PDA

View Full Version : Danish cartoons (sf Happy Friend)



arosar
06-02-2006, 09:54 AM
... general pinciples of liberty and freedom of speech.

Speaking of which: how about this furore over the Danish Cartoons? I'm kinda hoping that a paper in Oz will print them here.

AR

shaun
06-02-2006, 10:53 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

has a discussion on this issue.

qpawn
07-02-2006, 07:56 AM
Go to http://timblair.net

After about 6 pages of scrolling down his blogs you get to the cartoons.

I find the Australian media a laughing stock over this issue; I have a fundamental right as both person and citizen to see these cartoons. The media has failed in its duty to satisfy that right.

It makes me wonder about the media's ability to be influenced. What else haven't they brought to our attention out of fear and misguided political correctness? Has the media kept aspects of the whaet board scandal from our attention?

By the way I regard "media" as a collective, singular noun needing, hence, the verb "has" rather than "have". While I understand that this grammatical stance may offend some individuals, both Christain and Muslim, I maintain my grammatical view nonetheless :D

arosar
07-02-2006, 07:59 AM
Well, you won't see the cartoons in the SMH. Today's editorial is quite clear that they won't publish the material. The paper has also taken a dim view towards the cartoons anyway.

Now if you read Tim Blair, do you read Margo?

AR

pax
07-02-2006, 08:13 AM
I find the Australian media a laughing stock over this issue; I have a fundamental right as both person and citizen to see these cartoons. The media has failed in its duty to satisfy that right.

And if you want to exercise your fundamental write, you are quite welcome to go out and buy a few Danish newspapers (or, indeed dig them up on the internet as you have done).

There is absolutely no obligation on the Australian media to republish foreign news or cartoons.

qpawn
07-02-2006, 08:41 AM
Pax:

There is absolutely no obligation on the Australian media to republish foreign news or cartoons.

**************

I could not disagree more with that statement. Foreign news? Go to the newspaper today and see stuff taken from AAP, the New York Times etc!

It's news. There have been violent protests over these cartoons. And here Muslim clerics have expressed their views about the cartoons being published. Not to mention the racial tensions seen in Cronulla that form a cultural matrix for issues of religious sensitivities versus press freedom.

I have a right to see these cartoons to make up my own mind. It's sad when only a blogger like Tim Blair provides such a right. The mainstream media should flagellate themselves in shame.

bergil
07-02-2006, 10:14 AM
Pax:

There is absolutely no obligation on the Australian media to republish foreign news or cartoons.

**************

I could not disagree more with that statement. Foreign news? Go to the newspaper today and see stuff taken from AAP, the New York Times etc!

It's news. There have been violent protests over these cartoons. And here Muslim clerics have expressed their views about the cartoons being published. Not to mention the racial tensions seen in Cronulla that form a cultural matrix for issues of religious sensitivities versus press freedom.

I have a right to see these cartoons to make up my own mind. It's sad when only a blogger like Tim Blair provides such a right. The mainstream media should flagellate themselves in shame.
C'mon there is no real news worthiness to the pictures except for the over the top reaction they caused. It is enough to have then described and as no doubt most of us have seen/found them on the internet if we are so bothered.

I am concerned once again by the reaction of the mostly fundamentalist muslims who have shown their faith in the worst possible way and their hypocrisy over this blasphemy compared to the way they ridicule the Jews.

firegoat7
07-02-2006, 11:11 AM
I am sure that eventually the Australian media will print the cartoon (Hasn't the Brisbane courier mail already done this?). Inevitably we will get some self justifying journo type towing the secular line and showing "us" what we all (sic) want to see. Inevitably, it will be seen as politically correct to do so because the "context" will be seen as permissable in regards to world events.
No doubt as "adults' we are still not mature enough as a society, to judge for ourselves!

Then unfortunatley we will return to the same old repeat in which the self appointed "expert" give us their opinions on the "Islamic versus free speech problem", thus distracting us all from the real causes of such extreme reactions. No doubt along the way "they" will all make some big bucks, while the rest of us take positional stances, of our own selective interpretation, of moral indignation or lack of. Meanwhile, we all forget what being human means.

