'Guardian' omits Israeli nobel winners

[shira]

LONDON - The Guardian was forced to amend an article on past Nobel Peace Prize winners on its Web site on Friday after it omitted the names of Israel's prize winners.

Following the announcement of US President Barack Obama's winning the 2009 prize, an article written by the newspaper's news editor Simon Rogers listed the names of all Nobel Peace prize winners since the awards inception in 1909. However, all of Israel's prize winners - Menachem Begin, Yizhak Rabin and Shimon Peres - were omitted.

In the 1978 entry, Menachem Begin's name was missing, with only Egyptian president Anwar Sadat listed. The same error occurred in the 1994 entry with Yasser Arafat the only entry and Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres missing. The omission led to a number of frenzied entries in the article's comment section. In a statement on Friday, the newspaper blamed the mistake on a "technical issue," saying the names was accidently omitted.

"For the Nobel Peace Prize winners list, we used data from nobelprize.org. However, there was a technical issue during the data transfer from the site, which meant that many of the names of the joint winners of the Nobel Peace Prize were accidentally omitted, although the country of origin of the winners was not. This has now been corrected," a Guardian spokesperson said.

more...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254861912988&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[shira]

1. from CiF Watch

Simon Rogers from the Guardian is arguing over at Harry’s Place that this was a simple mistake:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/10/09/who-is-missing-from-this-list/#comment-396270

The errors happened when we decided to put joint winners in two columns – which is why the country reference survived, but the name didn’t, ie you see “Israel” but not Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. When the table first went up this lunchtime, it also missed out John Raleigh Mott, The Quakers and the League of Red Cross Societies. We assumed all the errors were at the top but unfortunately they weren’t.

Here is my response:

Sorry, don’t buy it.

26 double entries seem to have been logged correctly, including the years directly before and after the Arafat/Rabin/Peres win.

How can you get it right so many times and wrong when Israelis are meant to be listed?

http://cifwatch.com/2009/10/09/guardian-no-israeli-nobel-peace-prize-winners-%e2%80%93-ever/

=========

ETA:

1. A screen capture shows the editor of the Guardian is lying.

2. Arafat didn't represent Palestine in 1994. He represented the PA. The Guardian changed that too while omitting only Israeli winners.

:eyes:

Just par for the course when reporting on Israel.

[shira]

5. CiFWatch: A recap of the past week at the Guardian

http://cifwatch.com/2009/10/10/grauniad-caught-in-a-bald-faced-lie-about-israel-again/

...proving once again it's acceptable to distort the news due to one's political views. They have the "right" to lie, change facts, and report selectively and they know they'll get away with it.

This, of course, applies to the Goldstone Report as well.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. What's with the urge to post a link to a bunch of whinging lunatics?

Anything with the word 'watch' in it is a pretty sure sign that it's going to be little but a bunch of obsessive raving about how nasty and horrible anyone who doesn't agree with the obsessees are. Not sure why you think anyone here wants to read that idiotic crap where a bunch of people who post at the Guardian sit and bitch about other people who post at the Guardian. They should grow the fuck up and get over themselves. If I want to read what's going on over at The Guardian, I'll go read the Guardian and not some idiotic blog that some moron's set up to whine about The Guardian...

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

11. What is your opinion of Human Rights Watch?

Do you think they are a "bunch of obsessives raving about how nasty and horrible anyone who doesn't agree with the obsessees are" or are they an exception?

I've not found that the word "watch" is indicative of the kind of group you describe. I would argue that Human Rights Watch certainly does not fit that bill.

If folks see something as problematic and want to start a group to address the problem, I say, more power to them.

There are many sites out there (Media Matters, News Hounds, etc) who exist to point out the hypocrisy and/or factually challenged content of various news outlets (i.e. Fox News).

Your criticism of this CIF watch group (which I have never heard of until this post) reminds me of the criticism from folks like Bill O'Reilly of sites like Media Matters that he accuses of being "obsessed" with him when really they are just holding him accountable for what he himself says and does and, in my mind, provide a very valuable service in that regard.

[LeftishBrit]

13. I am somewhat familiar with CIF Watch

They sometimes have a good point, but sometimes IMO fail to distinguish between demonization or inaccuracy in criticizing Israel, and genuine criticism. They also undermine their case by their frequent use of emotive terms like 'diabolic'. I do realize that I probably use similar emotive terms for RW media and journalists (incidentally, there is also a 'MailWatch' dealing with the diabolic Daily Mail).

