This forum is about to get a lot more interesting.

[ellisonz]

With the jury system - that's for sure. Could be for the better or the worse as I think this is probably one of the most divisive topics on DU

What do you think?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. I no longer touch this subject on DU

for that see my sig. Why things like the OWS (if you want to call it that way) of Israel, that preceded the one in the US... is at my website and NOT here.

Nor will I try here.

[ellisonz]

2. I only dip in occasionally.

I also make my point and move on and refuse to engage in a "display of evidence."

I have a feeling there are going to be more alerts per capita here than any other forum.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. That's not correct, Nadin. The tent protests in Israel got covered in the I/P forum...

Last edited Wed Dec 7, 2011, 07:48 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't tend to get involved in protests over domestic issues, which is why I had little to say about that and had nothing to say about OWS., but others in the I/P forum spent some time discussing the tent protests..

To answer ellisonz's question, I don't know whether it's going to make things better or worse. What I'd really like to see if the forum become what the guidelines claim to want it to be, which is thoughtful and constructive discussion of the conflict. It's anything but that at DU2, and only last night I was called a Hamas supporter by someone in the forum who constantly misrepresents my views. It'd be nice if there was less of that stuff and more substantial discussion, which some there who I don't agree with on the conflict provide and all without a shred of abuse or silly claims of being an apologist for anything. Being kind of cynical, I suspect what'll happen is this jury thing won't work, as things will become even more inconsistent than they are now, and within a few months Lithos will be called on to become head moderator of the forum, it'll be given its own special set of rules, and things will become exactly the same as they were before.

btw, hi Nadin. Good to see you round these parts!

(just testing out the emoticons)

on edit: I guess a lot depends on where they draw this Juror pool thingy from. If it's from the broad DU membership, it could work, but if it's just drawn from people who post in the forum, then it'll crash and burn within 24hrs.

[ellisonz]

8. I think it's crucial for this forum to behave responsibly.

The point is not to block opponents, but people who post disruptively and flame for the sake of flaming, rather than having civil disagreement.

I will volunteer to host if need be with official launch with the promise that I will not preemptively lock anything or block anybody until it is out of hand and the name-calling begins.

Would anyone else care to join me in this pledge?

[Scurrilous]

5. delete message

[ellisonz]

10. Juries are drawn from the broad membership - star and non-star.

I think the key thing is making benign hosting clear in-house.

[RZM]

6. Agreed

Apparently your post indicates that the old rules have been chucked as well.

[ellisonz]

7. Regarding I/P Posts in other forums?

Or moderation?

I think if all hosts agree to responsible moderation everything should be fine.

[RZM]

9. Never posted there much

But I was under the impression that all posts had to link to a news story and the rec/unrec function was disabled.

[ellisonz]

11. Here are the old rules:

I think any new hosting group would enact these policies:

Welcome to the Democratic Underground Israeli/Palestinian Affairs discussion forum. As you know, this is where you may discuss issues surrounding the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. These can be very emotional issues for many. In order to facilitate rational discourse, we have found it wise to implement a few guidelines to supplement the general DU rules for discussing I/P issues that one will not find elsewhere on the website.

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the following guidelines. Offending threads will be locked or pulled. Offending posts may be deleted. Those who repeatedly violate these guidelines may be banned. If you are in doubt, please Private Message the forum moderators.

Who is Welcome In the I/P Forum, who is not:

We welcome progressives of all stripes and specifically note the I/P forum has many progressives whose affinity lie on opposite ends of the I/P debate. Do not assume that because someone is Pro-Israeli or Pro-Palestinian they are not progressive. A good rule of thumb for those who will do well are those who are actively seeking a peaceful and respectful settlement and are genuinely interested in a rational discourse of events in the I/P conflict.
If you feel great affinity to groups who are promoting hate in the Middle East such as Kahane, or Hamas; feel there is a Jewish conspiracy governing US foreign policy or control of the media; or believe supporters of Islam or Palestinian Nationalism are terrorists, then you are probably likely to be banned.

Concerning the overall nature of the post:

Do not embed graphics or photographs of any kind into your messages. Maps or statistical graphs are okay.
Do not put anything in your signature line that has any relation to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Do not start a Poll in the I/P forum.
Do not start a new thread on a topic that has already been covered. Duplicates will be locked or deleted.

Proper subject matter:

New Threads

New threads must be based on a recently-published news item or op-ed piece. They may not be based on editorial cartoons or photographs. Citations and references should include a link to the original source. Exceptions will be allowed if, based on prior approval, the moderators feel a thread is appropriate.
All threads must be based on material originally published no more than 3 weeks ago. The "clock" does not restart if an article is republished. Exceptions will be allowed, if based on prior approval, the moderators feel a thread is appropriate.
The subject heading for threads must contain the title of the source article. The only exception is when you must shorten long titles or to make the subject of the article more clear.
Editorializations and comments are to be saved for the Message body and must be separate and distinct from the text of the article.

General

Do not selectively quote articles with the intent to change the original meaning.
Do not discuss the truthfulness and/or stupidity of various religions. Do not assume you know what someone believes simply because they practice a certain religion.
Do not make over-sweeping or stereotypical generalizations of any group or individual. This includes making statements, either overtly or subtly, which are Anti-Semitic or Anti-Muslim.
Please stay on topic. Do not jump into an unrelated discussion and introduce a barely-relevant tangent in order to bring up your pet issue.

Civility

To re-emphasize, the general DU rules rules still apply for expected civility and behavior.
Do not publicly accuse someone of being a conservative. If you feel such a comment is warranted, you may do so privately using the "Alert" button.
Do not publicly accuse anyone of anti-Semitism, racism, or any bigoted bias. If you feel such a comment is warranted, you may do so privately using the "Alert" button.
Inflammatory material that adds nothing to the debate is likely to be locked or deleted.
Do not post accusations of anti-Semitism, racism, bigotry, personal attacks, plagerism, duplicate threads or any other rules violation. This includes claims against yourself or other people. Such posts add nothing to the discussion and often create more problems than the original rules violation. Use the "Alert" button instead, the moderators will deal with the post as soon as they are able.