I predict at approximately the moment when Australia qualifies for the next round of the world cup by beating Brazil we will all focus our moral "gaze" on something more distracting, before dutifully rising in the morning to got to work to pay the bills to consume the goods that we need to be free from the systematic slavery that we impose upon ourselves. Yes Virginia the grass is definately greener on the other side of the fence, but to cross it you have to learn how to deconstruct what a fence actually is.

cheers fg7

PHAT
07-02-2006, 11:33 AM
Australia is a generally safe and tolerant country. We should try to keep it that way. Our media should be asked but not told to refrain from broad casting/printing the cartoons. Those images can be shown (are already!) on the net for those who want to access them.

There is no point in broadcasting/printing them just to prove that we can.

PHAT
09-02-2006, 09:10 AM
Iranian paper holds Holocaust cartoon contest:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1565443.htm

pax
09-02-2006, 01:01 PM
Sure, the violence is news, but the cartoons themselves are not. A brief description is more than adequate. But unless a news agency has the objective of *making more news* (by sparking more violence), then it is better not to publish them if there is no need.

PHAT
09-02-2006, 05:33 PM
Iranian paper holds Holocaust cartoon contest:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...2/s1565443.htm
__________________
Strive for speechlessness - yours and theirs.


Last edited by the chess nut : 09-02-2006 at 03:34 PM. Reason: Offensiveness complaint recieved - second part deleted; suggested mod review.


OK, some filthy anti free speech prick has not liked having a linlk to a Holocaust joke site.

I s'pose that same filth thinks it's OK for the Courier Mail to print the Mahmed cartoons.

I am giong to post a link to those on the main board and we shall see if the same [deleted] complains about it. :evil:

PHAT
09-02-2006, 05:39 PM
Iranian paper holds Holocaust cartoon contest:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...2/s1565443.htm
__________________
Strive for speechlessness - yours and theirs.
Last edited by the chess nut : 09-02-2006 at 03:34 PM. Reason: Offensiveness complaint recieved - second part deleted; suggested mod review.

What is this censoring for. If its OK to post a link to the cartoons, it must be OK to post a link to a holocaust joke site.

DOUBLE STANDARDS!

The 'toons are at http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/media_told/

shaun
09-02-2006, 05:44 PM
I note with interest that the cultural editor at Jyllands-Posten had indicated that they were going to run the 'holocaust' cartoons being published in an Iranian newspaper, but that this has now been overuled by the newspapers editors.

Alan Shore
09-02-2006, 05:48 PM
Sure, have your free speech.. good on you.

But it doesn't stop you looking like an asshole to everyone else. People always seem to forget the other half... you have your freedeom but once you're thrown into the world, you're responsible for everything you do. People want their freedom but they don't want to be responsible for the damage they cause - it sickens me that this is so often forgotten.

P.S. I wasn't the one who complained.

PHAT
09-02-2006, 06:18 PM
People want their freedom but they don't want to be responsible for the damage they cause - it sickens me that this is so often forgotten.

Agreed


Australia is a generally safe and tolerant country. We should try to keep it that way. Our media should be asked but not told to refrain from broad casting/printing the cartoons. Those images can be shown (are already!) on the net for those who want to access them.

There is no point in broadcasting/printing them just to prove that we can.

I should NOT have started a new thread for this. Could a mod slot it into the "Danish Cartoons" thread.

EDIT: There is no need to move this post.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2006, 06:23 PM
Matt, So you wish this moved to the open board.
Before I can do that I need the other posters here to agree.

Belthasar and shaun are you happy with this thread to be moved.

Either that or with everyones agreement I can just delete this thread and you can restart your discussion in the Danish cartoons thread.

PHAT
09-02-2006, 07:02 PM
Fair enough. I will edit [deleted] out of post #1 if the move is OKed.

PHAT
09-02-2006, 07:15 PM
I note with interest that the cultural editor at Jyllands-Posten had indicated that they were going to run the 'holocaust' cartoons being published in an Iranian newspaper, but that this has now been overuled by the newspapers editors.

