I thought I'd say something, but then I thought better of it: What's the use, it's not like you'll listen.
It's not as if you actually do the research, or write things like: I didn't do the research, and this looks strange to me. What do you think?
It looks like you just write in the spur of the moment, spewing whatever undigested idea you had onto your blog. Why should I invest in writing a long coherent argument if the next time you'd just do it again? I give up.
-- Arik
Zhasper
· 2 years ago
So umm... there's also the angle that the Euro is now seen, even by your "allies", as being a more valuable, more stable, more powerful currency than your own dollar. Shouldn't you be mored worried about fixing your broken currency? Getting upset over the objective assesments of your nations health would be like complaining about the "insult" when your doctor tells you you have syphilis.
Zhasper
· 2 years ago
Oh and, about what Arik said? Keep spewing undigested ideas at me, please. I like getting an insight into what people think. You can always give a follow-up post later if you change your mind/get new information/gain new insights :)
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
@Arik,
You're right; it WAS emotional, but it was meant to be. My stating my position in such a way IS my attempt to illicit other opinions. But you're right; it appears as if I'm already closed off, which I'm not.
Never forget that I'm ALWAYS open to another view. I have many Israeli friends and have defended Israel idealogically for DECADES. I'm not some typical "hate-Israel" guy. I've got another post coming that describes my cognitive dissonance on the issue.
So yes, please, by all means, let's hear what you have to say.
calmative effect
· 2 years ago
...ehm... isn't the original blog entry tagged as "satire" and "gotcha"?
Mike Seth
· 2 years ago
You god damn lazy troll, it's a JOKE. JOKE. GET IT? A JOKE.
alexkreuz
· 2 years ago
If you ask me, given a hypothetic situation like that I would definitely fault Israel. The money we give them are "grants" not "loans". Given that its a grant I would hope that the beneficiary does not try to negotiate the terms even further.
Don't complain about a free meal I always say.
Stormcrow
· 2 years ago
Dan, you should spend some time examining last summer's South Lebanon War. In detail.
Bottom line: The IDF committed just about every mistake in the book. Then they found a new book full of new mistakes, so they could screw up in ways they had never before considered.
One of the less-reported howlers was this one .. Hezbollah cracked the code. Much is made in that article about Iranian technical assistance. What the authors miss is the fact that in order for Hezbollah to break Israeli crypto in the first place, frequency-hopping or no frequency hopping, the failure of Israeli communications security had to be driven by systemic incompetence.
This is what comes of listening to your own propaganda for the last 40 years. It's also what come of making an air force braggart your army's chief of staff.
Forty years ago, the Israelis had the only army on the planet that was able to effectively engage in third generation war. No longer.
arikb
· 2 years ago
@Zhasper,
It's not the undigested opinions that matter to me; it's Daniel's constant attempts at using them to elicit responses from people. That's emotional manipulation. It's not - "here is what I think, what do you think?" - it's "this is the way it is, so there, in your face". Daniel has admitted in the past to using these tactics to elicit responses, and I just don't think it's fair.
Reading this post I was going in my mind - who does this guy think he is, an impromptu expert on international relations? - and then it dawned on me that this is yet another attempt at manipulation, so I abandoned my attempts at phrasing a proper response, and responded like I did. I then proceeded to unsubscribe from the RSS feed.
I only came back now because I got an email from Daniel, to the email address I left in my comment, saying he responded.
@Daniel,
I'm sorry but I will not relate to the contents of your message, joke or no joke. I have told you in the past that I dislike the way you elicit responses from people, but I kept playing the game. This time I think you overdid it, for me.
As an Israeli, it kinda caught my eye having a huge Israeli flag in my blogroll. Then I read your post, and I got angry there for a few seconds. Yes, you hit a nerve in a subject I am emotional about. It's not the first time.
But I have put a stop to it, and unsubscribed from your feed. NOT because you're either pro or anti Israel or whatever. Hey, I can hold my own in a discussion about subjects I'm passionate about. It's because you're using (maybe unwittingly but I don't think so) the emotions of people reading your blog to elicit a response; and I had had enough of that.
Regarding the joke issue - I don't care that it was a joke. I don't care if you like or dislike Israel, I don't care if you have Israeli friends or if you like the war stories or appreciate the Mossad. Joke or not, your way of having an argument is not to my liking; So, I can either cope or disengage. Is staying subscribed valuable enough for me to cope? I don't think so.
I wasn't going to persist in persuading you to do otherwise, because my previous attempts have failed. I was going to just silently disappear. This very comment was caused only by your email. contemplated writing all that in a private message, but since the content of your email was simply "I responded to your comment" - I assumed you want to take it out in this public forum.
