Dear Lawrence,
I remind everyone that the MoQ is foremost supposed to be a pragmatic
philosophy. While Pirsig seems to take the position that nothing can be
proven absolutely true, there are such things as commonly accepted facts.
You
can question them, and sometimes refute them (turning them into falsities),
but pragmatism dictates that you cannot ignore them. If you do, you may end
up following a false map and that is not the way to navigate towards quality
solutions. In this ME discussion, I am very concerned about people using
false maps, and keep rechecking my own map.
> I don't expect you to be impressed; I do expect you to do your own
research,
> and to take accountability for your own statements.
But I *DO* check up all the time. You have not yet pulled me up for a single
factual error (actually, you did - I mistakenly attributed to you something
that Darryl had written).
On the other hand, I and others have corrected you on MANY facts. Your
response has
always been along the lines of "yes but . . ."
This is illustrated by your claim that the 1967 war was a "war that Israel
initiated".
Roger and I both pointed out Egypt's acts of war immediately BEFORE
June 1967 (Roger with specific dates). You accepted these facts, and
then have the audacity to state:
LAWRENCE
>Remember, they were in a state of war,
>mitigated only by an Armistice Agreement; that is what countries do to
>each other. Quandt's book goes into this in more detail.
But Lawrence, this means that we have to go back to why and when the state
of war started - in May 1948 when Egypt's forces invaded the territory of
the
brand new State of Israel. I hope you don't need to look this up, but I am
sure that you can verify it in Quandt's book As I see it, Lawrence, you have
contradicted your own assertion. By your own reasoning, the 1967 hostilities
were a battle in the war that Egypt initiated 19 years earlier.
I could go on with more illustrations, but it is really getting to be a bore
LAWRENCE
> It might be better for you to check the facts and their references BEFORE
> you condemn them. Otherwise, it merely looks like you will hold to your
> point of view no matter what.
>
Lawrence, I do expect you to admit your own mistakes, otherwise I am going
to conclude that you will hold to your point of view no matter what. I think
that it is plain to everyone who knows something on the subject that your
position is either founded on your own ignorance, or is deliberately one
sided. I AM STILL READY to discuss any part of the history where you believe
that I have made incorrect assertions.
Jonathan
PS Lawrence, please do look up the borders of the territory referred to as
Palestine at the start of the British Mandate and in the Sykes-Picot
agreement.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:11 BST