[oberliner]

15. The CiF concept is fascinating to me

The talkbacks seem a tad more rigorous there than at other news/opinion web sites.

I would note that the name of the site comes from the quote:

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred"

I don't know the story behind the CiF Watch folks but I kind of think that I would support any site that wants to take a look at a major news outlets biases, be they pro/anti Israel or anything else.

There is a site called NewsHounds for instance that picks apart Fox News. Also, Media Matters devotes itself to looking critically at an assortment of generally RW sources and opinion writers/talk show hosts.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Sometimes?

If they make a good point once every now and again, it's drowned out by the shrieking and attacks on other CiF posters. They don't just sometimes fail to distinguish between antisemitism and genuine criticism - it's a regular thing.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Why ask when my opinion is very clear...

I've voiced my opinion many times and even you wouldn't have missed it, so why ask questions you already know the answer to?

I would have thought people with a genuine interest in what I had to say would have realised I'm talking about the many internet blog-style 'watch' things set up to complain about other sites, but I see I should have been crystal clear....

I'm not at all sure why after admitting you hadn't even seen CiF Watch, you then move on to defend it by telling me my criticism reminds you of Bill O'Reilly. Wouldn't it help to actually look at what yr rushing to defend before doing so? Unlike you, I have read the site, my criticism is very valid, and I have no time for sites that exist to attack other posters on forums because they're not allowed to use the forum itself to attack the people they disagree with....

on edit: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you clearly have some emotional investment in this as I find it strange that you'd compare my criticisms to that of a RW shill without even having visited the site before, so I just thought I'd show you some more folk who if they weren't 'pro-Israel', you'd be just as damning of as you were of my criticism of CiFWatch. This thread is from Harry's Place on the launch of CiFWatch:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/08/24/cif-watch-website-launched-to-combat-antisemitism-on-the-guardian-newspaper%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98comment-is-free%E2%80%99-blog/

[oberliner]

40. I have no emotional investment in CiF Watch

I am just not predisposed to dismiss things that have "watch" in their title.

I guess I asked the question about your opinion of Human Rights Watch as a means of suggesting that you also do not necessarily dismiss a group because they have "watch" in the title, as I know you are not dismissive of HRW. Thus, I was attempting to make a rhetorical point by asking a question whose answer is already known.

I think internet sites that shine a critical light on other news sources (especially mainstream ones) are valuable regardless of whether or not I agree with their POV.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Then I find the desire to defend something you'd never seen rather bizarre...

My suggestion is before you go any further that you take the time to read the site yr defending, and then come back. Yr last sentence is quite ridiculous considering you hadn't even looked at what you were talking about.

Also, my apologies for not being clear and making the mistake of thinking you'd be able to discern the difference between HRW and a bunch of anonymous bloggers on their own blog....

[shira]

60. is it criticism against CiF that irritates you or the manner in which CW does it?

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Neither, which you'd know if you'd read my posts n/t

[oberliner]

63. Your comment was directed at "anything with the word 'watch' in it"

That suggests to me that it is not I who cannot discern the difference between HRW and a bunch of anonymous bloggers, but rather you.

Just because something has the word 'watch' in its title does not mean that it is the kind of organization you described.

I would offer not only Human Rights Watch but also Muzzlewatch as another site you may support that has "watch" in its title.

Having looked at the CiF website since our last exchange, my opinion about its existence remains unchanged.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. I also said 'pretty sure sign' and assumed I wasn't going to be taken literally...

I've already apologised for making the assumption that you could discern the difference between HRW and a bunch of abusive internet bloggers,, so I'm not sure what else you want. I did not mean for you to take it so damn literally, and I've already said that as well, so I'm not at all sure why yr still going on...

I had no doubts that you'd have no problems with a blog set up by 'pro-Israelis' that abuses other posters at another site and claims that criticism of the separation barrier is antisemitic.....

[oberliner]

69. I've got no problems with lots of blogs that I disagree with

I'm one of those wacky Americans who is really keen on free speech!

The more we can mix it up with one another, the better.

It's even more of a challenge when those with whom we disagree approach the topic with a lack of courtesy, but I certainly welcome any and all comers!

