israel in order to help its neighbors invade it and exterminate its inhabitants. Their Arab allies (mostly Egypt, Syria, and Jordan) betrayed the Palestinians and refused to grant them citizenship, even if they inhabit territories that used to be part of Jordan and Egypt. This is simply a tactic for them to perpetuate discontent and terrorism against Israel, since they have been consistently unable to defeat and exterminate Israel through conventional military means.
Technically, Jordan was also part of Palestine at one point. But it is true that for the period between 1948 and the Six Day War, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were part of Jordan and Egypt. Israel seized those territories, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan Heights from Syria before giving most of the Sinai back to Egypt in the 1980's.
Before the Arab states invaded Israel in 1948, they announced to the Arabs living in Israel that if they left Israel and helped the Arab states invade Israel, they would get the Jews' land once the Jews were forced into the sea. Instead, the Jews won. Since then, a bunch of Arabs are being held in refugee camps for generation after generation, while still others settled in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which themselves were part of Jordan and Egypt, respectively, until those territories were used as staging areas for invading Israel in another attempt to exterminate the Jews in the 1960's.
Israel didn't have a problem with Arabs living there, and still don't: the Arabs who didn't take Jordan, Egypt, and Syria up on their offer stayed in Israel and remain full citizens.
It should be noted that up until 1948 Ashkelon used to be called al-Majdal and was home to some 10,000 Arabs. Their homes were taken and they were ethnically cleansed and moved to Gaza.
They evacuated the country and collaborated with Egypt to exterminate their former neighbors. The Arabs who stayed in Israel rather than doing that became citizens and continue to hold full civil rights, as do their descendants.
Yes, but the overwhelming majority argued for deletion, and in most cases the ones arguing against deletion aren't members of the Wikipedia community (and, half the time, are spammers, vandals, or other griefers).
I'm sure it is, but Shawn Lonsdale wasn't running for president of Pakistan, either. I'm fully supportive of exposing Scientology, but when it comes to violent religious fanatics there are bigger fish to fry.
Yes. I forgot the incident where someone in Denmark drew some insulting cartoons of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientologists around the world rioted and burned down embassies.
Adn if Sun actually had a pair of dangling between their legs they would port Java and double dog dare Steve to sue.
From my reading of the SDK, apps can't continue running in the background, except AIM is obviously an exception for that. So obviously Apple is willing to bend the rules for big enough developers. If Sun were actually smart instead of just belligerent, they'd get on the phone with Apple and work it out with them.
Soon, the only thing the iPhone will have over competitors is Design cache' and that "safe, locked-in, tucked-in feeling".
The iPhone uses a Samsung S5L8900 ARM chipset, which has 32 kilobytes of Level 1 cache. I don't think that's much of an advantage over its competitors. (Hint: you mean "cachet".)
The thing is, consensus is already necessary in order to delete articles. It's just that the overwhelming culture is perhaps a little deletionist, or that fewer inclusionists are expending as much effort as the deletionists in the long run.
not to mention that deletion of articles should be done by consent - but it isn't
Jesus Christ. If you want to argue that Wikipedia isn't as inclusionary as it should be that's a reasonable argument to have, but to say they need your consent to stop hosting a page on their server is the height of arrogance.
I just find the whole unilateral nature of the deletionist thing so arrogant.
In order to delete an article you need the passive or active consent of a vast supermajority of people who see the article or its deletion listing within a one week period. Likewise, a small but significant minority can save it against even significant majorities. "Unilateral" is the last word I would use here.
Your cognitive abilities are the comparison chosen by you. It is subjective. A lion would certainly deem you inferior because you can't take it down bare handed.
There are 3 Billion people in the world making less than $2 a day. This is never discussed by globalism's advocates and international outsourcers. , but simple economics says that the wider we open the door, the faster our lifestyle will fall.
You're making the first, most common, and most wrong economic fallacy: that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world. If we employ those 3 billion people doing productive work worth $4 a day, the entire world is richer. In the long run wages will rise until they make $400 a day, and contribute more than that amount to the amount of total wealth in the world.
Now, there are problems. It's not ecologically possible to bring all six billion humans in the world up to the same lifestyle we have in America. But those three million people can live better, while only making us better off. That's certainly better than condemning all of them to poverty so that we may have riches.
Slashdot Mirror
And before long we'll have News for Nerds!
I think Rush is actually sane. It makes perfect sense when you realize he's an entertainer, not a commentator. However, I'm not really a conservative.
You were the first to make racist claims: you should be first to give reliable evidence.
What you're CLAIMING is that the Arab residents of al-Majdal CHOSE to abandon their homes, property, etc. because they hated the Jews so much that they were willing to see their homes destroyed just to kill a few Jews.Many of them did hate the Jews: anti-Semitism has always been popular and was perpetuated among the Arab population during the 1940's by certain elements siding with various sides in the Second World War. This is why the Zionist militias were formed in the first place: if a Jew wanted to buy a home in Palestine during the British mandate, his Arab neighbors would often either get in his way or try to force him out of town. (For a historical parallel, consider what happened in 20th century America when blacks started to become affluent enough to move into predominantly white neighborhoods.) Many more simply did not want to get in the way of the Arab states who invaded the region, and many more did it out of self-interest: the belief that if they evacuated during the war, the Arab states would let them return, take back their own homes and property, and take back the homes and property of their Jewish neighbors as well. Pure greed.
