Moderators - dictators of taste?
 

We used to be self-moderating on Mil Aircrew, but I believe it was security concerns over GW2 that led to the Mil moderators being created.

Northern Monkey started a thread on Ugly Wives that had me in stitches (and I am an ex-F3 driver so it was targetted in general at me). I could see the funny side and took it for the banter I thought it was, but some people seemed to take it as a personal attack (probably the type that read Flight from the front instead of the back).

It was suggested by some people that Northern Monkey delete the thread. Instead, it appears that the moderators have sentenced it to a slow lingering death. Try posting a new reply on the thread and you will see that it does not rise back to the top of the ladder. Given a few more topics and it will slip off the bottom of the page.

The thread has probably had a long enough run anyway, but are we being dictated to about what is in good or bad taste? Rants about Israel Vs the Arabs, personal abuse or security concerns are good enough reasons to take a thread down.

If the moderators think this was personal abuse, shouldn't they have the courage of their convictions and take the thread off completely.

You mean this one:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...&postid=836027

:rolleyes:

Thanks, Jacko. Funniest post ever on Prune. Gotta try to keep it on top.

The very one Jacko. Actually another ppruner pointed out, that just prior to the ugly wives thread having the chocks applied against the burner, One ppruner had posted in just about every thread previous, presumably to drive the Ugly wives one South.

But then again, that's probably x-files stuff :)

I am qrateful to the Moderators for facilitating the inexorable slide into the gutter which the thoroughly unpleasant 'Ugly Wives' thread justly deserves.

This was a thread which opened with an outrageously unpleasant personal attack on the relatives of those returning from an operational theatre. It then continued with a series of weak, puerile posts which would have been out of place even on a prep school lavatory wall.

This was not 'banter'; far from it. It was inappropriate childish smut. As such I personally consider that it had no place on PPRuNe; I am NOT a Moderator but I, along with others, did ask for the thread to be deleted. PPRuNe Admin decided instead to facilitate certain measures which resulted in the properties of the thread which others have noted.

At a time when the bodies of those less fortunate than the Leuchars F3 crews were being returned to their grieving relatives, we had 'northernmonkey' and his aliases making these totally unacceptable remarks. OK - I may be a boring old fart, but I consider that there are limits to which PPRuNe should not be allowed to descend; I'm not sure that I would wish to associate with those who think to the contrary.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Could be some mileage in this one Beagle............

I have also had a thread completely thrown off track...deleted sections and moved it into different forums etc etc.

And where has the banter gone...its getting too serious, too much of the time....

:mad:

I entirely agree with Beagle on this one. I stopped reading the thread after the third or fourth post because I found it offensive to the memory of those who gave their lives. Neither am I a moderator, but if I was, this is one that I would have deleted without hesitation; Danny is far more tolerant than I.

Banter should be fun and not cause offence. Hence that thread cannot be described that way. And I am sorry, Jacko, that you chose to link back to it - you have earned a lot of respect from me and other professional military men on this forum, and supporting gutter subjects can only damage that fine reputation.

I did link to it. I do think that we're becoming over-moderated. I do deplore the dishonest way in which this is being done. I may not agree with something (Northern Monkey's childish slights of other men's wives or Danny's Zionism, for example) but I'll defend their right to express their opinion.

I recognise that this is extremely shaky ground to fight the battle on, since the thread was indefensible. I was amazed that it sat there getting bigger and bigger.

I have not posted on the aforementioned thread. I read only the first post, and then, when I linked, the last page.

I found what I read shockingly and horribly insensitive, callous and tasteless (civvy sensibilities) especially since it obviously referred to specific named officers wives. But I can see only two justifiable reasons to lock a thread.

One is military sensitivity (obviously) - though one needs to be careful not to lock threads which merely repeat what is already in the public domain, and the other is gratuitously offensive personal abuse, which goes beyond banter. I think that if this thread falls into the latter thread, then it should be killed, and not just surreptitiously modified in the way referred to.

Linking to it does nothing to stop it dying, but does allow anyone to go and look at it, see what we're discussing (I'm not arguing with you or BEagle from what I saw) and make up their own minds.

Moreover, the addition of a rolleyes gif might have alerted you to my feelings on the 'merits' of what I linked to.

And while I am an ugly old journo myself, I thought the said ladies looked and seemed intelligent, articulate, vivacious, and generally quite attractive. And when in tears or extreme emotion, it's not easy to look anything like that good, I'd have thought. In more normal circs I suspect I'd think they were gorgeous.