[deleted] weak as piss. Those editors think it is OK to provide widespread material which maybe/is ultra offensive to Muslims, but cowtow to the Jews.

In hind sight they should not have published, but they have, and now they must be seen to be even handed. Not to do so will only make matters worse. After all who is going to be offended, only the self proclaimed "Chosen Race." Whingers.

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2006, 09:03 PM
I haven't seen the cartoons in question (wonder if the ABC has removed the link? It appears broken!). I have seen the Danish cartoons and I see some differences between taking the mickey out of Islamic fundamentalists and making jokes about the attempted extermination of an entire ethnicity. I'm not sure whether there should be legal differences in the treatment of the two but I would strongly support a paper drawing a line between them. I also think (and may have said so elsewhere) that the incredible overreaction to the cartoons has made them newsworthy whereas previously they were generally just puerile and silly.

Happy for any comments I make on this thread to be moved to the main board should that occur.

Alan Shore
09-02-2006, 09:19 PM
Belthasar and shaun are you happy with this thread to be moved.

I am happy for the thread to be moved.

However, this is not the same question, as asking me if I wish my post contained therein to be moved with the thread - Sheesh Bill, you have to ask the right questions you know!!! :owned:

But if that was the question you were really asking (and I'm sure it was) then yeah, go for it.

shaun
09-02-2006, 09:43 PM
The main purpose of my post was to stop the thread from being deleted by skittish mods. So my response would be that if the thread be moved, it be moved in its entirety. But as Matt now doesn't want the thread moved, I guess the question is moot.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2006, 09:53 PM
The main purpose of my post was to stop the thread from being deleted by skittish mods. So my response would be that if the thread be moved, it be moved in its entirety. But as Matt now doesn't want the thread moved, I guess the question is moot.He changed his mind again in post #18.

pax
10-02-2006, 06:58 AM
I have seen the Danish cartoons and I see some differences between taking the mickey out of Islamic fundamentalists and making jokes about the attempted extermination of an entire ethnicity.

It isn't taking the mickey out of fundamentalists that is the problem.

It is depictions of the prophet Muhammed, which is quite specifically and explicitly offensive to Muslims. And the publication of these cartoons (maybe not the original publication, but certainly the REpublication) seems specifically intended to offend Muslims.

PHAT
10-02-2006, 07:24 AM
I haven't seen the cartoons in question (wonder if the ABC has removed the link? It appears broken!).
try thgis http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/media_told/


I have seen the Danish cartoons and I see some differences between taking the mickey out of Islamic fundamentalists and making jokes about the attempted extermination of an entire ethnicity. I'm not sure whether there should be legal differences in the treatment of the two but I would strongly support a paper drawing a line between them.

Joking about the holocaust is no different to joking about any other tradgedy - NASA crashes, pedophiles, aboriginals. It is only dark humour. Jews seem to think that they are a special untouchable group. Unfortunately, they have cornered the rest of us into giving them special dispensation to veto material they find offensive.

The Danish cartoons were offensive/taistless to an other group - devout Muslims. Public boardcast or major newspaper REpublication of them is not in the best interests of social harmony. However, they could (should?) have been available on the net for those who actively seek them. The same for holocaust jokes.

I am going to repost the holocaust jokes web site address below. We will see if the mods here are fair dinkum about being evenhanded.

<link deleted>

WhiteElephant
10-02-2006, 07:33 AM
try thgis http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/media_told/


Joking about the holocaust is no different to joking about any other tradgedy - NASA crashes, pedophiles, aboriginals. It is only dark humour. Jews seem to think that they are a special untouchable group. Unfortunately, they have cornered the rest of us into giving them special dispensation to veto material they find offensive.

The Danish cartoons were offensive/taistless to an other group - devout Muslims. Public boardcast or major newspaper REpublication of them is not in the best interests of social harmony. However, they could (should?) have been available on the net for those who actively seek them. The same for holocaust jokes.

I am going to repost the holocaust jokes web site address below. We will see if the mods here are fair dinkum about being evenhanded.

<link deleted>

Matthew, I was the one who complained and I hope that you think about it and decide to delete this link yourself.