Take care,
-- Arik
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
On Sep 24, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Arik wrote:
It's not the undigested opinions that matter to me; it's Daniel's constant attempts at using them to elicit responses from people. That's emotional manipulation. It's not - "here is what I think, what do you think?" - it's "this is the way it is, so there, in your face". Daniel has admitted in the past to using these tactics to elicit responses, and I just don't think it's fair.
Trying to illicit responses from people? I suppose that's true to some degree (I mean that's what all writers do), but not in the sense that I think you're stating it. I think what you're meaning is that I have no interest in discussion -- that all I am trying to do is run in make some outlandish statement, cause a ruckus, and then ignore what people say about it.
This is flatly wrong, and if you feel that way then you're either not paying close attention or I have a MAJOR disconnect in my presentation.
I assumed it was obvious that when you see emotion that I've written it's because I AM GENUINELY FEELING THAT EMOTION. I don't contrive things in order to play with people. I don't OVER emphasize the emotion in what I write in order to rile people up. That's not what I do.
What I'm trying to do is be emotive. I'm trying to convey my passion for these various topics. But it's not an attempt to shake people up so that we can proceed NOT to have a conversation. The ENTIRE purpose of all of this is to learn. But that has to start with me showing how I feel about things. Not just how I think about it, but how I feel about it.
Again, you're confusing this with being sure or closed on the issues. I'm not. I WANT to be shown different. Why? Because I want to know the actual truth of the matter. That's all I care about. I not only feel passionate about knowing the truth, but also about the fact that people don't seem to be paying attention. So when people ask my opinion on something I want to present the best possible opinion on the issue. Something that's been hashed to and fro by the best on all sides.
And that starts with HAVING a view and being willing to express it. I do so with a lot of force, which I think is fine and want to continue doing. What I want to STOP doing is being sloppy with my writing in terms of going off of poor information. But the emotional part is just part of how I write.
But let's be clear here: my intention is to illustrate MY emotion as a BEGINNING for a debate -- NOT to get someone else emotional in order to end END the debate. Honestly. This is truly the case.
Reading this post I was going in my mind - who does this guy think he is, an impromptu expert on international relations? - and then it dawned on me that this is yet another attempt at manipulation, so I abandoned my attempts at phrasing a proper response, and responded like I did. I then proceeded to unsubscribe from the RSS feed.
Manipulation? I just don't see it, Arik. I don't see what you're seeing.
I am voicing the opinion that the U.S. is lame and weak with respect to the relationship with Israel. I am voicing the opinion that Israel's intelligence agency has inroads into OUR affairs while we have little or none into theirs. I am saying that we are the inferior in the relationship and that this bothers me.
I was saying that the currency issue of asking for money from the U.S. to come in another form of currency could easily be taken as a sign of disrespect. I think we all agree that people deciding not to use the dollar is bad for the dollar. This can be seen from Iran's insistence on being paid in Euros for oil. That is an attack designed to further lessen the power of the currency.
All I was saying is that if Israel asks that the U.S. not give Israel U.S. dollars it constitutes the same sort of attack. It's making a concession that the U.S. currency IS failing, and proceeding to do nothing to help, but rather exacerbating the problem by rejecting the dollar as well.
That's the point.
The thoughts on our inferior position come from nearly 20 years of observation. Does that make it so? No, of course not. That's just my current view. I want someone to change my mind. I have these same debates with my Palestinian friend -- explaining why I think Israel is right do do x, or to do y when he says it's not.
ALL I CARE ABOUT IS MATCHING MY UNDERSTANDING TO REALITY
I seek people who can show me that reality. And when I write or debate, I am passionately putting MY CURRENT VIEW forward, waiting to be shown that it's not accurate. I embrace the fact that I may be wrong. It's happened many times before and will no doubt continue to happen.
But EVERY TIME I'M WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING MY VIEW OF THE WORLD IMPROVES.
This is my approach. This is why I write. I'm either going to teach or I'm going to learn, or something in between. It's nothing but positive to me, this dialogue. That's my position on my argument style.
---
As for the personal side, Arik, that's another matter.
I have offended you and I am deeply sorry for that. I apologize to you now, openly and freely. This was NOT my intention. I do not seek to emotionally manipulate or push people for the sake of it. This could not be farther from the truth.
As an Israeli, it kinda caught my eye having a huge Israeli flag in my blogroll. Then I read your post, and I got angry there for a few seconds. Yes, you hit a nerve in a subject I am emotional about. It's not the first time.
But I have put a stop to it, and unsubscribed from your feed. NOT because you're either pro or anti Israel or whatever. Hey, I can hold my own in a discussion about subjects I'm passionate about. It's because you're using (maybe unwittingly but I don't think so) the emotions of people reading your blog to elicit a response; and I had had enough of that.