A note on sources:

Please use discretion when referencing obviously biased or factually questionable material. Vanity websites are generally not as credible as the New York Times, the Washington Post or the UK Guardian and are likely to be locked. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself is the author readily identifiable and likely to be cited by the mainline world press or encountered in an alternate format (mass-published book, academic journal, newspaper article, radio or TV show).
Please avoid posting "information" from overtly racist websites. A good, but not exhaustive, guide is Franklin's Hate Directory (www.hatedirectory.com ).
Posting from Whatreallyhappened.com, Chronwatch.com or Debka.com is specifically not allowed.

Proper use of certain words:

Please exercise extreme caution and sensitivity when using the words "anti-Semitism" or "Zionism." There is a wide range of opinion on the meaning of these words. If you must use them, please make sure your intended meaning is clear.
Do not use the term "Zionist" to mean "Jew" or "Israeli." Do not use the term "Jew" to mean "Israeli".
Do not call Palestinians "terrorists" unless you are actually talking about people who blow up cafes or busses filled with civilians.
Do not compare Middle East regional leaders and parties to Hitler or the Nazis. Use of these terms is considered inflammatory and should be avoided.
Do not call other members of this message board "terror apologist," "Palestinian apologist," "Israeli apologist," "Nazi," "Fascist," "Sharonist," "Likudist", etc.

Our goal is to provide a forum where issues concerning Israel and Palestine may be discussed openly but intelligently in an atmosphere of mutual respect for opposing sides. Please help us towards this end. If you have any questions, please contact the board monitors or the site administrators.

Thank you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x21970

[USA_1]

26. New Rules ...

quote:

"Do not call other members of this message board "terror apologist," "Palestinian apologist," "Israeli apologist," "Nazi," "Fascist," "Sharonist," "Likudist", etc. "


May I respectfully suggest that you include in this listing the term "anti-Semite" or any of its variations. In the past whenever I have posted a link or comment which defends Palestinians against Israel's crimes I have been called that term and it has never been deleted. This term has been used on me even though both of my family's backgrounds are Sefardic-Converso and the fact that I can actually point to my ancestry in the Bible.

Thank you for your consideration.

[ellisonz]

27. I'm not the host or rule maker dude.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I can't find a link to new rules for this group

And he hasnt assigned the hosts yet but I have a sneaking suspicion I know who they'll be. I hope the hosts don't allow extreme RW bigoted sources like Arutz Sheva which for some reason was allowed at DU2.

As for calling other posters antisemites, that wasn't allowed at DU2 and I can't see why it'd be allowed at DU3

[oberliner]

53. This is not true

It is absolutely false that you have been called an anti-Semite whenever you have posted a link or comment which defends Palestinians against Israel's crimes.

[Mosby]

12. how does the host thing work?

will people from this forum be picked for a host?

[Scurrilous]

13. I applied to be temp host.

Skinner's reply:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=290

[ellisonz]

14. All this temp hosting...

...makes me really wish they would just roll it over and not wipe preview clean.

[Mosby]

15. thx for the info

I suspect that violet is right, lithos isn't going anywhere.

I really don't like how this "group" formats on my smart phone, the entire page has vertical lines running up and down spaced every 1/8 inch or so.
Its barely readable.

Also the tables they are using for all the posts squishes the titles into a really small box.

Oh well.

[ellisonz]

17. Have you tried the different formats in My Account?

[Mosby]

19. I'll try that, thx nt

[Mosby]

20. I'll mess around with it and see, thx! nt

[Violet_Crumble]

21. I've had the same sort of issues with my iPhone...

When I look at threads, I can't see who the person is who posted the response. I know I could go into the account settings here and change it so it's formatted for a smart phone, but I use my PC at home to post (no way am I going to type out responses on an iphone) and if I change the settings it'll affect that.

Here's my prediction for what'll happen with the I/P 'group'. Skinner will unilaterally appoint Lithos as the permanent host of the forum, the guidelines will be migrated across from DU2, polls and the rec feature will be turned off, and the Jury duty will last a few weeks before the forum software gets tweaked and the host gets given the job of 'hiding' posts. And when we encounter DUers in the big forums complaining about the Jury system and pining for the good old days of DU2, we can brag that we're the only part of DU3 that's authentic DU2!

The more things change, the more they stay the same

[Mosby]

16. thx for the info

I suspect that violet is right, lithos isn't going anywhere.

I really don't like how this "group" formats on my smart phone, the entire page has vertical lines running up and down spaced every 1/8 inch or so.
Its barely readable.

Also the tables they are using for all the posts squishes the titles into a really small box.

Oh well.

[Owlet]

28. Gee, Scurrilous

I guess I'm as naive as my daughter thinks I am. I didn't know you were on a 'side' as alleged by Skinner. I've always thought your posts balanced and rational.

[Scurrilous]

38. Thanks.

[King_David]

84. Just like beauty ...

That is in the eyes of the beholder.

[USA_1]

22. ''one of the most divisive topics on DU''

People used to get very emotional about this in the old format, especially Israel's apologists.

But if I read the new ''rules'' correctly, somehow one is not supposed to post historical articles which shed light on the current situation. Is this true? If so, I find this very suppressive and against liberal principles which have always called for open mindedness and as much inclusionism as possible.

Are we to use only sources like the NY Times & Washington Post? Is Haaretz ok but antiwar or Rense are to be excluded??? That is a restriction that I have never faced when debating extremists of the far right in Fox owned websites such as beliefnet or in Topix. If DU is going to be this selective then it is no longer a liberal site but is even more suppressive of the truth as are extreme right wing sites.

When I engage in debates with the far right, I have always found the DU was my best source for truthful information. I used links/videos/photos from here and posted them on right wing sites and kicked there butts that way. How am I to win debates with these extremists if these sources are suppressed here on DU?

Has DU been threatened in any way by Israel's apologists like Guardian and liberty_forums were?

Is DU no longer a liberal website and now a site to promote anti-American ideas?

Is DU now a Republican site???

Hate to say it but it appears the DU has taken the wrong direction. One designed to suppress the truth and against liberal principles. If that is the case, expect more unanswered Republican ideas all over Internet web forums, far less truth, and more Republicans in Congress and elsewhere. God help America if that happens.