The reason for starting this thread was not to condone the Ugly Wives thread. It was to do with the wider issue of censorhship. I was concerned that PPRuNe was becoming boring. Jet Blast used to be hilarious, then we got the introduction of legal considerations (necessary, but unfortunate). I occasionally still look in Jet Blast but not nearly as much as I used to. I still check in with Mil Aircrew but find precious little that keeps me amused - serious issues only seemed to be the order of the day. Nothing wrong with that, but where had the banter gone (it had gone before the majority of mil aircrew had gone to the desert). Ugly Wives was a "blow for freedom" in a way, despite the bad taste, but if the moderators didn't like it thay should have killed it completely and given a reason, not taken the underhand action they have done.

Ali Barber, stop being such a tw@t. And yes, I would tell you to your face if I knew who you were. If you showed an ounce of understanding of what is involved in running this forum, and I mean trying to balance the needs and wants of a such a diversified group then you wouldn't be bleating and whining about 'censorship'.

The thread about the ugly wives was amusing, for about the first 10 or 15 posts but when someone like Northernmonkey, whose repertoir soon shows itself to be of very limited scope, doesn't realise that repeating the same old joke over and over and over and over... soon becomes pettty, infantile and puerile. Thankfully, even NM realised that he was flogging a dead horse and even stated so. Obviously Ali Barber still wants more of this repetitive and 'not so funny anymore' cr@p.

The moderators may have made a mistake in moving it to JetBlast so quickly but at least it was left there and eventually moved back here. It was interesting experiment in group reaction but eventually I found the post to be repetitive and the humour had worn itself out. I decided that editorially it would be better for this thread to slip away. Unfortunately, a few of you obviously have a serious deficiency in some hormone or something if you feel that the Ugly Wives thread should somehow still be up there near the top. It's a bit like going to see the same low ranking comedian, time and again but he never changes his script. Get a life puhleese! :rolleyes:

The Mil forum is NOT moderated as such. Except for the requirement to prevent a few mentally deficient individuals who are unable to figure out what might be too sensitive for posting or preventing individuals who are too mentally challenged to realise that something might legally put me or PPRuNe at risk, they do not get involved. I on the other hand will occasionally make an editorial decision to stop someone taking advantage of the fact that a post will jump back up to the top every time anything, and usually it is something trivial, is posted. I can make a post 'slippery' and I took the decision to do so in this case.

Maybe if a little bit of wit had been introduced to the thread my decision would have been different but sadly it just became a repeat of the same old joke and mores the pity that NM didn't rest on his laurels with his original trawl but just continued to repeat what was by now becoming predictable. For Simpsons fans, I refer them to the "I didn't do it" episode where Bart becomes a celebrity for his one line comment. Unfortunately, NM will now become like all those other instant celebrities whose status is elevated by an audience whose idea of entertainment is watching a bunch dipsticks who crave publicity but don't have the talent to back it up. The C4 'Big Brother' TV series fans may be feeling uncomfortable by now.

Anyway, back to the topic. Dictator of taste? Not necessarily but I still retain editorial control and in an effort to try and cater for the widest possible audience I will continue to impose (occasionally) certain restrictions if I feel something is getting too much prominence based on a minority who are unable to figure out that it is the quality of the replies to a thread that are important and not the quantity.

As for Jackonicko sticking his oar in, he in particular will know the frustration of not getting something he has written published. In fact I would suspect that he has that experience much of the time. At least here on PPRuNe he gets his voice heard to some extent. I wonder how many editors or publishers have knocked back his works? Would he call that censorship? Perhaps it is just quality control?
:} I would suggest that Ali Barber and Jacko amongst others try and get an article or even just a letter published in a publication that has the same or even greater readership than PPRuNe. Even if it were published I doubt that it wouldn't be edited in some form or another. I wonder if they would be shrieking and stamping their little feet if that were the case? No... of course they wouldn't, the poor little diddums. :{

There is an extremely wide variety of points of view made available here in this forum and if you extend that to the rest of PPRuNe you should be able to find some niche or another where your tastes are catered for. If you can't then feel free to make suggestions but please don't accuse me or my moderators of "dictating taste". Put it down to editorial control. After all, it is what has allowed this forum and the rest of PPRuNe to become the first stop for rumours, news and 'banter' for many of you.