Again, see above. I am NOT writing in order to make people emotional so that they'll comment. That's called trolling, and it means that discussion isn't even a point of interest. It means that the ONLY point of a post is the original post, and after that the poster just sits back and watches people freak out.
I don't do this. Again, see above.
I think you're coming to the conclusion that I have not learned anything because I continue to post in a forward and emotional way. To you this seems to mean that I don't want to discuss the topic -- hence you feel I'm not learning from your advice.
But that's just it. I AM open to discussion. I think about our moral relativism discussion often, and constantly recheck my own opinion on the matter.
Regarding the joke issue - I don't care that it was a joke.
Let's be clear -- I wasn't joking. The claim is that the original post about what Israel's spokesperson said was a joke. I still maintain my same position regarding how I would feel if Israel WERE to say what was said.
And I want to talk about it.
Joke or not, your way of having an argument is not to my liking; So, I can either cope or disengage. Is staying subscribed valuable enough for me to cope? I don't think so.
Again, I wasn't joking. I would never be that passionate and say such things in a joking manner. That would be...err, I don't know what it would be, but it wouldn't be my style.
I wasn't going to persist in persuading you to do otherwise, because my previous attempts have failed. I was going to just silently disappear. This very comment was caused only by your email. contemplated writing all that in a private message, but since the content of your email was simply "I responded to your comment" - I assumed you want to take it out in this public forum.
No, I didn't, but now that it's here I'm not going to delete it. I'll be writing you separately offline, however.
I just wanted to clarify my positions on these matters.
And just for the record, I most definitely do NOT want to see you go. You consistently challenge me on a number of issues, which I totally appreciate. I value your input greatly as it gives me a different perspective on things.
Perhaps I have done a better job above of describing why I write the way I do, and hopefully you'll see that the malicious intent that you seem to detect simply is not there. I truly hope that you reconsider your decision to leave.
CHILDREN MUST BE INCULCATED AS TO THE BENEFITS OF MASTURBATION IN THE ATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF A HEALTHY MIND AND A HEALTHY BODY! PENT UP SEXUAL FRUSTRATION IN CHILDREN HAS NEVER BEEN HONESTLY AND ADEQUATELY DISCUSSED AND DEALT WITH IN JEWISH DISCOURSE AND DOCTRINE. MODERN LIFESTYLES AFFORD INDIVIDUALS THE PRIVACY AND HYGIENIC FACILITIES NECESSARY TO MASTURBATE IN A PRIVATE, DIGNIFIED AND SANITARY MANNER. ONE CAN WELL UNDERSTAND THE IRE THAT WAS AROUSED BY MASTURBATING INDIVIDUALS FOUR THOUSAND YEARS AGO WHEN AN ENTIRE LARGE FAMILY LIVED TOGETHER IN A TENT IN AN ARID LOCATION. NOBODY WANTED TO HAVE A WAD OF FLYING JISSUM HIT HIM IN THE EYE OR LAND IN HIS HUMUS. WATER WAS SCARCE AND ONE HAD TO WALK , SOMETIMES LONG DISTANCES, TO THE WELL TO GET IT, IF IT WAS AVAILABLE AT ALL. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS A CHOICE OF WATER FOR DRINKING OR WATER FOR WASHING EJACULATE OFF OF ONE’S HANDS. THIS IS WHY THE EARLY SAGES WERE SO VOCIFEROUS IN THEIR CONDEMNATION OF MASTURBATION. WE JEWISH PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A HORNY BUNCH AND, IF THERE WEREN'T THESE SEVERE STRICTURES AGAINST MASTURBATION AT THAT TIME, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ERRANT CUMSTAINS ALL OVER THE PLACE AND THE SMELL OF FRESHLY RELEASED JISSUM WOULD HAVE WAFTED FAR AND WIDE, EVEN WITHIN THE HALLOWED HALLWAYS OF THE SACRED TEMPLE ITSELF. TIMES HAVE CHANGED. IF PARENTS TODAY STRESS THE BENEFITS OF MASTURBATION TO THEIR CHILDREN, THEY WILL HELP LESSEN THE OCCURRENCE OF STDs, AND UNPLANNED PREGNANCIES. SCHOLARSHIP LEVELS WOULD INCREASE DRAMATICALLY WITH THE RELEASE OF PENT UP ADOLESCENT EJACULATORY TENSION.. IF NECESSARY, PARENTS SHOULD SET AN EXAMPLE FOR THEIR CHILDREN AS TO THE PROPER METHODOLOGY FOR THIS ACTIVITY AND FOLLOW UP AND MAKE SURE THAT THEIR CHILDREN ARE MASTURBATING REGULARLY AT AN OPTIMUM FREQUENCY. KEEPING A MASTURBATION DIARY COULD BE A VERY USEFUL TOOL IN MAINTAINING THE PROPER SCHEDULE. EVERY PARENT SHOULD ASK HIS CHILDREN ON A DAILY BASIS, "DID YOU DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND MASTURBATE TODAY?" OH, OF COURSE, THE CHABADNIKS AND THE FRUMNIKS WILL YELL OUT, "BUT RAMBAM SAID THIS, AND RASHI SAID THAT AND RABBI AKIVA SAID THIS, AND THAT, ABOUT THE EVILS OF MASTURBATION." PROBABLY ALL THREE OF THEM WERE MASTURBATING WHILE THEY WERE WRITING THESE STRICTURES, ANOTHER CASE OF "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO". WE MUST NOT CONTINUE TO LET OTHERS DO OUR THINKING FOR US UNDER THE GUISE OF RELIGIOUS EXPERTISE. SHALOM AND ZEI GEZUNT!