[LeftishBrit]

23. These are not 'new rules'

It was ALWAYS forbidden to post articles published more than 3 weeks ago.

And I think it is quite right to exclude sites like antiwar and Rense - or Frontpage or Melanie Phillips' articles or WorldNutDaily. This is not a right-wing board. Why do we need to link to right-wing sites (except to condemn them)? There might at times be genuine reasons to cite right-wing Israeli, Palestinian or other Middle Eastern sources, as indications of viewpoints on the ground - though I think there's been a bit too much of Arutz Sheva recently. But there is NO reason why right-wing American or Europaean sites need to be promoted on this forum.

'That is a restriction that I have never faced when debating extremists of the far right in Fox owned websites such as beliefnet or in Topix.'

By definition, if a forum allows all political views, including those of extremists of the far right, then it will presumably allow right-wing sources. DU bans extremists of the far right - and also bans extreme right-wing sources, whether pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, xenophobic-isolationist, or whatever.

[USA_1]

25. Thanks For Your Reply

For the record, antiwar and Rense are libertarian, not right wing. They oppose war as well as right/left wing extremism. It just happens that they are opposed to the crimes committed by Israel and the endless array of lies used by that country's apologists to defend it. That is why they are so vehemently attacked by neocons. You say extreme right wing sources are banned but I believe links to Haaretz and Jerusalem Post have appeared in the past. Pehaps they were later deleted without my having been made aware of it.

Henceforth I will do my best to adhere to the rule that 3+ week old links are to be kept from the discussion. The "logic" of this rule escapes me since there obviously is none. But if that's the rule then you have my word that I shall genuinely endeavor to keep it and all other rules in mind.

Let us hope that all future discussions about Israel's infinitude of crimes will remain informed and civil.

Kind regards .....

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. Lemme guess - you define 'informed and civil'

as agreeing with you? Heh.

BTW - HaAretz is the left wing English language media in Israel. They may not be as left as you might like, but then again, they are Israeli so no quarter, right?

[USA_1]

37. Haaretz

The ''lefties'' there have had plenty to say about WMD and Armageddon like strikes from Iran for the past 10 years. None have been confirmed to this date.

Peace lovers, aren't they?

[Ruby the Liberal]

39. Name me a liberal Israeli source then, please.

(You do know there is a vibrant left in Israel, right?)

English or Hebrew - I will take either recommendation.

Thanks for your help!

[USA_1]

40. Do A Google Search

That might help.

Or you may try Satmar and Neturei Karta. Peace Now used to be quite active and they may have a site for you to look at as well. I used to read Tikkun and greatly admired Rabbi Lerner. Perhaps I should go back to their site and see what's cooking there.

Come to think of it - that is a good idea. Thanks for the inspiration.

[Ruby the Liberal]

41. I am quite familiar with the news outlets

in both languages. I am asking you to provide an Israeli source for news (not a blog) that you feel is "left worthy".

Thanks in advance.

[Ruby the Liberal]

43. I should add - it is easy to wholesale demonize a people

when you are unable/unwilling to find any aspect of their culture that you can identify with.

Alot tougher to look at them with some compassion and find what is good.

[USA_1]

49. Pro Israel Demonize Me All The Time!

And they do that to those whose sympathies are with Palestinians as well.

[pelsar]

52. we don't demonize you...

i just noticed that you have an inability to explain your own quotes...(if you would like i could quote you again for the 5th time and perhaps if you really really concentrate you might be able to stick to the actual quote and explain it....rather than go off on some kind of rant

wanna try again?

[USA_1]

58. ''we won't demonize you''

LOL. Doesn't particularly worry me one way or the other.

What does bother me is the fact that by not being able to use older links this may make it difficult to fully explain issues or one's view. History has always been the best teacher and there may not be any current links or articles which explain certain issues. Let's hope this rule does not prove itself to be self defeating.

[Shaktimaan]

77. Interesting.

So you equate the wholesale demonization of an entire culture with people criticizing an individual because of that person's beliefs? You see the problem inherent in this argument, yes? It is the same problem with arguing for the equivalency of the statements "Bill is cheap." and "Black people are cheap."

Regarding sites like rense, the issue is not that they offer the unwanted "truth" about Zionism or even that they are right wing, but that they are anti-semitic conspiracy theorists that promote bigotry and hateful lies. They are affiliated with people like David Duke and feature articles such as a recent one accusing the Talmud of endorsing pedophilia.

If you really think that papers like Haaretz are right wing while groups like Satmar and Neturei Karta are liberal then I fear you are confused to a point that no discussion here will end up fruitful for anyone.

The fact of the matter is that almost all Jews are Zionists. And regarding self-proclaimed anti-zionists I tend to side more with Martin Luther King's viewpoint "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism." than I do with Arun Gandhi (The Mahatma's grandson) who wrote that Jews and Israel were the biggest players in a culture of violence that will destroy humanity.

[USA_1]

79. demonization

Let's not have double standards. If Rense should be banned from here because someone in it is bigoted, then Jerusalem Post should be banned as well for its blatant Islamophobia.

I said Haaretz sympathizes with Palestinians but it definitely has published anti-Iran articles. Nobody said Satmar or NK are liberal.

Please re-read my posts.

[Ruby the Liberal]

81. You do get that rense is a blog and JPost is a news organization, right?

Again, most of us are not going to agree on sources, but can we at least move out of the WND/DEBKA/Rense vs actual media level of the conversation?

[USA_1]

86. Fox is "news media" as well

Are we to give those haters credibility as well just because they call themselves ''media"??

[Shaktimaan]

82. it's like the twilight zone here sometimes

Ruby_the_liberal asked you for some liberal Israeli sources and you responded with "Or you may try Satmar and Neturei Karta." That implied to me that you thought them to be liberal.

I said Haaretz sympathizes with Palestinians but it definitely has published anti-Iran articles.

So the left-leaning newspaper was critical of the right-wing authoritarian theocracy? Okay. That seems to make a lot of sense to me. Do you know of any leftists who support Iran?

Let's not have double standards. If Rense should be banned from here because someone in it is bigoted, then Jerusalem Post should be banned as well for its blatant Islamophobia.