Finally, Ali Barber, if you think that what you have witnessed is 'censorship' or you are concerned with PPRuNe becoming boring then perhaps you should consider the fact that it is the members who submit the content and all I and my friends do is occasionally make sure we are covered from a legal point of view. If I decide that a thread (read article or story in a newspaper or magazine sense) doesn't deserve to be on the front page but should be somewhere else because the quality and exclusivity doesn't warrant it then I will move it. To call that censorship shows that you need to educate yourself in the ways of the world. As ex-Mil myself, I know what banter is but to claim that someone repeating the same old joke ad nauseum is somehow eligible to be at the forefront of this forum because it is 'banter' just doesn't wash. Any fool can criticise... unfortunately many do! :}

Danny,

In a private message...responding to what I considered (even as a former US Army Warrant Officer Helicopter Pilot and former Police Officer....two professions that require you to have armor plate instead of skin....when it comes to banter!) a rude, ugly, and devoid of any redeeming value post, suggested that there was banter...and there was banter. I assured the individual that his banter lacked the intellectual basis upon which geniune humor is based and that he should reconsider his style, manner, and construction. I would hope that he gave my advice some fair consideration and that his future attempts might be better reading.

Maybe you ought to charge an annual fee of a Tuppence....then you could correctly tell the protesters that there is no "free speech" on pprune and thus cut off these kinds of complaints. But.....then they would scream at the outrageous prices you charge for membership or something!

I might suggest those that think uncontrolled participation is the acme goal of these kinds of internet forums.....then you should shift to JustHelicopters....that way you will not feel constrained to any sort of guidelines. Bon Voyage!

Like many others, I was surprised the thread involved managed to have the legs to run on and on with such infantile material.

I made my point early on and chose not to get involved any further but I have had a look back and despair of what passes for "humour" with respect to the chosen subject. Typically, the people who chose to maintain the thread attacked and derided the rest of us for having no sense of humour and formed a little brain dead clique who displayed a primary school attitude that is better off pencilled on a toilet wall - frankly, I've seen much better intellectual content from my kids! Isn't there another forum somewhere in the boondocks for that sh!!t

As for censorship, well, freedom of speech carries a bit of responsibility too. "Ugly Wives" was, and still is a cheap shot and ran it's course very quickly to anyone with half a brain.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and, similarly, what some find humourless is extremely funny to others. For me the boring posts by apparently boring people was what made the more outrageous posts so funny. If individuals took offence they should remember that in responding they were adding to the humour.

Whilst I accept the need to keep prune posts within reasonably boundaries, nobody is going to influence whether I laugh or cry and I would prefer the moderators to stick to legal principles in determining what to allow. Just because one group of people find something offensive, that is not reason enough to deny others the opportunity to read it. If that becomes the norm on prune our future discussions had better be only about neutral subjects like the weather.

"Just because one group of people find something offensive, that is not reason enough to deny others the opportunity to read it."

Absolute nonsense. That is the excuse of the gutter press. In civilised society, there are things called standards. PPRuNe contributors should recognise and accept that. For without standards, there is but the rule of the mob.......

Danny, I'm used to personal abuse from you, usually on the basis of your prejudiced view that I'm some kind of mouthpiece for Arafat, or (worse still) a bleeding heart liberal. I hadn't expected unsubstantiated and ignorant condemnation of my work from you, however.

"As for Jackonicko sticking his oar in, he in particular will know the frustration of not getting something he has written published. In fact I would suspect that he has that experience much of the time. At least here on PPRuNe he gets his voice heard to some extent. I wonder how many editors or publishers have knocked back his works? Would he call that censorship? Perhaps it is just quality control?
I would suggest that Ali Barber and Jacko amongst others try and get an article or even just a letter published in a publication that has the same or even greater readership than PPRuNe. Even if it were published I doubt that it wouldn't be edited in some form or another."

1) I don't write anything on spec. Period. In 19 years as a professional writer I have therefore never had any article or book 'knocked back'. Nor does my work normally require much editing, though standards at my end of the business are admittedly low.

2) I don't know the 'readership' of the mil forums of PPRUNE, but I do know that the aviation magazines I write for have circulations running into the high tens of thousands, while I suspect that even the broadsheet newspapers I've written for have circulations which exceed the 'readership of this bulletin board, to say nothing of the tabloids. I'm currently working on a piece for a major US news magazine (yep, that one). I've also written a number of books, one of which sold more than 80,000 copies, most of which sell about 5,000 per title. And people actually have to pay their own hard-earned cash to read most of the bilge I come out with, whereas PPRuNe is free.