"Distrust" is one way to put it, and obviously an element of what's going on. It's more that every single war Israel gets involved in happens to be against Arabs. While Israel is probably better off not forcing its Arab citizens to take up arms against other Arabs, I'm sure all of the Arabs involved prefer it that way too.
Transjordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia owned Palestine?
No, the poster's point was that he doesn't like the Jews and that they should be driven out of Israel. The Madagascar Plan is a favorite topic of anti-Semites because, in most cases, if they're anyone they hate more than the Jews it's Africans.
You're right, there is a difference between the rights of Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews: Arabs have the additional right to not serve in the military. Israel's universal conscription does not apply to its Arab citizens.
The Palestinians, historically, are the Arabs who left Israel in order to help its neighbors invade it and exterminate its inhabitants. Their Arab allies (mostly Egypt, Syria, and Jordan) betrayed the Palestinians and refused to grant them citizenship, even if they inhabit territories that used to be part of Jordan and Egypt. This is simply a tactic for them to perpetuate discontent and terrorism against Israel, since they have been consistently unable to defeat and exterminate Israel through conventional military means.
The "ethnic cleansing" didn't happen: it's a lie. Citation needed or GTFO.
Yes, and I hear they control the banks and media too.
Technically, Jordan was also part of Palestine at one point. But it is true that for the period between 1948 and the Six Day War, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were part of Jordan and Egypt. Israel seized those territories, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan Heights from Syria before giving most of the Sinai back to Egypt in the 1980's.
Before the Arab states invaded Israel in 1948, they announced to the Arabs living in Israel that if they left Israel and helped the Arab states invade Israel, they would get the Jews' land once the Jews were forced into the sea. Instead, the Jews won. Since then, a bunch of Arabs are being held in refugee camps for generation after generation, while still others settled in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which themselves were part of Jordan and Egypt, respectively, until those territories were used as staging areas for invading Israel in another attempt to exterminate the Jews in the 1960's.
Israel didn't have a problem with Arabs living there, and still don't: the Arabs who didn't take Jordan, Egypt, and Syria up on their offer stayed in Israel and remain full citizens.
They evacuated the country and collaborated with Egypt to exterminate their former neighbors. The Arabs who stayed in Israel rather than doing that became citizens and continue to hold full civil rights, as do their descendants.
Yes, but the overwhelming majority argued for deletion, and in most cases the ones arguing against deletion aren't members of the Wikipedia community (and, half the time, are spammers, vandals, or other griefers).
Sure: my point is that this makes them more like a major religion, not less.
I'm sure it is, but Shawn Lonsdale wasn't running for president of Pakistan, either. I'm fully supportive of exposing Scientology, but when it comes to violent religious fanatics there are bigger fish to fry.
Yes. I forgot the incident where someone in Denmark drew some insulting cartoons of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientologists around the world rioted and burned down embassies.
Indeed: whatever other tactics they use, Scientology doesn't use hangings or suicide bombings to silence their critics and apostates.
From my reading of the SDK, apps can't continue running in the background, except AIM is obviously an exception for that. So obviously Apple is willing to bend the rules for big enough developers. If Sun were actually smart instead of just belligerent, they'd get on the phone with Apple and work it out with them.
The iPhone uses a Samsung S5L8900 ARM chipset, which has 32 kilobytes of Level 1 cache. I don't think that's much of an advantage over its competitors. (Hint: you mean "cachet".)
Technically, there have been three iPhones: the 4 GB, 8 GB, and 16 GB.
The thing is, consensus is already necessary in order to delete articles. It's just that the overwhelming culture is perhaps a little deletionist, or that fewer inclusionists are expending as much effort as the deletionists in the long run.
Jesus Christ. If you want to argue that Wikipedia isn't as inclusionary as it should be that's a reasonable argument to have, but to say they need your consent to stop hosting a page on their server is the height of arrogance.
In order to delete an article you need the passive or active consent of a vast supermajority of people who see the article or its deletion listing within a one week period. Likewise, a small but significant minority can save it against even significant majorities. "Unilateral" is the last word I would use here.
Um, lions can't "deem". That's the point.
You're making the first, most common, and most wrong economic fallacy: that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world. If we employ those 3 billion people doing productive work worth $4 a day, the entire world is richer. In the long run wages will rise until they make $400 a day, and contribute more than that amount to the amount of total wealth in the world.
Now, there are problems. It's not ecologically possible to bring all six billion humans in the world up to the same lifestyle we have in America. But those three million people can live better, while only making us better off. That's certainly better than condemning all of them to poverty so that we may have riches.