There are no double standards. JP is a right-leaning publication, but it IS a legitimate newspaper with a fact-checking department and credibility and journalistic standards. (What "blatant Islamophobia" are you talking about? Link it up please.)

And Rense is a racist blog written by conspiracy theorists to advance a political agenda. And a disgusting political agenda at that. Your attempt at minimizing the impact of the fact that a man as odious as David Duke is a regular contributor by referring to it as "...someone in it is bigoted..." is truly alarming. What kind of publication has David Duke write for them? I'll tell you who... the same kind of site that regularly links to RealJewNews, an anti-Semitic Web site run by Milton Kapner, a die-hard anti-semite. The kind of place that denies the Nazis were involved in the Holocaust, and that Jews orchestrated 9/11. The kind of place that runs articles asserting that Monica Lewinsky was a Mossad agent who blew Clinton to then blackmail him. Basically the kind of place that features dozens and dozens of blatantly anti-semitic, hate-filled diatribes that bear little or no resemblance to basic historical facts known to anyone with a rudimentary education on their subjects.

Please re-read my posts.

Okay

For the record, antiwar and Rense are libertarian, not right wing. They oppose war as well as right/left wing extremism. It just happens that they are opposed to the crimes committed by Israel and the endless array of lies used by that country's apologists to defend it. That is why they are so vehemently attacked by neocons.

Wait a sec... you actually consider Rense to be a legitimate site??? That they are attacked by "neo-cons&quot ?) because they are opposed to lies told by Israeli apologists? Meaning you think they are speaking truth to power I suppose. Wow. I'm speechless. Are you really unable to detect the extremely high levels of anti-semitic hatred, insane conspiracy myths. Or do you really believe that Monica Lewinsky is some kind of Mossad super-spy relying on oral sex as the keystone in her intricate plan to crush the Palestinians?

No wonder you have trouble discerning which publications are liberal versus conservative and so on.

[USA_1]

87. ''Link it up please.''

We have just agreed that any links beyond a three week period is forbidden here. JP has in the past published Islamophobic articles and may well have done so again recently. If it's that important to you, why not go to its site and hit the search button for past articles?

As for Rense, it is libertarian. Just because one or two of its writers opposes Zionism doesn't make it anti-semitic. We have people on this forum who defend Israel against Palestinians - does that make DU Islamophobic??

[Shaktimaan]

88. really?

We have just agreed that any links beyond a three week period is forbidden here.

Is that for ALL links or just for OPs?

As for Rense, do you feel that you would describe its content as generally accurate and free from bigotry? (Which would mean that any accusations of anti-semitism are merely exaggerations laid at the feet of the site's one or two anti-zionists, I guess?)

As for Rense, it is libertarian. Just because one or two of its writers opposes Zionism doesn't make it anti-semitic. We have people on this forum who defend Israel against Palestinians - does that make DU Islamophobic??

So then you see this kind of content at Rense as actual legitimate commentary critiquing Zionism, on par with someone criticizing Hamas' actions or similar? Out of curiosity, what kind of content do you suppose actual anti-semitic posts would have?

[USA_1]

90. Rense

I don't read it much anymore so I cannot give you a very informed reply as to its current content. But if people here are allowed to quote the Islamophobic JP or NYT then it should be proper to balance out the views by presenting articles from Rense, antiwar, or other sites.

[Ruby the Liberal]

91. Now you want to exclude the New York Times as 'Islamophobic'?

Why don't we just make a list of blogs and run with them as the sole "unbiased" sources of "news"?

NYT.

[USA_1]

93. I said "include" not exclude

read it again

[Ruby the Liberal]

100. English is my first language

You are using the NYT as an example of Islamophobic media and I find that rather amusing.

[USA_1]

103. ''amusing"

Anyone who has actually read the New York Slime's repeated pro Israel apologias would know that what I wrote was true.

You find such propaganda amusing? Well, thanks for telling us. That explains it all.

[Ruby the Liberal]

105. Their pro Israel slant must be the reason for the ongoing pissing match

between the state and the paper. But then again, this is current, not something they published 30 years ago, so may not be of significance.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1134636

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/11341178

[Shaktimaan]

108. why are you waffling?

You just spent several posts defending rense as having a few anti-zionists (as opposed to being an outright anti-semitic, holocaust denying blog), of speaking the truth (thus garnering neo-con criticism), of being libertarian and not right-wing, etc. Clearly you've spent time there and have a certain amount of respect for its content. On that note, from what I can see, the rhetoric on that website has not changed greatly since its beginning. If that is the kind of place that you get your information from then why not just admit it? Why spend so much space defending it only to then act as though you don't know anything about it.

But if people here are allowed to quote the Islamophobic JP or NYT then it should be proper to balance out the views by presenting articles from Rense, antiwar, or other sites.

So you are comparing the most respected newspaper in America with a truly odious blog, rife with racism, holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, anti-semitism and bigotry? It kind of reminds me of when intelligent design people insist on "teaching the debate." As though it makes sense to pretend that the two sides are in any way the equivalent of once another. This is ignoring the fact that the NYT isn't even on the "other side" of rense. It's certainly not Islamophobic in any way. Is reporting that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in some way controversial? Are you honestly proposing that we should give equal time to people who argue that the Holocaust is a sham, that the Protocols are legitimate and Monica Lewinsky is a Mossad agent? How about people that argue that black people are not as evolved as white people? Once we eliminate any and all journalistic standards then where is the cutoff? If we are going to allow a random blog that has almost no truthful facts in it then isn't EVERYTHING fair game?

Look, you can choose to put your faith in a blog like rense, none of us can stop you. We can't stop those who believe the rhetoric of white supremacist groups either (some of whom rense links to btw.) Personally I find it comforting to know that someone who holds your weird views has been informed from such nauseating organizations. Were you educated in a normal fashion from legitimate sources I would be fearful about how such a thing could happen. But there will always be fringe weirdos who are convinced that THEY have the truth while the rest of the 99% of the country is just brainwashed.

[USA_1]

115. Sounds like a quote from NK

If you read their website you would have seen the same words!

Thanks!!

[Shaktimaan]

117. Is that meant to reinforce NK?

The point was it was a meaningless rant lacking facts or substance. It was not a reasoned argument, it was a hateful screed.