You're getting bitter and twisted, Danny. How would you feel if someone made silly, unsupportable accusations that you fly for a third rate airline because you weren't good enough for BA, or the RAF, or the IDF/AF? You'd be irritated, if not angry, and quite rightly so. Any such accusation would be infantile and beneath contempt - and would demonstrate a total lack of appreciation about job satisfaction and all the other factors which influence professional pilots in choosing for whom they work. And yet you choose to make equally silly, even more groundless remarks about my work.

Danny,

Thanks for the personal abuse, I didn't think we were supposed to do that here! And, by the way, I was widely published for a couple of years - it was my job - and I admit to having "quality control" applied, and even having had one article completely censored.

My comment was not on the content of the thread (I said it had probably run its course), but on the way it was sliding off the page which seemed to be a covert form of censorship (for want of a better phrase). Why did you not just apply the icon of "a closed topic: no new replies accepted"?

Danny.....Please put a stop to this drivel. It is a totally nonsensical topic that should be killed off right away.

To Jackonicko......Why does everything you post come down to the Israeli/Arafat/Palastine/Arab issue. You call Danny a zionist,
but you still condemn personal attacks! Give it a rest, please.

Kennyr - maybe jacko is just reacting to the one-sided slating he gets from the management.

I myself have been accused by Danny of being a Ba'ath party supporter just because I suggested that he was applying an unbalanced approach to moderating posts on the war.

As a former RAF officer who carried a VERY high level security clearance, I suspect that being a Ba'athist would have made the attainment of that clearance unlikely!

BEagle - You wrote: "In civilised society, there are things called standards. PPRuNe contributors should recognise and accept that."

Whose standards? You might well share the same standards as me but we must both accept that others do not and we should not censor them just because we are different.

Modern global life is all about tolerance and the sooner we can tolerate each other with all our differences and peculiarities, the sooner I and everybody else employed to fight will be out of a job.

Roll on, I am ready to retire.

KENNYR,

You're dredging up history, if not ancient history.

On 28th March 2003 at 18:46 _perhaps a bit late,_I wrote:

"There could not be a more pro-Palestinian Pruner than I am, as Danny will confirm, I'm sure. I'm not the mouthpiece and apologist he accuses me of, but I do believe that Israel must cede land for peace, and strongly support the pre-67 borders as being a good starting point. But Danny owns and runs this board, providing a useful forum for us to discuss virtually all subjects under the sun. Virtually. Any exclusions are his business. Danny has served in the IDF, and is a moderately Zionist Jew, and as such has strong feelings on the issue. To his great credit, he does not attempt to ram those feelings down our throats - except when provoked, and he has decided that the subject is best avoided altogether. Where the Israel/Palestine issue is directly relevant, I think we should be allowed to mention that fact, but in Danny's defence, the detailed arguments about the issue have been endlessly and comprehensively aired here, and even I think that Danny's feelings and desire to avoid further acrimonious debate should be respected."

I'm sorry that I did not respect those feelings earlier, and have apologised to Danny privately and publicly.

Since then I have avoided any debate of the Israel/Palestine issue. To say "I may not agree with something (Northern Monkey's childish slights of other men's wives or Danny's Zionism, for example) but I'll defend their right to express their opinion." Hardly qualifies as "everything I post" coming "down to the Israeli/Arafat/Palastine/Arab issue" while referring to someone as being a zionist is hardly a personal attack.

The original Tornado wives thread is hardly something for us to be arguing about, I think, in the light of what I've said about it, since our opinions seem to coincide. We differ only on the issue of moderation - and on the acceptability of abuse about my writing!

Well, maybe I have a different way of looking at things, but....I never saw the footage of the wives in question, and I don't suppose I ever shall. That's probably not particularly relevant because, like most other threads, the thread itself evolved into something else, before growing old and dying what would have been a natural death.

I have the utmost respect for those who have served and sacrificed, and for the views and contributions of BEagle amongst others.

But that aside, tasteful or not, it was hillarious. I will probably not grieve that it is to be no more, but at the same time, I give a little thanks that it ever was.

BTW Beags, democracy itself is but Mob Rule dressed in its Sunday best!;) ;)

Jacko...