[Violet_Crumble]

73. It's got nothing to do with freedom of speech

I don't recall saying it should be shut down, so I'm not sure why you brought up freedom of speech. There's plenty of blogs I disagree with that I don't have a problem with, but the difference between those and the blog you've been defending is that the former don't use theirs as a platform to abuse other posters at another site. I'm at a loss as to why you'd find that sort of behaviour valuable in any way.

the people at cifwatch don't want to mix it civilly with those they disagree with - even a quick read of what they say makes that clear. When it comes to yr welcoming all takers, I would suggest that the best way to get civil discussion going yr way is to ensure you don't attack other posters and that you yrself are civil.

[oberliner]

74. That blog looks like mixed bag

But the same can be said for a lot of blogs.

The "comment" section can get ugly even on the most progressive of blogs.

[Violet_Crumble]

82. Yeah, a mixed bag of attacks on other posters and kneejerk accusations of antisemitism n/t

[IndianaGreen]

18. Because some of our pro-Israel posters are whinging lunatics

and perhaps even tea baggers and birthers to boot!

[oberliner]

19. That's sort of McCarthy-esque

Accusing posters here of being "tea baggers" and "birthers" is really beyond the pale.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Shall I mention one or two rightwing websites where they also post?

Are you blissfully unaware of what their actual political views are?

[LeftishBrit]

26. +1

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Why haven't you ever said anything when pro-Israeli posters say similar things? n/t

[oberliner]

41. This comment was a direct reference to a previous exchange with this particular poster

This poster had called me a McCarthy-ite in another thread so I thought this comment deserved a similar rebuke.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Sorry, I didn't realise it was just some silly tit-for-tat thing.... n/t

[oberliner]

64. Sort of like refusing to answer questions because one is still upset about a week-old post

Occasionally folks can be a tad childish around here, myself included.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. That's not it at all...

I'm not under any obligation to answer any of the questions you fire at me, and there's nothing childish about being offended at the way I was attacked in that other thread, especially since there's been no apology for it. I have no problems at all with answering questions from people I have some respect for and who I believe are sincere and not prone to attacking me. Those who attack me for such petty things as my wording in a post aren't numbered amongst them....

[Jim Sagle]

21. And some of our anti-Israel posters are Ku Klux organizers.

I heard it in the alley on a weird radio. ';)

[IndianaGreen]

25. To tell the truth, which is a rare commodity in I/P forum

there are extremists on both sides. Racism is an equal opportunity factor in here.

The one thing that remains unsaid is the role that Saudi Arabia plays in financing and propagating their Wahhabi ideology by means of a global network of madrassas. They are training future anti-Semites, misogynists and homophobes.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. The partisan types on either side don't see it's on both sides, though n/t

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

23. I am sure you prefer one of Murdoch's rags

Did you ever get your autograph photo of Judith Miller?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

35. I see my reply was deleted. Mercifully, the mods spared us of that gruesome image.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[LeftishBrit]

28. And that is the equivalent of the stereotypes about Zionists all supporting the war, etc

The Guardian isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than most other British media, or, from what I can gather, American media.

You bet I will defend it against most of the alternatives.

Even 'CIFWatch' are not attacking everything about the Guardian, but specifically its 'Comment is Free' section.

[Jim Sagle]

30. Hey, a little hyperbole now and then never hurts, does it?

;)

[shira]

27. funny how 'critics' like yourself cannot stand criticism against your own 'trusted' sources of info

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Funny how you don't seem to have bothered reading what I said in my post...

Instead you disregard everything I said and act as though I'm you when you reply. So, here's what I said again. This time, read it:

'What's with the urge to post a link to a bunch of whinging lunatics?
Anything with the word 'watch' in it is a pretty sure sign that it's going to be little but a bunch of obsessive raving about how nasty and horrible anyone who doesn't agree with the obsessees are. Not sure why you think anyone here wants to read that idiotic crap where a bunch of people who post at the Guardian sit and bitch about other people who post at the Guardian. They should grow the fuck up and get over themselves. If I want to read what's going on over at The Guardian, I'll go read the Guardian and not some idiotic blog that some moron's set up to whine about The Guardian...

[shira]

39. i read it and responded in #10 but that was deleted

1. The fact is that CiFWatch is right - and the guardian editor was exposed for lying. A screen capture of their original piece proves it.

