• Since we moved our URL please clear your browsers history and cookies and try logging in again. Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience
  • Since we moved our URL please clear your browsers history and cookies and try logging in again. Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience

Micheal Ray Richardson suspended for by CBA anti-Semitic comments

  • Thread starter Thread starter Calvin2
  • Start date Start date
C02 said:
At least we agree that this discussion is pointless.
One thing you should understand, though, goga. No connection to your pointless whining, just a remark. You keep bringing the word "facts". People can simply be won over by facts. You don't get, it do you ? There are no "facts" in this conflict. You can read two books about this conflict, both written by respectable historians and the "facts" will be different. So, what you call "facts" should be more like "versions". I can recommend a couple of books for you to read, so you could educate yourself a bit on the subject and stop using the ridiculous term facts.

There is no need for you to tell me how to differentiate a fact from a point-of-view. Facts can be proven, facts are not ripped out of context. There is only one "version" of a fact. It either happened or not and you can almost always prove its existence. If you don't know how to do it, I rather recommend YOU to read some books. Otherwise, you can consider everything to be relative and everything having two sides. But it's not like that, if talking about facts. With no emotions, simply facts.
 
goga78 said:
There is no need for you to tell me how to differentiate a fact from a point-of-view. Facts can be proven, facts are not ripped out of context. There is only one "version" of a fact. It either happened or not and you can almost always prove its existence. If you don't know how to do it, I rather recommend YOU to read some books. Otherwise, you can consider everything to be relative and everything having two sides. But it's not like that, if talking about facts. With no emotions, simply facts.
History is not fucking mathematics, goga and that's a pity you don't understand it. Let me give you an example. Some historians claim that arabs were never forcefully expelled from their cities by the jews. There are others who claim that this is not true and give examples of concrete cities were such expelling took place. So, where is the fact here, goga ? I guess with people like you a fact is a version that serves you better.
 
C02 said:
History is not fucking mathematics, goga and that's a pity you don't understand it. Let me give you an example. Some historians claim that arabs were never forcefully expelled from their cities by the jews. There are others who claim that this is not true and give examples of concrete cities were such expelling took place. So, where is the fact here, goga ? I guess with people like you a fact is a version that serves you better.

One thing is propaganda or a crystal clear history of a nation, another thing are facts. No historian in recent history has been negating the fact, that Jews were part of the reason the Palestinian Arabs left their homes. The debate is only about the fact, if it was the solely reason or just came by chance, when Palestinian Arabs were leaving their homes anyway. Original and initial reasons for their leavings were cery well documented and can be even read in Arab newspapers of that particular time. If someone wants to neglect the timeline and see only one part of the story, it still ain't a fact but a happening ripped out of its context.
It's a simple as that. History never means one side is always white and another one is always black, but facts remain facts. No more reason to talk about.
 
goga78 said:
One thing is propaganda or a crystal clear history of a nation, another thing are facts. No historian in recent history has been negating the fact, that Jews were part of the reason the Palestinian Arabs left their homes. The debate is only about the fact, if it was the solely reason or just came by chance, when Palestinian Arabs were leaving their homes anyway. Original and initial reasons for their leavings were cery well documented and can be even read in Arab newspapers of that particular time. If someone wants to neglect the timeline and see only one part of the story, it still ain't a fact but a happening ripped out of its context.
It's a simple as that. History never means one side is always white and another one is always black, but facts remain facts. No more reason to talk about.

Goga you can't make a difference. So be like everyone else and shove your opinion.
 
goga78 said:
One thing is propaganda or a crystal clear history of a nation, another thing are facts. No historian in recent history has been negating the fact, that Jews were part of the reason the Palestinian Arabs left their homes. The debate is only about the fact, if it was the solely reason or just came by chance, when Palestinian Arabs were leaving their homes anyway. Original and initial reasons for their leavings were cery well documented and can be even read in Arab newspapers of that particular time. If someone wants to neglect the timeline and see only one part of the story, it still ain't a fact but a happening ripped out of its context.
It's a simple as that. History never means one side is always white and another one is always black, but facts remain facts. No more reason to talk about.
Pure demagogy again. I asked you what was the fact in the example, but you chose to answer in a way that will allow you not to give a direct answer.
So, I repeat my question, which one of the versions I presented is a fact and which is not ? And I would really prefer that if you are not going to answer this simple question, just go watch some tv or smth, instead of waisting this forums storage space with another pure demagogic novel of yours.
 