I am an unwashed Yank.....and need some education here. You describe Danny as being a "Zionist Jew"....please explain what you mean by that? Is there a difference between being a "Zionist Jew" and a patriotic Israeli? By being British....and knowing the "Zionist Jews" waged a guerrilla/terrorist campaign against British rule of Palestine ....does that taint the position you argue from ? Could it be, that old hatreds live on....could it have been said the British must surrender land in order for there to have been peace in Palestine during those years? Jacko, I really begin to think you are not so much a supporter of Arafat and the Palestinians as much as you are a Liberal Brit who cannot accept the fact that the Israelis were able to wrest their country from the control of the UK....and similar to the United States....continue to fight their enemies without regard to the liberal view of what is correct. I really suspect you just cannot find it within yourself to acknowledge the fact that the US and Israel are able to survive without the grand benevolence of the English Left.

You owe Danny an apology I think. You throw these names around and ignore the political correctness that the Liberal's demand of the conservative side of the population. Fair is fair , Jacko.....mend your ways. Tell Danny you feel he supports Zionism....displays Zionist behaviour....but using names like "Zionist" just isn't politically correct dear chap.

and Jacko....until you do apologize to Danny.....I think I will describe you merely as being a "Teabag" and will so address you that way. Fair deal?

From the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (9th Edition) From that definition, I would take it that every patriotic Israeli citizen is Zionist, but every Zionist is not necessarily an Israeli citizen. Although, the vast majority of Zionists are likely to be Jewish this also need not be so in every case - witness the non-Jewish politicians around the world currently proclaiming that they want to address the Israel/Palestine situation, thereby involving themselves in the 'development of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.'

SASless, I think that you are looking for insult in Jacko's posts where none exists and prescribing a motivation on unsound foundations.

Danny, sir
Please don't excommunicate me.

The thread has two heads now, I guess three if you count the wives in. As I have said before, all roads lead to Israel on PPRUNE. The other, and the one I take issue with is your use of the bully pulpit . I suggest you owe Jacko an apology for slogging him. I think Jackos views on Israel are, shall we say misguided but should not garner him the ill condemnation on his professional abilities. Funny thing is I am happy to see you challenge Jackos opinions with your personal experiences and views as I believe as you do. I believe Jackos views to be wrong and biased, I imagine he believes the same of me. He however presents his opinion in an articulate manner with the tone of a gentleman.

To believe I am a right wing Republican, hell we love war....

Uh oh! :bored: I post a reply which includes a trawl for Jacko and he bites at the first sniff! :} To be honest, I have no idea who Jacko really is, what his nom de plume (or real name for that matter) is, what he writes about or who he writes for. For all I know I have probably read some of his work and if so, probably enjoyed it. :eek: My point was that he was getting involved in a debate about moderator control of a post that wasn't allowed to rise to the top of the heap every time someone posted a reply and I was in effect being accused of 'censorship' and of being a 'taste dictator'.

If the thread is still viewable where is the censorship? As I stated in my earlier post, I have the right to determine if a post is 'sticky', 'normal', 'slippery' or 'closed'. I would call that editorial control and Jacko of all people should know that whoever allows publication of something he has written has that option. That or else he has the choice not to submit or agree to write something in the first place. I am sure that jacko is thick skinned enough to take my taunts and I can assure him that they are not personal insults even if he interprets them as such.

Now, about the divergence of this thread! :suspect: I made my post yesterday, went to work and did my three sectors, got home and to bed about 03:30 and then wake up to read about my personal views on the Israel/Palestine issue being discussed. :confused: From what I can see it was Jacko who raised the subject and even if it was not his intention to digress, it is he who is to blame. Sorry Jacko but that's the way it looks to me. I was thinking about casting another baited hook but I think you haven't recovered from the last one yet. :E

Anyway, I'm enjoying the thread and until it runs its course or I think it deserves to be moved to the 'inside pages' it can carry on. FYI, I used to have dual nationality, both British and Israeli which is why I was conscripted and served in the IDF. I am not sure what my status is with regard to Israeli citizenship anymore as my passport expired many, many years ago. I assume all I would have to do is renew it. Anyway, that's besides the point. My religion has no bearing on anything and to even raise it shows a naivety which should alert anyone with an ounce of common sense that the person doing so should be regarded with suspicion. As for labeling me a zionist, well I suppose I am considering the dictionary definition but then that also makes me a racist according to the the UN. As far as I am concerned that just goes to show what a biased and corrupt organisation the UN is.