2. What is "whinging"? Is that whining?

3. As for CiFWatch, I'm with Oberliner on this one and welcome any committee dedicated to pointing out bias or substandard reporting in all media, whether it's the Guardian or FOX news. I would think that any liberal would appreciate organizations keeping others honest. Facts, honesty, and accuracy mean a lot to some people and should be cherished by all liberals.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. It'd help if you addressed what I said then

If yr going to post about the previous week at the guardian, it'd make sense to link to the guardian and not to a bunch of disenchanted twits who devote their time to sitting on a blog and flinging abuse at cif posters. I for one aren't the slightest bit interested in that sort of petty and juvenile bullshit especially as there's a similar bunch of disenchanted twits on another forum who do the same to du and duers as this bunch you link to. While that sort of gutter behaviour might be seen as worthwhile by you and oberliner, I'm not sure why anyone thinks that sort of Internet mudflinging is valuable in any way

[shira]

43. it's not about juvenile bullshit and mudslinging gutter behavior at CW...

...they're exposing hate and bigotry - demonization - disguised as mere 'criticism'.

How can you have a problem with that?

Suppose RW writers on their hate sites are posing as concerned beacons of light subtly demonizing Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims in the form of mere 'criticism'. Suppose their hate is very influential. You'd be against a 'watch' site like CW doing the same to them?

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Well, yeah. It is about juvenile bullshit and mudslinging gutter behaviour...

Not sure how else the attacks on other posters at CiF could be described. Worthwhile? Valuable discussion? The hate being shown over there is the hate of those folk for anyone who doesn't see things their way....

[shira]

70. the criticism at CW is for those who irrationally demonize and play loose with the facts

[Violet_Crumble]

75. Since when has abuse and personal attacks been criticism? n/t

[shira]

76. can you provide an example of CW abuse or personal attacks?

[Violet_Crumble]

77. Why? I thought you were familiar with that blog

I can only assume you have a very different idea of what abuse is than most other people do

[shira]

78. you make the claim - you prove it

[Violet_Crumble]

81. To you? I'm not the slightest bit interested in trying to prove anything to someone like you n/t

[shira]

84. why claim CW personally attacks and abuses others when you have no proof of it?

[Violet_Crumble]

85. I didn't say I didn't have proof. I said I wasn't interested in trying to prove anything to you n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. This is total, utter, disingenuous, dishonest, offensive, wicked nonsense.

That anyone can possibly believe or claim that this was anything other than an honest mistake is laughable.

Anyone who claims otherwise has, pretty much ipse facto, demonstrated that they are more interested in demonisiting legitimate criticism of Israel than in factual accuracy.

If the Guardian had been deliberately ommitting Israel Nobel Prize winners, they would not have listed "Israel" in the "countries" column - something that the OP conveniently omits to mention that they did - and they would not have omitted the othe winners. To suggest that they did so simply as a way of covering their tracks while ommiting Israeli winners is to demonstrate a degree of bias and lack of grasp of the facts so total as to essentially render everything one has to say worthless.

What the hell do you think the Guardian would have been trying to achieve? Are you really accusing them of believing that they would do more good than harm for the anti-Israel crusade you claim they're on in this way?

So, no, the Guardian hasn't been "caught lying"; Shira has.

[shira]

24. no, it's a fact

1. A captured screen shot exists of what the Guardian originally put up.

2. They omitted the Israeli Nobel winners and no one else, despite what the lying editor claims (it's on the captured screen shot).

3. They changed PA to Palestine for Arafat's prize.

4. These are the only changes they made from the Nobel website they cut-pasted from.

5. It was no accident.

6. It's not surprising you believe the Guardian b/c you also believe the Goldstone Report to be as credible and honest. Ironic how you call this legitimate criticism of the Guardian or Goldstone "demonization".

[FarrenH]

44. Curiously enough, the screen capture DOESN'T show that the editor was lying

Or maybe not so curiously. It is, after all shira who's interpreting the data.

[shira]

48. here you go...

http://dayvidsaffer.com/2009/10/09/guardian-no-israeli-nobel-peace-prize-winners-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-55

[virgogal]

2. Why do I not believe their weak excuse? Ridiculous.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Not sure why you think it's a weak excuse, nor why you don't believe it...

I'mn sure if it was interesting enough, you'd have explained already. I'm not even sure why this thing is newsworthy or why anyone would get their knickers in a knot about it...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Easy - because you're more interested in demonising Israel's critics than in the truth. N.T.