Generally I enjoy reading your posts and I have a very liberal attitude towards free speech. However, there is a difference between the Holocaust contest and the filthy jokes. The contest, no matter how distasteful, is a piece of news. The jokes are not only themselves offensive but are part of a larger anti-semitic website.

I know people who would burst into tears reading this link, including my mum. I hope this rubbish is deleted soon.

Spiny Norman
10-02-2006, 07:44 AM
There's a lady in my church who is a concentration camp survivor. I am sure she also would be very upset.

Matthew, I think the key is this: if someone complains, then the mods are more likely to act. If nobody here complained about the posting of the link(s) to the stuff that is considered offensive to many Moslems, then presumably they would not bother to act. Given that W.E. complained, their actions are justified.

Does anyone remember that abomination posing as art: Piss Christ

Many Christian folk were deeply offended by that. I seem to recall that some guy attacked the exhibition and ended up in the courts? Anyway, my response to the artwork was "how pathetic!" and in my view no further comment was needed. Once ratbags started protesting the profile of the whole thing was raised and the artist got what s/he wanted.

WhiteElephant
10-02-2006, 10:32 AM
Thanks for deleting the link, chess nut & Bill.

PHAT
10-02-2006, 10:53 AM
...I have a very liberal attitude towards free speech. However, there is a difference between the Holocaust [cartoon] Contest and the filthy [Holocaust] jokes.
Au contriare. There is little difference. Both are humour - that you do not understand - one with text, the other with drawings and text.



The contest, no matter how distasteful, is a piece of news. The jokes are not only themselves offensive but are part of a larger anti-semitic website.

My posting of the Holocaust Jokes link was to test how inconsistant the mods are. They should have rejected your complaint. It does not matter if you find it offensive. Noone is forcing you to read it. By forcing mods to delete the link, you are trampling the very principle free speech. I will see if Nazis will delete the link in the CL.

It does not matter about the remainder of the website. One can surf from anywhere to anywhere on the net. If a person wants to view some facet of nausiating free speech, they may well explore that site, others will click off.



I know people who would burst into tears reading this link, including my mum. I hope this rubbish is deleted soon.

Tell them to get over it. Their shedding of tears is not as important as avoiding incremental loss of free speech.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-02-2006, 11:01 AM
Pax:

There is absolutely no obligation on the Australian media to republish foreign news or cartoons.

**************

I could not disagree more with that statement. Foreign news? Go to the newspaper today and see stuff taken from AAP, the New York Times etc!

It's news. There have been violent protests over these cartoons. And here Muslim clerics have expressed their views about the cartoons being published. Not to mention the racial tensions seen in Cronulla that form a cultural matrix for issues of religious sensitivities versus press freedom.

I have a right to see these cartoons to make up my own mind. It's sad when only a blogger like Tim Blair provides such a right. The mainstream media should flagellate themselves in shame.

Pax is 100% correct. No one has an obligation to provide you those images. You do not have an obligation to buy particular newspaper if you do not like it.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights for distinction between positive and negative rights.

I personally only recognise negative rights, and "the right to see images" is a positive one.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-02-2006, 11:06 AM
There is an old Russian joke about freedom of speech in USSR (late 70s, when Carter was US president and Breznev was ruling USSR).

An American and a Russian argue who has more freedom.
American:
- I can go the central quare of the capital of my country with the banner that says Carter is an idiot.
Russian:
- I can also go the central quare of the capital of my country with the banner that says Carter is an idiot.


anti-semitic publication (which are often much more insulting then Mohammad cartoons) are widespread in Arab press, so those cartoons are nothing new. And when Iranians say they do it to "test the freedom of speech", they just mock themselves.

PHAT
10-02-2006, 11:16 AM
And when Iranians say they do it to "test the freedom of speech", they just mock themselves.

Not realy. They do not appove of free speech and admit to it. They are actually mocking the the West's claim that the West values "free-press"/"free speech." Iran is waiting to hear the inevitable protests from the West, thus demonstrating a double standard.

pballard
10-02-2006, 11:37 AM
Not realy. They do not appove of free speech and admit to it. They are actually mocking the the West's claim that the West values "free-press"/"free speech." Iran is waiting to hear the inevitable protests from the West, thus demonstrating a double standard.