C02 said:
Pure demagogy again. I asked you what was the fact in the example, but you chose to answer in a way that will allow you not to give a direct answer.
So, I repeat my question, which one of the versions I presented is a fact and which is not ? And I would really prefer that if you are not going to answer this simple question, just go watch some tv or smth, instead of waisting this forums storage space with another pure demagogic novel of yours.

You are a totally hopeless case. It's senseless to write clearly understadable things if you chose not to understand them. Read what I have written again and you might realize, I gave an understandable answer to your questions. A clear answer. I don't have to pick one of the two presented versions, as both are lacking parts for the whole story. I have explained the value of different reasons in this case, what was the initial signal and what kind of doing was simply using the situation for his own means. If you still don't get it, no need for you to answer. The only thing you have done until now (in non-basketball discussions) is to fail to humiliate really engaged people. You never needed to have a discussion, but you still joined it without bringing anything. You know, like a clown who laughs about everything but can't even explain properly why he is laughing. You are trying to laugh everything off, calling simply everybody fools, morons, trolls. You've never made a concrete and profound note.
 
Calvin said:
Goga you can't make a difference. So be like everyone else and shove your opinion.

Shouldn't you take your own advice.:D
 
Czarkazem13 said:
Shouldn't you take your own advice.:D

No, I can make a difference. More importantly who's the hot cuban and can I bang her.
 
goga78 said:
You are a totally hopeless case. It's senseless to write clearly understadable things if you chose not to understand them. Read what I have written again and you might realize, I gave an understandable answer to your questions. A clear answer. I don't have to pick one of the two presented versions, as both are lacking parts for the whole story.
I get it now. I asked you a question too hard for you to understand. I should have started with a simple example. I'm sorry for not doing so, goga. So, here is your example, just as you like them, nice and simple. When someone leaves his home and runs away, I might ask him the following: "Have you been forced to leave ? Have someone come to you and specifically ordered you to leave ?" This is called a yes/no question, goga, and it's called so because it implies 2 possible answers. Which ones ?
So, after you understood the example, let's proceed to the question I asked you twice and you failed to answer twice. It is very similar to the previous one, but preseneted a bit differently, so you could pick your answer comfortably.
Big part of the arabs who lived in palestine, ran away from their homes after jews had settled here. This is a well established fact, which we both agree on.
Now, I present you two possible scenarios:
1. They never were specifically ordered to leave.
2. They were specifically ordered to leave in some cases.
I'll give you a hint to spare my time for another post. This scenarios are complementary, which means that there is no "in between" answer. Exactly one of them has to be true. And no, smart ass, this:
Jews were part of the reason the Palestinian Arabs left their homes.
Is not anything like an answer. It's a pure demagogic sentence. You disgust me like our politicians do, goga.
Now, you claim that history is like math, something either happened, or it just didn't. Because if it did, you, almighty genius, goga, can prove it, so please, pick the right version - a fact, that really happened.
I hope that now the question is clear to you and you can answer it in a simple way, without waisting my time once again and showing your demagogic skills once again. Not that there is any doubt that you won't answer it, but either way you showed your true demagogic nature, so it's OK by me.
The only thing you have done until now (in non-basketball discussions) is to fail to humiliate really engaged people. You never needed to have a discussion, but you still joined it without bringing anything. You know, like a clown who laughs about everything but can't even explain properly why he is laughing. You are trying to laugh everything off, calling simply everybody fools, morons, trolls. You've never made a concrete and profound note.
You are just laughable. There never has been a discussion and you know that. It was you, whining, trying to attract attention, so you could start your lousy propaganda going. I just wanted you to understand the obvious - why your constant whining is of no use to anybody, certainly doesn't help Israel in any way. Now you call yourself "really engaged people". How many of you, gogas, are waitsing my time now ? I thought it was just one goga.
Anyhow, gogas, if the only way you are engaged is by whining, I suggest you to just "unengage", it will be better for everybody.
If you do something else, like donating money, then stick to it, cuz this is a good thing, unlike whining. Somehow I don't see you doing that, since people who actually do things rarely are demagogs, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Czarkazem13 said:

If she puerto rican the only way I could get her to shut up is if I put my... I don't think I should finish that.
 
Calvin said:
If she puerto rican the only way I could get her to shut up is if I put my... I don't think I should finish that.

First of all gringo, she's a South African born New York emcee. One of the illest around.

And your Mormon, it wouldn't get her to shut up.:p
 
Back
Top