BBC Exonerates Israel: Death in the MED

[Thor]

Not at all, but Iceland's history is sadly on the side of antisemitism, I figured the modern generations were much less so and I think anyone 40yrs or younger is part of the solution, but our politicians who usually are in their 50+ are often stuck in the past with regards intolerance towards jews.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Here is a link to the pdf of the recent report, and some editorializing by Scott Horton of Harper's.

I won't post the whole thing as people can link through. However, the following excerpt is a nice summary:


"No doubt mistakes have been made at some point, and there is room to quibble over interpretation and application of legal norms to the incident. But complete and utter silence? [with respect to the report; my edit] That sends a clear and unfortunate message about the value assigned to the lives lost."

[Nage Waza]

That report is brutally bad, biased and terribly flawed. Major fail.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

That report is brutally bad, biased and terribly flawed. Major fail.

Absolutely.

One could say you don't even have to read it to know what the findings are!

[Nage Waza]

Honestly, the title alone shows bias: "Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance". Calling the flotilla humanitarian in any way shape or form is a lie and demonstrates the bias of the report. It gets worse and worse as the report goes on. It is completely one sided and purposely tries to blame everything on Israel. The writer makes it sound as if the boat was filled with a bunch of hippies when all of a sudden they got shot. The report is filled with accusations and no evidence. Any evidence provided by Israel (video, radio etc.) is disregarded or 'manipulated'.

It is no wonder much of the free world is sick of the UN and garbage like this.

This so called report is pure garbage and does nothing to help resolve real issues.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Any evidence provided by Israel (video, radio etc.) is disregarded or 'manipulated'.

Just fyi, when placing a word into a quotation, you're telling the reader that it is taken verbatim from the piece in question. However, the word manipulated is not in the entire report.

How did you find it? Or did you mean to quote another word? I'm confused.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

It is no wonder much of the free world is sick of the UN and garbage like this.

You write this but yet much of the free world believes Israel is utterly wrong in its treatment of Palestinians and you reject that notion out of hand.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You write this but yet much of the free world believes Israel is utterly wrong in its treatment of Palestinians and you reject that notion out of hand.

Can you provide more information on how you arrived at this conclusion?

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Just fyi, when placing a word into a quotation, you're telling the reader that it is taken verbatim from the piece in question. However, the word manipulated is not in the entire report.

Wrong. I am the author and I used the single quotation marks as I saw fit. There were several accusations in the document you posted that accused Israel of some type of manipulation. I paraphrased the paragraphs to 'manipulated'. It was more than a fair use of the word. Of course you knew that. Have you now become the resident proof reader?

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You write this but yet much of the free world believes Israel is utterly wrong in its treatment of Palestinians and you reject that notion out of hand.

I doubt they think that. Nice sound bites may protect them from assorted terrorist attacks, but they are doing nothing for the Palestinians. In fact, who else helps besides Israel and the US? At some point you must see what is truly going on.

I thought we were talking about a group of boats trying to break a naval blockade? What does this have to do with Palestinians?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Have you now become the resident proof reader?

Nope.

Unfortunately, I'm just burdened by the English language and admittedly have trouble when people are using their own rules.

But the absolutes in your post came through crystal clear.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Nope.

Unfortunately, I'm just burdened by the English language and admittedly have trouble when people are using their own rules.

But the absolutes in your post came through crystal clear.

To be fair, in North America double quotes (") are used to signify verbatim text and single quotes (') do not imply verbatim but can used to signify a summary or when a word is used out of it's usual context. In verbal conversation, the use of 'air-quotes' frequently correlates to a single quote in text.

My understanding is that in England single quotes are used to designate a verbatim phrase.

From wikipedia:

"To avoid the potential for confusion between ironic quotes and direct quotations, some style guides specify single quotation marks for this usage, and double quotation marks for verbatim speech. Quotes indicating irony, or other special use, are sometimes called scare, sneer, shock, distance, or horror quotes. They are sometimes gestured in oral speech using air quotes."

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by firebug

To be fair, in North America double quotes (") are used to signify verbatim text and single quotes (') do not imply verbatim but can used to signify a summary or when a word is used out of it's usual context. In verbal conversation, the use of 'air-quotes' frequently correlates to a single quote in text.

My understanding is that in England single quotes are used to designate a verbatim phrase.

From wikipedia:

"To avoid the potential for confusion between ironic quotes and direct quotations, some style guides specify single quotation marks for this usage, and double quotation marks for verbatim speech. Quotes indicating irony, or other special use, are sometimes called scare, sneer, shock, distance, or horror quotes. They are sometimes gestured in oral speech using air quotes."

Generally good points. What you'll notice from the wikipedia article is that either are acceptable, and the frequency of one over the other appears regional.

However, I would caution that the excerpt from Wikipedia relates to irony. In other words, if the word is meant to be interpreted with irony in mind, it is placed in single quotes. If we apply the style guide you've noted to nage's post, then we would accept his use of the word manipulated as irony. I sincerely doubt that was the poster's intention. In fact, I'm sure.

Anyways, nage made it clear that he paraphrased his findings from the report. According to the same wiki page, it is inappropriate to use quotation marks around a paraphrased idea:

"This is because a paraphrase is not a direct quote, and in the course of any composition, it is important to document when one is using a quotation versus when one is using a paraphrased idea."


Of course all of this is tangential to the (stunted) discussion at hand. I apologize for the digression.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Generally good points. What you'll notice from the wikipedia article is that either are acceptable, and the frequency of one over the other appears regional.

However, I would caution that the excerpt from Wikipedia relates to irony. In other words, if the word is meant to be interpreted with irony in mind, it is placed in single quotes. If we apply the style guide you've noted to nage's post, then we would accept his use of the word manipulated as irony. I sincerely doubt that was the poster's intention. In fact, I'm sure.

Anyways, nage made it clear that he paraphrased his findings from the report. According to the same wiki page, it is inappropriate to use quotation marks around a paraphrased idea:

"This is because a paraphrase is not a direct quote, and in the course of any composition, it is important to document when one is using a quotation versus when one is using a paraphrased idea."


Of course all of this is tangential to the (stunted) discussion at hand. I apologize for the digression.

iseewhatudidthar - you're putting the focus on a pair of single or double quotes instead of the topic.