To protest is not a double standard. There's only a double standard if the West overreact: by threatening violence, burning embassies or boycotting entire countries.

pballard
10-02-2006, 11:39 AM
My posting of the Holocaust Jokes link was to test how inconsistant the mods are. They should have rejected your complaint. It does not matter if you find it offensive. Noone is forcing you to read it. By forcing mods to delete the link, you are trampling the very principle free speech.

I'm with Matthew on this one. Delete offensive material from the BB by all means. But deleting a link - a link which is clearly labelled as offensive - is bizarre. And yes, if the Mohammad cartoon link is still in place, then that's a double standard.

PHAT
10-02-2006, 11:47 AM
To protest is not a double standard. There's only a double standard if the West overreact: by threatening violence, burning embassies or boycotting entire countries.

Maybe the West will start boycotting Iran followed closely by bombing (to secure oil supplies) as soon as Iran gets to big for its nuclear boots.

Look Ballard, I fully understand the personal need to apply double standards in all soughts of areanas. What I do not like is the way people do not acknowledge that they are applying their needed double standards. I know honesty is not diplomatic, but it is a virtue worth defending.

PHAT
10-02-2006, 11:49 AM
And yes, if the Mohammad cartoon link is still in place, then that's a double standard.

Ah, common ground.:D

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2006, 12:23 PM
Joking about the holocaust is no different to joking about any other tradgedy - NASA crashes, pedophiles, aboriginals. It is only dark humour.

The rest of the site was rather more of a concern in my view. In the guise of humour it's a pretty nasty piece of work.

I'm happy for the cartoons on both sides that are being discussed in the media to be linked to here because there's a major political issue about freedom of speech in relation to them going on there. There is no such issue in relation to what you posted.

Holocaust jokes are in worse taste than NASA crash jokes because it is hardly as if sickos finding NASA crash jokes a little bit too funny will go out and shoot down space shuttles. Holocaust jokes legitimising ethnic vilification is a more serious matter. If you posted links to jokes about paedophilia or racism on the main board and we received complaints, those links would probably go as well.

I'm not fussed about the link being posted in the Coffee Lounge. Others may be.


It isn't taking the mickey out of fundamentalists that is the problem.

It is depictions of the prophet Muhammed, which is quite specifically and explicitly offensive to Muslims. And the publication of these cartoons (maybe not the original publication, but certainly the REpublication) seems specifically intended to offend Muslims.

I think the latter depends on which republication you refer to. There have been some responsible republications in the interests of public discussion and some irresponsible ones in the interests of sensationalism and conflict.

Having looked at the cartoons again I think [actually I've revised what I think - see news just in below]. Any religion that can't handle having caricatures of its famous figures published is being thin-skinned. It is like if a political party could not handle people caricaturing its leader (note: I know a cartoonist who had the state Liberals here ring him up and say "please don't ridicule us so much!")

The hardline Iranian view about inconsistency is bogus. No society supports completely unlimited free speech. There will be the odd idiotic claim to the contrary from leaders but the general picture is that the West claims to be for a relatively large amount of free speech and delivers on it.

bergil
10-02-2006, 12:58 PM
The rest of the site was rather more of a concern in my view. In the guise of humour it's a pretty nasty piece of work.

I'm happy for the cartoons on both sides that are being discussed in the media to be linked to here because there's a major political issue about freedom of speech in relation to them going on there. There is no such issue in relation to what you posted.

Holocaust jokes are in worse taste than NASA crash jokes because it is hardly as if sickos finding NASA crash jokes a little bit too funny will go out and shoot down space shuttles. Holocaust jokes legitimising ethnic vilification is a more serious matter. If you posted links to jokes about paedophilia or racism on the main board and we received complaints, those links would probably go as well.

Well said and more than fair enough. :clap:

WhiteElephant
10-02-2006, 01:12 PM
Completely agree. Well put, Kevin.