NK is a widely despised fringe group. They're about as credible as Jews for Jesus regarding mainstream Jewish opinion.

[USA_1]

118. NK's view on Zionism are based on the Bible

Can you prove that their teachings on the Bible are incorrect??

[Shaktimaan]

114. OK, let's make this simple...

In the past, reading articles about Israel or Zionism on Rense, did you encounter any subject matter that struck you as anti-semitic or bigoted? Or did you see it more as a voice of reason/honesty compared to the biased "mainstream" media like the NYTimes?

[oberliner]

51. You think Satmar and Neturei Karta are liberal?

Do you really mean that?

[USA_1]

59. Those Are Anti-Zionist Jews

Their religious institutions reflect biblical teaching on the subject - one that I fully explained previously in the old forum. They defend Palestinian rights and are too often dismissed and unfairly attacked because of prejudice. How unfortunate that people can be so narrow minded and be so hostile to them.

[oberliner]

64. They are anti-Zionist, but not liberal or progressive

They are pretty hard-core fundamentalist sects.

[USA_1]

65. You Are Correct

A point I have previously made. But it proves that just because someone opposes Zionism this does not automatically make them Jew haters like so many of Israel's friends say.

[oberliner]

67. Being Jewish does not mean you can't be a Jew-hater

Bobby Fischer being one of the more unfortunate examples.

In any case, I do agree with you that opposing Zionism does not in and of itself make one a "Jew hater".

Though there are some folks, like that aforementioned David Duke, who only do oppose Zionism and take up the Palestinian cause because they are "Jew haters".

Were Jews not involved in the conflict, it does not seem like that would be a cause that he would be so passionate about considering the rest of his record.

[USA_1]

69. ''opposing Zionism does not in and of itself make one a "Jew hater". ''

Glad to know you see it that way. There are too many people who are readily disposed to make exaggerations which are designed to inflame. Instead of impeaching another's credibility, they are actually destroying their own credibility. Bobby Fischer, in so far as I know, has psychiatric problems. He is not a very credible example.

Personally, I have no use for David Duke. But because someone opposes Zionism does that automatically make you one of his disciples as some appear to suggest? If that's the case that should mean that just because someone votes Republican that automatically means they are a Reaganite who supports Contra terrorists or the genocide of fascist General Rios-Montt. Again, that suggestion is nothing more than a self defeating exaggeration.

Tikkun, Orthodox, and progressive Jews all say: Palestinians are deserving of justice and humane treatment. Just because they speak the truth this does not make them 'Jew haters'. It is time for Israel's defenders to acknowledge that truth.

[Ruby the Liberal]

71. "Israel's Defenders"

As you are lumping people into one big box, do remember that the Jewish anti-Zionists are not against the restoration of Israel. They are just against the current (secular) iteration as they believe Israel will only be restored when Messiah arrives.

Its not a matter of 'no' to them, it is a matter of 'not yet'.

Like I said below, strange bedfellows, but most bedfellows are temporary, so there ya go!

Oh, and Bobby Fischer is a was, not an is. He died about 3 or 4 years ago. I know nothing about his religion or politics, I just remember his obit.

[USA_1]

73. ''Israel will only be restored when Messiah arrives. ''

That is correct according to the Bible:

Daniel 7:13,14
Hosea 3:4
Isaiah 11:11,12; 43:4-6
Jeremiah 30:3
II Samuel 7:11-16

and New Testament:

Acts 1:6,7

Zionists believe Israel belongs only to Jews to the exclusion of all other Abrahamic tribes. The Bible teaches in the Old Testament that all 12 tribes are inheritors. The New Testament teaches that Christians are also inheritors as per Galatians 3:29. Therefore, Messianics cannot be excluded from the true Israel. Since the current government is exclusionist it not the true biblical Israel according to Orthodox or biblical teaching.

[oberliner]

75. Zionists don't believe what you say they believe

There are a wide variety of opinions among those who call themselves Zionist. Very sizable numbers of Zionists do not believe that Israel "belongs only to Jews to the exclusion of all other Abrahamic tribes" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I would say that the majority of Zionists do not believe this or anything like it (though to be sure, there are some who do).

[USA_1]

76. ... exclusionism ...

I have never heard or seen anything like that before although you may well be correct that some oppose exclusionism. Do you have any references which affirm this? If so, please PM me with the details.

Thank you in advance.

[oberliner]

78. Check out this blog

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/

[USA_1]

80. Tikkun Olam

I am familiar with the concept of TO and agree with its reverent and holy theme of repairing the world. When I was growing up in Brooklyn some of my reform Jewish pals subscribed to the idea that any day in which you failed to do a good deed was a wasted day. How very true. Coincidentally, this is an idea cherished by reform Catholics as well.

Making this a better world is everyone's responsibility. No one is excused from this. I applaud those who subscribed to this view as well as those who take positive action that betters the world.

[Shaktimaan]

110. seriously?

The idea that Israel (and certainly areas including the OPT) belongs exclusively to the Jews is not really a very mainstream viewpoint except perhaps among the right-wing religious zionist settler movement. Most Zionists are still secular.

What you are saying here, that you have never heard or seen anything like that before, says to me that you haven't read anything about Zionism from any legitimate source whatsoever. While I have certainly met people who believe what you're saying, they are probably around 2 or 3% of the Zionists I have ever spent time with.

Israel's declaration of independence itself makes mention of guaranteeing the Arab citizens full and equal citizenship.

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

I have to ask, where have you been getting most of your information about Zionism? Some websites, books, articles??? Where specifically?

[oberliner]

74. Antisemitism/Jew-hatred is a pyschological problem

Anyone with an irrational hatred of Jews (which is the meaning of the terms) is, by definition, someone who has psychological problems. Thus, Bobby Fischer, is quite a good illustration.

I think we can find some common ground here. One can defend Israel and also support the idea that Palestinians deserve justice and human treatment.