[imdjh]

3. I assume this means we will see no more Guardian articles on Israel issues. nt

[Alamuti Lotus]

4. More likely we will see them endlessly, just to prove how irrelevant they are

The Guardian beware, thy ass is about to be Goldstoned! BAM! :eyes:

[Scurrilous]

6. JPost headline neglects to capitalize 'Nobel.'

What's up with that?

Are they trying to belittle Obama's prize?

Call Congress RIGHT NOW!!1!

[Violet_Crumble]

9. 'Guardian' has done a piss-weak job in trying to destroy Israel!

It's not good enough losing a column of a table and thus the names of joint winners. In order to drive Israel to its knees and threaten its existance, they needed to lose the column where the country name appears! Curses! Now we're going to have to wait till next week to see what other dastardly tricks 'Guardian' has up its sleeve that could destroy Israel!

What I want to know is how damaging will it be to Israel once JPosts Australian 'correspondent' discovers that I mistakenly turned the little Israeli flag upside down when I was once helping get an international delegations visit set up? Like, our flag upside down is a sign of distress, but maybe an upside down Israeli flag means 'Watch it! I'm about to drop some white phosphorous on you!' ;)

[LeftishBrit]

12. Note that the Guardian is sometimes known as the Grauniad because of its many mistakes and typos

I am prepared to beleive that this was a genuine (though careless) mistake.

Even if it did involve an anti-Israel employee, that does not mean that it is editorial policy.

[shira]

14. it did involve an anti-Israel employee and the Guardian editor was caught lying trying to cover up

There's a screen capture of the original page at the Guardian which exposes everything.

I don't know why you give the Guardian credit for an honest or genuine mistake.

[FarrenH]

45. Again, the screen grabs do not show the editor was lying

But its amusing watching you demonstrate your capacity for mixing up "truth", "fact", "proof", "conjecture" and "belief"

I'm waiting to see how long it takes you to figure out how both the screen captures you posted and the editors statements can both be true at the same time, so that it cannot be said the editor was "proved" to be lying. I would tell you, but I enjoy watching you expose the weakness of your reasoning where you favourite cause is concerned.

[shira]

47. the entire screen capture....

http://dayvidsaffer.com/2009/10/09/guardian-no-israeli-nobel-peace-prize-winners-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-55

...unlike what the Guardian editor claims, everyone is on the list except the Israeli winners....go figure.

:eyes:

[FarrenH]

52. Fair enough

My sarcasm and shadenfreude was unwarranted. I apologise for unfairly impugning your reasoning.

I was going on the first link you posted, which showed only a partial screenshot.

[azurnoir]

46. Shira its time you ask yourself

which appears worse a publication or organization making a mistake and then correcting that mistake usually with an apology or the ones who were wronged not accepting that correction and apology and still shrieking and pointing the finger? This has been a pattern among the so called Pro-Israel set any mistake is clutched on to in an almost desperate manor no matter how many retraction or corrections are made, there is such a thing as having the grace to accept an apology something that seems totally lacking here

[shira]

49. check out post #47 or #48 for the entire screen capture - the Guardian editor lied

deal with it.

[azurnoir]

50. I already have and as you have been told repeatedly

they prove nothing except a mistake was made and corrected

[shira]

51. the screen shot proves the Guardian Editor lied....he claimed other omissions besides Israelis

[azurnoir]

53. Its been corrected but that doesn;t matter to you

does it? Nope the offense the outrage the oh poor us that's what really counts as to corrections and apologies why bother except if one really wants to make the again so called Pro-Israel set look bad that's the thing to do cause you'll continue with accusations and that is what will be remembered in the lung run in other words you'll do it to yourselves

[shira]

54. it doesn't matter that these games are played at the Guardian and then deceitfully covered up?

well, obviously not - since you don't have a problem with the games and deceit associated with the silly Goldstone Report....and that hasn't been corrected either with any apologies, so it's not like retractions matter to you - only demonization.

anything goes against Israel, correct?