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2006, 01:17 PM
This just in: the Egyptian newspaper Al Fagr published the offending pics in October 2005.

Quote from an Iraqi blog:

"You know that those cartoons were published for the 1st time months ago and we here in the Middle East have tonnes of jokes about Allah, the prophets and the angels that are way more offensive, funny and obscene than those poorly-made cartoons, yet no one ever got shot for telling one of those jokes or at least we had never seen rallies and protests against those infidel joke-tellers. " (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/02/time-for-cartoon-post.html)

Another writes "they were actually printed in the Egyptian Newspaper Al Fagr back in October 2005. I repeat, October 2005, during Ramadan, for all the Egyptian Muslim population to see, and not a single squeak of outrage was present. "

and another: "This irrelevant outrage timing is but a sign that this violent response to the cartoons is politically-motivated by Muslim extremists in Europe and the so-called secular governments of the Middle East. I want also to mention that despite the fact that all editors who tried to reprint the cartoons in the Middle East nowadays were arrested, the Egyptian editors went unharmed."

Matt - I see you have crikey.com.au as your website link from this site, but are you a subscriber? I am and that's where I sometimes get stuff like the above from.

PHAT
10-02-2006, 01:33 PM
The rest of the site was rather more of a concern in my view. In the guise of humour it's a pretty nasty piece of work.
So what? Bill Gletsos is a nasty piece of work but you allow him tho post. Your opinion is not relevant.




I'm happy for the cartoons on both sides that are being discussed in the media to be linked to here because there's a major political issue about freedom of speech in relation to them going on there. There is no such issue in relation to what you posted.
Not true, there is relevance. We (the West) give ourselves the nod to throw around anti Muslim stuff but if someone points (posts) to anti jewish stuff , "OMFG! delete delete delete" That, bozo, is a double standard.


Holocaust jokes are in worse taste than NASA crash jokes because it is hardly as if sickos finding NASA crash jokes a little bit too funny will go out and shoot down space shuttles.
So, sex jokes induce rape? Shut up, idiot.


Holocaust jokes legitimising ethnic vilification is a more serious matter.
Does it legitimise? Prove it, or shut up.


If you posted links to jokes about paedophilia or racism on the main board and we received complaints, those links would probably go as well.
I can understand that. However, if there was a discussion re those subjects, then pointing (posting) to one as an example, should be allowed. That is free speech. Deleting the link would be anti free speech.


I'm not fussed about the link being posted in the Coffee Lounge. Others may be.

Is the CL unmoderated or not. As I recall it was this problem that Boy-Own-Mod-Club got rid of Jenni Oliver.


I'm not keen on the latter at all but any religion that can't handle having caricatures of its famous figures published is being thin-skinned.

Jews too about the Holocaust? Don't bother to answer that.:hand: We all know that you will fall into line with the PC set.

PHAT
10-02-2006, 01:36 PM
Well said and more than fair enough. :clap:

Say something useful or shut up.

PHAT
10-02-2006, 01:37 PM
Completely agree. Well put, Kevin.

That's right. Hide behind your ACF attack dog and pat him on the head. :rolleyes:

PHAT
10-02-2006, 01:42 PM
Matt - I see you have crikey.com.au as your website link from this site, but are you a subscriber? I am and that's where I sometimes get stuff like the above from.

I am an irregular reader there and long time admirer of Cricky. I have toyed with the idea of subscribing (subsidising) but I do not read it as much as I should!!:doh:

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2006, 01:48 PM
That's right. Hide behind your ACF attack dog and pat him on the head. :rolleyes:

I don't think the ACF has a position on these cartoons. :D

Alan Shore
10-02-2006, 01:50 PM
I'm thinking Matt should make his own cartoons about the ACF and see what happens, lol.

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2006, 02:11 PM
So what? Bill Gletsos is a nasty piece of work but you allow him tho post.

I don't see Bill making jokes about exterminating other beings. Not even idiotic ones. :D


Not true, there is relevance. We (the West) give ourselves the nod to throw around anti Muslim stuff but if someone points (posts) to anti jewish stuff , "OMFG! delete delete delete" That, bozo, is a double standard.