[Shaktimaan]

83. I think the reality of the issues at hand are getting muddied here.

Very few people actually think that criticizing Israel or Zionism automatically makes one a Jew hater. (And certainly thinking that Palestinians are deserving of justice and humane treatment doesn't mark one as bigoted against Jews.) Far from it in fact, some of Palestine's biggest advocates and Israel's biggest detractors are Jews and/or citizens of Israel itself. That said, there is a HUGE difference between criticizing Israel for her policies and rejecting her right to exist altogether. And again, where those people who will even go so far as to reject the legitimacy of Zionism are concerned there is equally a HUGE difference between rejecting a political movement and actively hating Jewish people.

I think there is a lot of confusion regarding the term "anti-semitism" itself though. Ultimately Zionism is merely the assertion of self-determination for the Jewish nation. And to deny it as being a right that Jews possess on par with any other nation's right to the same IS undeniably anti-semitic in practice. It is critical to remember though that just because someone makes an anti-semitic statement or holds a racist belief does NOT inherently imply that they HATE Jews or other races. In my own experience anti-semitic statements are born of ignorance or confusion FAR more often than they originate from hate.

But there is really no way around it... any belief that singles Jews out and applies different standards to them as anyone else is inherently anti-semitic. And frequently and criticism that does the same regarding Israel has its roots in anti-semitic beliefs. Most of these people would deny that these beliefs are in any way anti-semitic and they certainly don't dislike Jews or segregate them mentally and the certainly don't think of themselves as bigoted or racist at all. And they probably aren't really. There are just many different kinds of discrimination out there and it is crucial to be able to recognize their existence, if not their application every time they appear.

Unfortunately it is these subtle instances of anti-semitism that are so dangerous these days. Because they masquerade as logical or even progressive ideology and live amongst those who find racism abhorrent, trying to dispute them can quickly trigger very emotional responses, aka: "Oh SURE, no one can criticize Israel without getting slammed as a racist by those Hasbarists trying to stifle debate!"

Tikkun, Orthodox, and progressive Jews all say: Palestinians are deserving of justice and humane treatment.

No they certainly don't. The groups that most virulently hate the Palestinians are Orthodox. Baruch Goldstein was Orthodox for example. Point being you can't group these general associations together by such specific beliefs.

Look at Rabbi Lerner for instance, who you admitted to admiring is an out-spoken critic of anti-Zionism and modern antisemitism that he perceives to have arisen among some leftists. He feels that the left often denies the existence of antisemitism and has written extensively defending Zionism and distinguishing legitimate criticism of the State of Israel from Israel-bashing and antisemitism; for example critiquing the left-wing anti-war ANSWER Coalition for the antisemitism that he and others believe is reflected in the rhetoric at ANSWER-sponsored demonstrations. He suggests ways in which progressives can fight antisemitism on the Left.

[Shaktimaan]

109. I hear this charge a lot.

I have NEVER once heard a Zionist suggest that opposing Zionism automatically makes someone a Jew hater.

I DO think that anti-zionism and anti-semitism often go hand in hand and that anti-zionism is frequently used as a veneer to disguise an anti-semitic agenda. Much more frequently I have seen people making anti-semitic remarks out of ignorance, not hatred. You seem to have this mistaken idea that anti-semitism exclusively refers to the active hatred of Jews which obviously isn't true. Just like any form of racism or bigotry, anti-semitism comes in many forms, from the outright Nazi extreme that you are imagining to (more frequently), subtler incarnations.

The charge that it is impossible to criticize Israel without being branded an anti-semite is a false accusation, often used to shield true anti-semites from legitimate recrimination and generally to minimize pro-zionist arguments by muddying the debate. Unless you feel that someone is leveling the charge towards you baselessly at that moment then it is nothing but an ad-hominem attack against the character of Zionists.

This really reminds me of how Rush Limbaugh constantly complains that he is labelled a racist because of his "legitimate" criticisms against Obama, ostensibly made merely because Obama is black while Rush is white. Of course this is bullshit, Rush is called a racist because he IS a racist, and makes racist remarks, not because he critiques the president's policies.

[Ruby the Liberal]

66. When you stand on a stage, hand in hand in solidarity with David Duke

you lose any credibility of being "liberal" or "progressive", IMO.

[USA_1]

68. ''hand in hand with David Duke''

Please provide evidence that Satmar and Neturei Karta have walked hand in hand with David Duke.

This should prove to be quite interesting.

[Ruby the Liberal]

70. It happened in Iran at the Holocaust Revisionist Conference in 2006

Heres the Wiki on the event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_to_Review_the_Global_Vision_of_the_Holocaust

Happy to give you Stormfront.org and DavidDuke.com links as well. They may hate Jewish people over that way, but consider NK an "ally". Don't want to post those here and inadvertently break any rules or give them any more traffic than they already get, so just let me know and I will be happy to PM them to you.

[USA_1]

72. ''hand in hand''

I am aware of their attendance at that conference. But the point is, how exactly is that hand in hand? The Orthodox Jews there did not deny the Holocaust. They simply stated that the horrors do not justify further horrors in Palestine. You are aware of that, of course (?).

[holdencaufield]

85. I want to thank you...

... for proving unequivocally why Israel HAS to exist.

Toda raba and Chag Chanuka Sameach

[USA_1]

89. ... hopefully as a One State Solution

Holiday Blessings to you as well.

[Ruby the Liberal]

92. Psst - thinking single state isn't on the kashrut/halal list...

I welcome correction.

[USA_1]

94. Those Whistling Dixie In 1865 Didn't Believe In A One State Solution

... but history shows that it works.

[shira]

95. Yours is a pro-war position. The vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians...

...are against one single, secular nation. The last time it was one nation was under British control when the 2 sides were in a civil war with each other. So no one wants it and history shows it won't work and will result in just more conflict.

You say you're against neo-cons who want to go to war with Iraq and Iran, but what makes your pro-war position any better than theirs? Advocating for a one-state bloodbath is hardly a liberal/progressive position.

[bemildred]

96. The vast majority of Palestinians would favor a one-state solution.

They would favor any solution which gives them the customary "Western Values" sort of political and human rights, protection from arbitrary detention, and a decent way to make a living.

And the conflict came into existence and continues precisely because various other parties do not want to give them those things.

[shira]

97. Not a secular state...

And that means yet another failed Arab state whose law is based on sharia.