I once again raise the topic that Jacko is undoubtedly far too biased and subversively anti Israel and the Jewish nation because of his single comment: "...and strongly support the pre-67 borders as being a good starting point." By stating that the 1967 borders would in his opinion only be a 'starting point' he must mean that from there they could be reduced even further. I find that to be offensive in the extreme. It never ceases to amaze me how biased and bleeding heart types like Jacko and most of the mentally diseased luvvies in the media can distort news to the point that they are no better than that rejected arsehole transplant of an Iraqi information minister. I am not against the Palestinians having their own country and I am against the settlements in the West Bank but I believe they will serve a useful purpose in any negotiations shoud the PLO get their act together and kick that sh!t of a crook, Arafat, out on his ear. Unfortunately the media love to play the propaganda card. Just look at their attempts to show 'even handedness' when their own news departments which are run by Jackonicko types whose idea of balance is catering for the majority of their foreign audience rather than their own home one. The BBC being a prime example.

Israel is about the size of Wales for those of you who ave no idea. The pre-1967 borders mean that the most densly populated part of the country whch is also the narrowest is only about 15 miles wide. Pre-1967 that part of the country was subjected to regular and continuous shelling by the Jordanians and anyone they invited in to participate, especially the Iraqis who don't even have a common border with Israel. I am sure that things would be different now because of the peace treaty signed between Jordan and Israel but I have very little doubt that a Palestinian controlled country where the leadership has consistently shown support for the likes of Sadaam Hussein and with radical and powerful extremist islamic groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas allowed free reign that Israel would not be safe. For all the spin on the situation that the Israelis are the brutal dictators supressing an unwilling population by choice I think you will find the degraradation the ordinary Palestinians have found in their lives has been caused by Arafat's decision to call for an Intifada whilst negotiations were not going his way. The quality of life for the ordinary Palestinians is much worse now than it was before the Oslo accords when Israel agreed to allow Arafat and his terrorist (oops sorry BBC, I mean militants) back into the territories so that they could administer them. Just ask the EU where the accounts are for the expenditure of all the money they have provided to Arafat and his cronies over the years.

I believe that Isarel has every right to be where it is today. Once the Palestinians get their act together and realise that they are not going to get everything they want and that includes all of Jerusalem and the destruction of Israel then they will find that most Israelis (and I don't include the ultra religious parties) will be more than glad to give them back most of the West Bank and Gaza. Eventually normality can return as long as the Palestinians get a grip on their fundamentalist extremist groups. Toursits will return to the region and trade can carry on. If only the Jordanians had heeded the warning not to try and open a third front against the Israelis in 1967 we would probably only be debating why doesn't Israel just disappear off the map as all Arab countries would really like. I mean we can't be having a non-Islamic, democratic country with western values in their midst now, can we?

Now we have a really divergent thread which I will enjoy censoring and dictating taste. :cool:

Danny - do you reckon Arafat is still actually running the Palestinian authority? Or is he a puppet figure who may no longer have all his mental faculties - and the real culprits are in fact the People's Front, Popular Front, People's Popular Front or someone else who are pulling all the strings and then dressing Arafat up in his soldier-suit and pushing him out in front of the media every so often?

Surely only the mutual will of both Israel and responsible Palestinians - not a gang of murderous homicide bombers and terrorists - can lead to a peaceful resolution?

The Mayflies must be hatching, the blighters are rising all over the place.

Wow, a little bit of abuse I can call my own.

BEagle, I believe that Arafat still holds a lot of the power. He is extremely wealthy from all the money he has siphoned away over the years and that wealth allows him to have some control. I also agree that his henchmen are as responsible as he is and it is with their assistance that he still has influence.

Don't forget that the current leadership of the PLO is similar to the Baathist regime in Iraq and Syria who they have never had a problem in admiring. Anyone who is not a part of the regime will not go very far and should they be so brave as to publicly oppose the regime or the leadership they are very likely to find themselves having difficulty breathing. One of the reasons that you don't hear the voice of moderation a call for the cessation of Shahid. Rather you hear the two faced condemnation on the one hand and the justification on the other.