Completely untrue since links to those anti-jewish items that are currently newsworthy are being allowed.


So, sex jokes induce rape?

I only recall making the point about inducement in relation to NASA jokes. I can think of plenty of reasons to nuke links to paedophile jokes without having to resort to the issue of their influence. In any case the question you should really be asking is: could rape jokes induce sexual harassment? The answer's not an obvious "no". (Please note I'm not supporting a ban on any kind of joke, not even you. I'm just saying that I see no place for offensive jokes on the main board even as links if complaints are received.)


Does it legitimise? Prove it, or shut up.

If you don't think that link you posted is aimed at justifying anti-semitism then your ability to read between the lines is sadly lacking.


I can understand that. However, if there was a discussion re those subjects, then pointing (posting) to one as an example, should be allowed. That is free speech. Deleting the link would be anti free speech.

Again this is a private BB so the only thing that would be anti-free speech here would be censorship of it by the government.


Is the CL unmoderated or not. As I recall it was this problem that Boy-Own-Mod-Club got rid of Jenni Oliver.

You are fibbing here because Jenni clearly stated Bill and I had nothing to do with it and her issue was with the admins. It is still a grey area following that incident and the mods are very reluctant to act preferring to leave any CL modding to the admins until the issue is clarified. I think the site owner has more important things to deal with.


Jews too about the Holocaust? Don't bother to answer that.:hand:

Because if I answer it I will make you look like a twit by pointing out that there is a difference between satirising a religion's prophets and satirising an ethnic group's slaughter? Oh, do remind me not to write any such thing!


We all know that you will fall into line with the PC set.

My opposition to various aspects of PC has been expressed here before and there have been many cases where I have proven you to be more PC than me despite your bluster to the contrary. In fact some of your comments above are pretty close to the line. The republication of the cartoons, which you oppose and I support, was a politically incorrect act without doubt.

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2006, 02:18 PM
I'm thinking Matt should make his own cartoons about the ACF and see what happens, lol.

I'm thinking we should all make cartoons about Matt.

Alan Shore
10-02-2006, 02:47 PM
I'm thinking we should all make cartoons about Matt.

OK, done.

Now we can have a caption contest. :D

PHAT
10-02-2006, 03:17 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I bags being the fat guy in the yellow. The prat in the red shirt is any chess official.

:cool:

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2006, 04:14 PM
Say something useful or shut up.If you followed your own advice you would never post again.

Lucena
18-02-2006, 02:35 PM
Can anyone see some irony here?

bergil
18-02-2006, 11:53 PM
:lol:

antichrist
24-03-2006, 12:59 AM
Can anyone see some irony here?

Yeah, Bobby Fischer has dyed his beard

Nutter
24-03-2006, 09:08 AM
Go to http://timblair.net

After about 6 pages of scrolling down his blogs you get to the cartoons.

:D

No you don't - there is nothing there. Where is the precise webpage?

N
=

pballard
24-03-2006, 09:28 AM
No you don't - there is nothing there. Where is the precise webpage?


Wikipedia is your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_cartoons

qpawn
24-03-2006, 10:37 AM
The cartoons were definitely there when I put the link in about a month ago. I don't know if the link still goes to the cartoons because I have not checked since.

One interesting aspect to the catoons that has been ignored by many commentators is that there is a lot of Arabic writing on them. Since I cannot read arabic I feel some sympathy towards people who oppose their publication; for all I know the meaning might be an offensive translation. But I still believe that they all should have been published.

pballard
24-03-2006, 02:39 PM
One interesting aspect to the catoons that has been ignored by many commentators is that there is a lot of Arabic writing on them. Since I cannot read arabic I feel some sympathy towards people who oppose their publication; for all I know the meaning might be an offensive translation. But I still believe that they all should have been published.

Actually only two have Arabic, but a number have Danish.

The Wikipedia article has English translations of all the text.