[bemildred]

98. Don't change the subject.

And you are deeply confused if you think the Palestinians want Sharia Law.

[shira]

99. FYI, about the majority of Palestinians wanting sharia rule under a dictatorship...

From 1988...

============

Of the 1,024 people surveyed, only 10.4 percent shared Mr. Abu-Lughod's dream of a ''democratic, secular'' Palestinian state. Instead, nearly 60 percent dream of a state founded on Islamic law (26.5 percent) or on a hybrid of Islam and Arab nationalism (29.6 percent).
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/06/opinion/l-who-wants-a-democratic-secular-palestine-807988.html

============

From 2011...

About how the respondents identify themselves, the majority, 57%, identified themselves as Muslims, 21% identified themselves as Palestinians first, 19% as human beings first and 5% as Arabs first.

The increase in adherence to religious identity is also reflected in the system preferred by the Palestinian people.

About 40% of the respondents said that they believe that the Islamic caliphate is the best system for Palestinians, 24% chose a system like one of the Arab countries, and 12 % prefer a system like one of the European countries.
http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=16042

============

Now what do you think about a one-state solution?

[bemildred]

101. Do they keep lists of those obscure 30-year-old polls somewhere handy for when they are needed?

I don't care if it's one state or two state or three state or no state. My base premise is honest elections in which all adults get one vote, and all people whatsoever have inalienable human rights of the usual sort. From that, you determine what sort of governmental arrangements you want to make by the political process (i.e. voting on it.)

[shira]

102. The point is, most Israelis and Palestinians are against one secular state. n/t

[USA_1]

104. Your Delusionalism

Vietnam war apologists in the 1960s also thought having 2 states was ideal just like you people do today. Vietnam became peaceful when it united. Same with the USA in the 1860s. And this is precisely what would happen today in Israel/Palestine. History cannot be more clear.

[oberliner]

106. You are comparing Israelis and Palestinians to North and South Vietnamese?

And you are calling other posters delusional?

[Ruby the Liberal]

107. Did you see upthread where she compared the conflict to the US Civil war?

Same thing doncha know.

[Shaktimaan]

111. They are hardly similar.

North and South Vietnamese are of a single nation of people. Jews and Palestinians are very much not, which is what initially caused the fighting.

That said, Vietnam became "peaceful" when it united but hundreds of thousands of people were sent to re-education camps where they were starved and tortured. People may have opposed US involvement in the War, but are you actually supporting the Northern takeover or South Vietnam in principle? That's horrible.

Do you also support the re-unification of Korea? What about India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

If Israel and Palestine should merge then shouldn't Jordan join them as well? After all, it was originally Palestine too, wasn't it?

[LeftishBrit]

113. Peace Now are still active; and are ardent two-staters who wouldn't support much of what you say

But yes, they're progressive.

Neturei Karta is hardly a 'progressive' organization; they are extreme religious fundies who don't believe in the secular state, and think Israel shouldn't have been created before the coming of the Messiah.

[USA_1]

116. Kudos to Peace Now For At Least Trying to Bring About Reconciliation

As for NK, as I wrote previously, nowhere in the Bible is Israel to be restricted to Jews. All 12 tribes are included within its borders and the New Testament shows that all Christians are to be included as well. The latter point proves that right wing Christian Zionism (a belief spread by far right television evangelists) has no biblical basis whatsoever. Therefore, real Jews and real Christians, if they actually believe their Bible, have no choice but to condemn Israel for its exclusionism.

On that basis, a one state solution - one that allows full citizenship to ALL people regardless of race, ethnicity, whatever - is the ideal that would bring about peace and reconciliation. Therefore, strangely enough, it is the Bible that offers the true solution to the conflicts going on there today.

[LeftishBrit]

42. Ha'aretz is not a right-wing source.

Last edited Mon Dec 12, 2011, 03:53 AM - Edit history (1)

There may be a few right-wing writers on it, but the majority are liberal/left, opposed to the occupation and in favour of a two-state solution.

And libertarians ARE right-wing, in the primary, economic sense of the term. They oppose government provision of public services, and social safety nets for poor or sick people. As such, they are truly evil. And I suspect that the 'antiwar.com' crowd are for the most part against Israel out of xenophobia, not out of pro-Palestinian sentiment. If there were ever a Palestinian state that required significant American financial support, they would quickly throw the Palestinians under the bus.

[USA_1]

50. Libertarians

True they oppose government interventionism. But you have to admit they are consistent in the application of their principles. For example, many with whom I have exchanged ideas agree with me that dissolving the pentagon and the military industrial complex would go a long way towards solving the USA's problems. We would get out of foreign wars, reduce taxes, and allow more capital to be available to solve our problems. This would allow Israel and others to solve their own problems and make for better world peace. After all, conservatives always say (an in this they are often joined by liberals) pouring money into a problem won't solve it.

As for Haaretz, ture, it is a better alternative to the Jerusalem Post. But it has in the past included articles which were clearly anti-Iran such as those from AP or Reuters. A better source is Juan Cole's site which has easily refuted the pro war propaganda from all of Israel's apologists. Case in point - that ridiculous story about Iran's "threat" to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington DC. That story was so stupid that it was immediately refuted. Yet, none of Israel's media apologists presented those refutations while Cole did so immediately.

[LeftishBrit]

55. But libertarians would *not* use the money saved from 'foreign wars' to solve American domestic

problems.

They would use it to cut taxes and help the rich.

America (and to some degree other countries) could use money from cuts in military spending to solve domestic problems - including the alternative employment of those currently employed by the MIC; OR to cut taxes. It cannot do both. Those who wish to cut taxes basically wish to trample all over poor or sick people.

Anyone who is opposed to the provision of public services, especially healthcare, and a social safety net is a MONSTER OF PURE INDESCRIBABLE EVIL (or in the case of ordinary voters, influenced by such monsters), whatever their views on foreign policy.

[USA_1]

57. ''help the rich''

Can you cite examples?

I often have problems with libertarians in that they often reply in platitudes and do not give me concrete answers as to how they would actually solve social problems. For example, I have written to the Ron Paul campaign and asked for specificity in his agenda. Naturally I have not gotten the courtesy of a reply. However, this does not mean libertarians are looking to divert monies now held by government by into the hands of the wealthy as you appear to be suggesting. Therefore, my conflicts with libertarians with regard to issues of this kind remain unresolved.