Once there is some sign of responsible control being shown from the Palestinian leadership and a proper attempt is being made to stop the fundamentalist fanatics from trying to provoke the Israelis through suicide murders then I believe that the Israelis will be more prepared to elect parties that are prepared to talk with the Palestinians. At the moment the problem for the Israelis and the Palestinians is that the hard line Israeli parties are getting elected with the balance of power being dictated by the numerous right wing religious parties in a coalition government. Once the electorate feels confident enough that the Palestinians representatives really mean that they want peace and to negotiate then they will be more inclined to elect a less radical coalition.

At the last election the Shinui party were shown to be gaining popularity due to the fact that they were against the minor religious parties hijacking the government. I am fairly sure that they will still elect a hard line government but the balance of power will eventually lie with the majority secular parties. A hard liner is more likely to get the Palestinians to clean up their act and get them back to the negotiating table whilst the secular parties will not allow the right wingers to sabotage with unreasonable demands such as more settlements.

Israel never shied away from removing the settlements and even the new towns they set up in the Sinai after the 1967 war once the Egyptians agreed to a peace deal and I believe that they would repeat the painful exercise should there be a realistic opportunity again. However, the current policy of the Palestinian leadership in subversively promoting attacks on Israel whilst claiming to be innocent victims of Israeli occupation when the Israelis have always been willing to negotiate land for peace will only prolong the suffering of their people.

And you bunch of hypocrites accuse me of posting dribble.

Beagle & FJJP

Please point out to me where I slated those who came home in boxes, don't take your silly gripe with my posts out of context. At No stage were any of the fallen mentioned.

Danny

You call me infantile....... Jesus, talk about a bloke with a train set who will only share if you play by your own pathetic rules. I have never met you and hope I never will, but at a guess I would place good money on you being no taller that 5ft7 and suffering from a severe case of Small man syndrome.....

My posts were tongue in cheek slatings like what the majority of blokes in the military deem as normallity there was no offence intended and it would appear that the blokes on the recieving end didn't take offence anyway. So whats the problem.

Danny has been far more insulting, ignorant, childish and puerile in the past three posts than I have ever been.

I hope for your sake your advertisers don't read your posts, if they do I can forsee next years renewals suffering.

Added at 19:58

Am crying with laughter, just had two PMs in two mins to confirm that Danny is indeed a small man.

Confirms my thought that there is a degree of syndrome there.

I fully expect this to be removed and myself be banned, no bother I have cut and Pasted my views and forwarded them to those whose opinions and views I hold with regard.

Northern Monkey.....

Your post confirms exactly what Danny suggested was the situation here. There comes a time to stifle one's self.....partner...this is one of those times. Give it a rest....go for a pint....read some Mark Twain or Churchill and learn how to offer banter that is both funny and sophisticated. Your style is neither. You just cannot take a subtle hint.

When you respond the way you do....you indict yourself with the readers....you do come across as being a very dull person with limited horizions as evidenced by your posts.

One man's opinion.....and I will post your PM's to me about the issue if you wish....just to prove my point. The one you sent previously and the one you are bound to send this time.

Deal with it!

SASless

Please dont even begin to try and lecture me, are you aware of how many people on here think you are an arse?

Climb out of Danny's backside, stop offering advice that to be frank you would be better off following yourself, and calling anyone dull is definatley a matter of Kettle and pot.

I only PMed you in response to your attempt at offering me advice which I turned down. If you wish to post them please feel free, I will say nothing behind anybodies backs that I wont say to thier face.

Hi northernmonkey, still trying to justify your pathetic sense of humour.

What makes you feel that small men have the problem you describe? Is that because you come from the north where men like you have a great chip on their shoulders? Or is it that you failed at all stages of social standing, so that you now have to belittle women. That makes you feel a big man does it?

Small men don't have problems sunshine, that is a manufactured excuse by idiots like you to justify their own inadequacy.

You have been found out mister. I suggest you leave Pprune and go suck your thumb in quite corner of a creche. You will feel at home there.

And you've got a cheek to call SAS an arse! :8

Tom

Born and raised in the South now reside in the North.........hence no chip

Obviously never heard of small man syndrome. Do you have blinkers on or just keep your head buried, term not created by me.

One assumes that by reading your last few posts where you have a pop at Solotk, Ali, KBF1 to name a few you are also a small man.

I wonder if you have ever served in the military?

I see that typical Pprune hypocrasy is on the go again. I've seen both Tom and Sasless have a pop at other people when they feel it suits them, but then crawl up to slate anyone else who dares do the same.

May not be small man syndrome, but is certainly a display of hypocracy at its best.