Nutter
24-03-2006, 04:13 PM
Wikipedia is your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_cartoons

Its so small that you can't even read it. Come on Qpawn and pballard, refer me to a good website where I can actually read and see the cartoons. :eek:

qpawn
24-03-2006, 05:10 PM
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/media_told/

pballard
24-03-2006, 05:26 PM
Its so small that you can't even read it. Come on Qpawn and pballard, refer me to a good website where I can actually read and see the cartoons. :eek:

Sheesh, do I have to spell everything out? Underneath the picture is a link that says "Larger". Move your mouse over it and click with the left button.

ElevatorEscapee
24-03-2006, 06:13 PM
OK, done.

Now we can have a caption contest. :D
:lol: :lol: :lol:

The gentleman on the left (in the red shirt and wearing the tie) seems to be angrily gesturing to the rotund gentleman on the right (in the yellow), who seems to be pointing at the first gentleman's groin and laughing.

Given the parameters that Matt is the gentleman in the yellow, and the gentleman on the right is a chess official, the best "caption" (actually, rather dialogue) I can come up with is as follows:

Matt: "Ha ha ha! You have a tiny penis!"

Chess Official: (angrily) "Nobody cares what you think! You are banned! Push off!"

Matt: "Yes, but sooner or later I will be back, and you will still have a tiny penis!"

qpawn
24-03-2006, 06:36 PM
:D

I can think of ruder versions that are unprintable here.

Alan Shore
24-03-2006, 07:27 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

The gentleman on the left (in the red shirt and wearing the tie) seems to be angrily gesturing to the rotund gentleman on the right (in the yellow), who seems to be pointing at the first gentleman's groin and laughing.

Given the parameters that Matt is the gentleman in the yellow, and the gentleman on the right is a chess official, the best "caption" (actually, rather dialogue) I can come up with is as follows:

Matt: "Ha ha ha! You have a tiny penis!"

Chess Official: (angrily) "Nobody cares what you think! You are banned! Push off!"

Matt: "Yes, but sooner or later I will be back, and you will still have a tiny penis!"


Well it only took 6 weeks to get a response!

Ah well, it was worthwhile expressing my artistic expertise. ;)

ElevatorEscapee
24-03-2006, 08:32 PM
Well it only took 6 weeks to get a response! Hopefully it was worth waiting for! ;)

You should see how long it takes my opponents to reply to my moves in Chesschat Correspondence Tournament 2...

Actually, I only noticed your post yesterday. In any case, I think the picture is so lifelike that Matt should Photoshop it and use the gentleman wearing yellow as his new avatar. ;)

ElevatorEscapee
24-03-2006, 10:06 PM
Ok, lets try for a caption:

Matt: "I might be banned, but at least I'm not John Howard!" ;)

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2006, 10:58 PM
Ok, lets try for a caption:

Matt: "I might be banned, but at least I'm not John Howard!" ;)Chess Official: "True, you are Mark Latham."

Alan Shore
24-03-2006, 10:59 PM
Chess Official: "True, you are Mark Latham."

Haha, not bad.

antichrist
24-03-2006, 11:03 PM
“All things are subject to interpretation; whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Couldn't it be both like "God is dead" power by Nietzsche and "Neitzsche is Dead" not truth by God.

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2006, 11:03 PM
Haha, not bad.The main difference is no one would pay to read the "Sweeney Diaries".

Lucena
25-03-2006, 07:58 AM
The main difference is no one would pay to read the "Sweeney Diaries".

Speaking of which, I read the Latham Diaries a while back and was surprised that he can get away with writing some of the stuff in there - who's read the book?

Rincewind
25-03-2006, 08:17 AM
Speaking of which, I read the Latham Diaries a while back and was surprised that he can get away with writing some of the stuff in there - who's read the book?

You're joking, right? ;)

ElevatorEscapee
25-03-2006, 12:49 PM
I haven't... I am waiting for it to be reduced tp $4.95 in the bargain bin... I mean, so what if politicians are backstabing party hacks, it's hardly a marvellous revelation now is it? :D

PS Bill, that was a pretty funny caption! :D

Nutter
27-03-2006, 03:00 PM
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/media_told/

You did good QPawn, very good!

qpawn
27-03-2006, 04:05 PM
I delivered on the toons.

muhahahaha!