I am totally with these people in regard to their foreign policy agenda. It is for this reason that I give them some credibility. However, they have a long way to go before I could possibly give them my full endorsement. A long way.

[LeftishBrit]

60. What I mean is that the right-wing think that the rich should have untrammeled rights to make money

without regulation, and to be relieved of any duty to pay taxes to help poorer people to survive, let alone reach any position of economic equality.

For example, the following from Ron Paul's speech 'A Republic If You Can Keep It', which he keeps posted on his own website:

....The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal government is now involved in providing health care, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special-interest group. Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants, even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide.

.....It is now accepted that people who need (medical) care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment.


....The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia.'


And clarifying his attitude to foreign policy:

....Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is even permitted without derision by the media, the university intellectuals, and the politicians to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them...'


So let's see. Paul is totally against any form of welfare state, even in its current American sense (very limited compared with most other developed countries); considers benefits for poor people to be 'theft'; does not think that people are entitled to medical care. Moreover, he is so isolationist or anti-Soviet or both, that he would apparently rather have had Hitler take over Europe than have an alliance between America and the Soviet Union during the war.

I realize that not everyone who calls themselves 'libertarian' has the same identical views as Ron Paul; but I think that most do at least on economic issues.

[shira]

61. Ironic. Avigdor Lieberman is not even close to being as extreme as Ron Paul. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

62. I would agree with that - but then neither is Genghis Khan

[USA_1]

63. ''untrammeled rights to make money ''

One point I have tried to make with libertarians is that the wealthy actually make money because of the income tax especially in times of war. It is no small coincidence that the IRS was created by Republicans in 1863 during the Civil War, that Republicans tried to impose an income tax in the 1890s just before the start of the Spanish American war, and that these same Republicans imposed an income tax only one year before they and their cohorts started World War One.

As for Hitler and Stalin you need to check out my earlier links (sorry, can't re-post them since they are well over 3 weeks old) about how Wall Street financed and enabled these criminals. Their ascension into power was no small coincidence as well.

One last point about Paul is that his friend and former business partner died broke and without health insurance. He left a debt of over $450,000 in medical bills which went unpaid. If everyone else left behind debts like that the entire country would go to hell. I have challenged Paul and others to prove to me how this benefits society. So far, not one of them has ever answered my challenge - as usual.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. As Ruby's already said, Ha'aretz is anything but an extreme RW source...

I've posted plenty of articles and editorials from Ha'aretz in the past, and Ha'aretz is clearly left-wing in its leanings. It's spoken out strongly in the past against Israeli military censorship, and has journalists like Gideon Levy and Amira Haas.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Arutz sheva isn't merely a RW source. It's extremely bigoted

I don't care if sources are European, American or Israeli. Ones that are extremist shouldn't be allowed here imo

[Ruby the Liberal]

32. Good point - but in which direction?

Do you feel that only sources promoting the PA side of the conflict should be allowed?

[Violet_Crumble]

33. I don't care what side they're on

I've seen some really stinky sources on both sides and have the same issues with them all

[Ruby the Liberal]

34. And that is why this conflict has never been resolved.

There are issues in every dynamic.

[oberliner]

35. Where can one find the new rules for this group?

I can't seem to see where they are.

Can anyone help?

[ellisonz]

36. This forum has yet to organized.

I'm making inquiries about what the process is going to be here, and if the DU2 Rules are still going to apply. I think they should. This forum is a "special problem" for moderating. I'm awaiting some response from admins on this question.

(Note to All: I will not respond to any flaming of this post, please ignore other flames, and let's hope for the best of all possible solutions to the new system.)

[Violet_Crumble]

45. A question...

This forum is a "special problem" for moderating.

Are you just talking about relating to the tasks a host would carry out, or are you saying that the jury system wouldn't work in this group? While I've got some concerns about the jury system, I don't want to go back to the moderating system of DU2 where two mods handled all alerts from this forum.

btw, completely offtopic, but thanks for undoing the preview test blocking of me from the Hawaii group, big kahuna! (hope you don't mind the nickname)

[ellisonz]

46. Well I think if you were to compare...

The per capita alerts of a forum like this compared to say GDP - I'd bet I/P has more alerts. I think if given the chance for nasty confrontation in this forum that people will take it. My opinion is that there is no reason to mod the jury system - but the application of the Old Rules by the hosts has to be very firm to encourage proper discussion - including banning if a member is requested to stop engaging in a particular group rule violation repeatedly and does not; otherwise people will potentially abuse the jury system and attempt nullification. For example, what if you posted something inflammatory and then add (Don't hide this post if you care about Israel/Palestine) - if there was no firm host to say that this not scrupulous it might work if the host doesn't step in and say this is unacceptable.

I'm for the jury system to operate like everywhere else, but I want to see the hosts committed to enforcing the previous rules aggressively.

Come check-in and have at the buffet, Violet_Crumble: http://www.democraticunderground.com/104718

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Yeah, I'm in agreement with you on that...

Only the old DU2 I/P mods will ever know how many alerts there were, but I'd hazard a safe guess there were lots compared to the size and traffic of the forum.

I remember when I first arrived at DU in 2002 going back and reading some old posts on the conflict, and remember long shitfighting obituaries (they were actually just long lists of names and demands that one set of victims were worthier than others) for the victims of the conflict and other stuff that the guidelines were obviously developed to do away with. It'd be a shame to see all that sort of thing creep back in...

[ellisonz]

48. Yep

That type of thing will bring this forum down fast. It's already got a bad reputation amongst many DUers; no need to further confirm it. My appeal to have Skinner make some move on this was met with..."Not it's" form the host population

Not it!

[oberliner]

54. I hope that there is a process

It would be great if there was some sort of online equivalent of a "roundtable discussion" among those who care to come up with a set of rules we can all live with.

[ellisonz]

56. I think this could be done.

I'm not sure how far we would want to go. I'd encourage you to take a look at the old rules and make additions/revisions and post in a separate OP. You are certainly qualified to make such a proposal!