I hadn't wanted to get into the Israel/Palestine thing again. Honest!

SASless,

Your interpretation of my motivation is way off, as is your characterisation of me as being from the 'British Left'. I have some left-of-centre views, sure, and some right-of-centre, but am instinctively a wet Tory (with some Socialist leanings), and am quite definitely not a Liberal. Having had a left-leaning Tory local MP I've always voted Tory, though with some qualms during Thatcher's premiership.

Whether or not Israel 'threw us out' (a dubious contention) is as irrelevant as your Wars of Independence. Both are before my time, and the Britain of 1948 has no relevance to me today. I do feel that we let down some of those to whom we made promises in the 30s and 40s, but I don't lose sleep over that. Arab behaviour between 1947 and 1973 (and afterwards) was disgraceful, and undermined any claims they had, and it is only more recently that they have earned any sympathy. They are today, however, a disposessed, landless, stateless broken people, who surely deserve some kind of homeland.

My use of the term Zionist was not intended as being remotely condemnatory or derogatory. My interpretation of Zionism largely chimes with that provided by Opso. I certainly intended no characterisation of any Zionists as being necessarily racist. The aim of establishing and maintaining a religious Jewish homeland in the Holy Land is an honourable one, and I do not accept that the word Zionist is in any way an insult. (I'm much less comfortable with some extremist Zionists, especially those who still cling to the idea of Eretz Israel, but then I suspect that even Herzog might have moderated some of his idead in the light of history and circumstances....).

It is not correct to try and equate Patriotic Israelis with Zionist Jews, either. There are Zionist Jews who bear little alleigance to their state, and who will not fight for it, and there are non Jewish Israelis who will fight for Israel as their homeland.

It's like trying to equate Patriotic Americans with WASP Republicans.

Danny,

Thanks for your good grace. I'm extremely grateful for your clarification (and was that an apology?). I'm happy to be taunted by a friend, and I'm sorry if I was thin skinned.

Anything that I say about pre-67 borders should be prefixed by my absolute and unshakeable belief that the security of Jewish Israelis must be guaranteed as a pre-condition of any change to the status quo.

Before Camp David, and especially before the PLO acknowledged Israel's right to exist and abandoned the armed struggle Israel's insistence on holding on to the territory it had seized was entirely understandable (though the illegal settlements were a different matter, IMHO). The world has changed since the late 1970s, however, and Israel is no longer surrounded by Arab states who are bent on its total annihilation. Indeed it could be said that Israel's intransigence is now one of the factors (and the Arabs may still bear a heavier responsibility for the impasse) preventing a peaceful long term settlement, and preventing a complete normalisation of relations with its neighbours. Arafat and moderate Arab leaders need to be thrown a bone, otherwise they will never be able to control or defeat the hot-heads and fundamentalists, who at the moment can claim that Arafat's peaceful strategy and compromises are not working. But when and if that bone is thrown (and I was encouraged by last week's statement) the international community must ensure that Israel's security is protected.

In today's context the 1967 borders are, after all, a compromise. The extreme position would be a return to the original UN partition plan, or an equal split. For the Palestinians to have Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem seems to be a reasonable and fair compromise - as long as it's accompanied by guarantees for Israel's legitimate security concerns.

Well there ya go NM, assuming again. It's already gotcha!

Me = 5'11" / big frame / 19 years in the mil / WOII - see how wrong you can be! Pilot as well with a few thousand hours.

Sorry to hear you don't come from the north..................but then sometimes you can be wrong.............but you are growing a chip wouldn't you say.

Me having a pop. Nah! I just tell 'em how I see it. Now I'm old.....but with all me marbles still shiny tho, and maybe with a little savvy to boot.

Intriguing Tom, with your history as it is, it stands a chance that you, NM and myself all know each other:D

We might even be the same person! But I feel like me. :uhoh:

Interesting
 

Northernmonkey has been silenced by the Mods, more likely Danny as he placed an avatar on his title, indicating he has a sense of humour.

I wish I had some wit!

Why is it Ok for you to be abusive and call people a tw@t and not NM to call SASles an arse?

Just because I'm one doesn't mean you can call anyone else that.

TomPierce

19yrs and only a WO2, oh dear not much of an achiever are you:D
although Id like to think that being exarmy you would see banter in its raw form and not spout about bad taste etc etc... And why oh why do you side with a bloke like SASless...........???????????