You see, I've just quoted part of one of your sentences. It is a self-contained snippet, which says all one needs to know to understand it. If you'd written another 50 pages, nobody would need to read the rest to understand either your point, or my response to that point.



It's like if I answered exam questions on The Origin Of Species, or whatever. If each time I wanted to run an argument about something I'd read there, Id had to quote the whole feckin book, it wouldn't really work, now would it?



Are you really this stupid, or are you just feigning it for effect?

The target is the State of Israel and their acts under Netenyahu, rather than Netenyahu on his own. Only somebody being deliberately obtuse would argue that criticism of the acts of the state of Israel under Netenyahu’s leadership isn’t a criticism of the state of Israel aswell, especially when the title of said criticism is mentions Israel by name, but not Netenyahu. You can run around in circles all you want, jumping between the criticism being of an individual, and then to the acts of the state under the individual all you want. The fact you cant stick to one of them simply proves my point that there is potential for different interpretations.



And to address your point regarding the bad things, I can only reiterate that because nobody is disputing that ‘bad things’ happen, nor that they were ‘bad things’, listing the ‘bad things’ added nothing to the debate, weren’t relevant or needed and achieved nothing other than giving one poster a chance to unload about how much she dislikes them, That is irrelevant.

It is quite clear that the ‘bad things’ maybe relevant to the cartoon, they aren’t relevant to the debate we were having about it.

When did you answer an exam question on The Origin of Species? I dont believe you, prove it.



You see, I've just quoted part of one of your sentences. It is a self-contained snippet. Yet because i took out the context both before and after it, it completely changed what you had tried to communicate. This allowed me to argue against that self-contained snipped without actually addressing your argument at all.



I also ignored the rest of, this allowed me pretend it didnt happen, but frankly it's as utterly pointless as it is boring to be in a conversation where that is happening.

Hooray, at last.





Quite so.

Which begs the question why you feigned belief that I had misunderstood the cartoon.





Tedious and "deliberately obtuse" twaddle ... you knew exactly what was meant.





Nope, the "bad things" are essential to the meaning of the cartoon. The depiction of the "bad things" (i.e. the wall of bodies) is precisely from whence the offence was taken. To discuss the alleged offensiveness without reference to what caused the offence would be utterly meaningless.



Are you arguing just for the sake of it?

It's his [iraison d'etre[/i.

Yet you have stated, at separate times, that the target was the State of Israel, Netenyahu as an individual, and now only the acts of the state of Israel under Netenyahu.



Because you did. You conflated the State of Israel, Netenyahu and the acts of the state of Israel under Netenyahu, I simply stated that as you have conflated these things, I can imagine others fearing the artist had done the same thing.



No, I don’t know what you mean without you saying it. Im not even trying to read your mind let alone succeeding in it.



So you think up until that point someone was arguing that these things didn’t happen or that they weren’t a source for criticism? No of course not, because everybody accepted, and nobody argued, that there weren’t things the state of Israel could be criticised for. If you are going to pretend that is the case, you would be a liar. We all knew full well the source of the criticism, we all accepted that people have a right, and people can and do criticise Israel, we all knew why Gerald Scarfe had chosen to do so. The debate has never been ‘are there things to be critical of Israel for’ so listing them as mintball did, was utterly pointless in the context of the debate and wasn’t, in my opinion, an attempt to add to the debate, but a chance for one poster to rant about her pet cause. That’s why it was irrelevant, that’s why it added nothing to the debate.

Seems that way.

No it isn't. It is a deliberate misquote by omission, which falsely asserts that I made a claim, when the person doing the asserting knows full well I did not. The seeming "quote" in fact completely misrepresents what was in fact written.



If you then proceed as if your deliberately falsified quote was correct, and replied to it, as in your example, you'd be pretty stupid.



It's actually embarrassing to have to explain this to an adult, but hey ho.

Can you indeed? Well, good for you.

The Board of Deputies were whinging about a possible reference to a medieval myth, not the conflation that you allege.

In this instance, such a conflation wouldn't actually make much difference, except as a bit more smoke for you use as a screen.





Steady on, that's sailing close to conflation.





I would remind you that it was you who described it in the anodyne terms of a "simple land grab".

A response pointing out what the "simple land grab" meant in terms of abject human suffering was then warranted.

Good, Im glad you have finally accepted how stupid and boring it is to respond to someone’s misquotes by omission, and editing of quotes so that they misrepresent the argument made and you now understand why I didn’t address the arguments you made when you did that.

Well, for what feels like the millionth time in this thread. I couldn’t give a monkeys tangled poo-ball what the board of deputies were whinging about. I don’t represent them and have never once mentioned what they have taken offence at. I speak only for me and where I see offence or the potential for offence.





Yet it obviously isn’t.

Why was somebody under the impression that a land grab was a peaceful event? Did something think that the history of the world would lead us to believe that conflicts over land are generally bloodless? That they were solved over a nice cup of tea and a game of checkers? Or have you fallen in to the same trap as mintball and for reasons beyond my understanding decided to equate the complexity of a situation with its moral acceptability?



The reason why I described it as a land grab was simply to highlight that it is a conflict over land. There was no further judgement inferred within it.

I thought I'd have a go, as above, but find it seems pointless so no, I'll leave you to crack on with that behaviour all by yourself.