[azurnoir]

57. It was hardly covred up it was published

quite frankly your assertions are false and I would hardly think the Guardian so foolish as self appointed "ProIsrael" watch dogs are everywhere ready to pounce at any slight; the Guardian corrected its mistake and that is that story over

[shira]

59. the Guardian editor didn't have to lie about other omissions and that doesn't bother you

and Guardian editors let mistakes that pro-Israel "watchdogs" like CW catch all the time, like this one in which Gaza is Israeli-occupied (Goldstone 'errs' like this too)...
http://cifwatch.com/2009/10/10/grauniad-caught-in-a-bald-faced-lie-about-israel-again/

here's the actual article...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/09/nobel-peace-prize-winners-barack-obama

FTR, Gaza hasn't been occupied in 4 years, and if it were occupied Israel would be under International obligation to restore law and order there, eliminate weapon smuggling, tunnels, etc.

And to their credit, the Guardian changed "occupied" to "blockaded". That makes them better than Goldstone at least. :)

It's just amazing how many times a trusted news source has to be 'corrected', hmm?

[azurnoir]

65. Just not getting it are you?

but that's ok "outrage" seems to be your stock and trade these days, the only problem is such things tend to suffer from the "chicken little" syndrome and once again if this gets any more attention the reaction rather than what is being reacted to will be the focus sort of like the Aftonbladet story

[shira]

71. oh, I get it alright

you believe anything goes against Israel, facts be damned.

[azurnoir]

79. Thanks for that answer n/t

[IndianaGreen]

66. Who cares what you people think?

The day you all come out of that self-made cocoon of denial and accept that a Palestinian state has as much right to exist as Israel does, with East Jerusalem as its capital, that's the day you regain some credibility.

[shira]

72. you have no idea what we think

...if you believe we don't accept a future Palestinian state.

The question is whether Israel is supposed to be suicidal to the point of sacrificing its security for it or not.

Some people learn and adapt to historical failures like the Gaza and Lebanon pullouts and see that the time isn't yet right to pull out of the W.Bank.

[proteus_lives]

83. I'm pro-Israel and I want a Palestinian state.

But you're right, Israel should not have to commit suicide to ensure that state's birth.

They follow Israel around with a knife called "indefensible borders" and keep asking, "Why wouldn't you stab yourself?"

[Violet_Crumble]

34. 'Anti-Israel'?

I've noticed that you use that term a fair bit and I'm wondering why when the use of the term 'anti-Israel' is like calling someone 'anti-American'. Do you also call people 'anti-Palestinian'?

on edit: I've made similar careless mistakes before when publishing documents at work, and when it comes to copying and pasting tables, the gremlims get really busy and I've lost chunks of table before and not realised until the person who wanted it published notices and lets me know. The most recent has been a table that appeared properly on the live site, but when it was printed out, half the table had vanished. I'm just relieved there's no pro-boring-information gangs out there ready to pounce and accuse me of being anti-boring-information! ;)

[LeftishBrit]

38. Yes, I do call plenty of people and organizations anti-Palestinian.

E.g. many current Israeli government members; journalists such as Melanie Phillips and Daniel Pipes; etc.


I don't call people anti-Israel or anti-Palestinian for criticizing the leadership and policies of either; but if it extends to global negativity to the citizens of either - 'Let's not admit that Israelis have won Nobel prizes'; 'Israelis are supremacist and think they're 'chosen people' who have the right to do as they wish'; 'Palestinians have a culture of death'; 'Palestinians have no real achievements; why don't they pull themselves up by their bootstraps' - then such phrases are justified.

ETA: after some of the mistakes I've seen on the part of various organizations from my bank to the university admin (for a while the latter treated me as two people, equivalent to 'Leftish Brit' and 'Leftish (middlename) Brit' and as a result my pay was delayed for a couple of months!), I can believe ANY sort of mistake!

[Violet_Crumble]

61. I think I call the type of people you described bigots...

If I'm feeling a bit energetic, I might go those extra few keystrokes and call them bigoted wankers. I've never as far as I can recall used the term *anti-(insert country here)* for anything, and I guess that's coz it's association for me is to a forum a few years back where there were lots of RW Americans throwing 'anti-American!' round at anyone who dared to criticise the US....

I've got to admit I'm a bit lost as to the logic behind anyone thinking that the Nobel table thing wasn't a mistake. I mean, what would the purpose be and what would be hoped to be achieved and why? I'm sure if people with too much time on their hands put their minds to it, they could look at a few of the mistakes I've managed to publish on the work website and come up with some malevolent motive for me doing it, and it'd probably make no sense to anyone but themselves...