All Comments
It's not as if you actually do the research, or write things like: I didn't do the research, and this looks strange to me. What do you think?
It looks like you just write in the spur of the moment, spewing whatever undigested idea you had onto your blog. Why should I invest in writing a long coherent argument if the next time you'd just do it again? I give up.
-- Arik
You're right; it WAS emotional, but it was meant to be. My stating my position in such a way IS my attempt to illicit other opinions. But you're right; it appears as if I'm already closed off, which I'm not.
Never forget that I'm ALWAYS open to another view. I have many Israeli friends and have defended Israel idealogically for DECADES. I'm not some typical "hate-Israel" guy. I've got another post coming that describes my cognitive dissonance on the issue.
So yes, please, by all means, let's hear what you have to say.
Don't complain about a free meal I always say.
Bottom line: The IDF committed just about every mistake in the book. Then they found a new book full of new mistakes, so they could screw up in ways they had never before considered.
One of the less-reported howlers was this one .. Hezbollah cracked the code. Much is made in that article about Iranian technical assistance. What the authors miss is the fact that in order for Hezbollah to break Israeli crypto in the first place, frequency-hopping or no frequency hopping, the failure of Israeli communications security had to be driven by systemic incompetence.
This is what comes of listening to your own propaganda for the last 40 years. It's also what come of making an air force braggart your army's chief of staff.
Forty years ago, the Israelis had the only army on the planet that was able to effectively engage in third generation war. No longer.
It's not the undigested opinions that matter to me; it's Daniel's constant attempts at using them to elicit responses from people. That's emotional manipulation. It's not - "here is what I think, what do you think?" - it's "this is the way it is, so there, in your face". Daniel has admitted in the past to using these tactics to elicit responses, and I just don't think it's fair.
Reading this post I was going in my mind - who does this guy think he is, an impromptu expert on international relations? - and then it dawned on me that this is yet another attempt at manipulation, so I abandoned my attempts at phrasing a proper response, and responded like I did. I then proceeded to unsubscribe from the RSS feed.
I only came back now because I got an email from Daniel, to the email address I left in my comment, saying he responded.
@Daniel,
I'm sorry but I will not relate to the contents of your message, joke or no joke. I have told you in the past that I dislike the way you elicit responses from people, but I kept playing the game. This time I think you overdid it, for me.
As an Israeli, it kinda caught my eye having a huge Israeli flag in my blogroll. Then I read your post, and I got angry there for a few seconds. Yes, you hit a nerve in a subject I am emotional about. It's not the first time.
But I have put a stop to it, and unsubscribed from your feed. NOT because you're either pro or anti Israel or whatever. Hey, I can hold my own in a discussion about subjects I'm passionate about. It's because you're using (maybe unwittingly but I don't think so) the emotions of people reading your blog to elicit a response; and I had had enough of that.
Regarding the joke issue - I don't care that it was a joke. I don't care if you like or dislike Israel, I don't care if you have Israeli friends or if you like the war stories or appreciate the Mossad. Joke or not, your way of having an argument is not to my liking; So, I can either cope or disengage. Is staying subscribed valuable enough for me to cope? I don't think so.
I wasn't going to persist in persuading you to do otherwise, because my previous attempts have failed. I was going to just silently disappear. This very comment was caused only by your email. contemplated writing all that in a private message, but since the content of your email was simply "I responded to your comment" - I assumed you want to take it out in this public forum.
Take care,
-- Arik
On Sep 24, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Arik wrote:
Trying to illicit responses from people? I suppose that's true to some degree (I mean that's what all writers do), but not in the sense that I think you're stating it. I think what you're meaning is that I have no interest in discussion -- that all I am trying to do is run in make some outlandish statement, cause a ruckus, and then ignore what people say about it.
This is flatly wrong, and if you feel that way then you're either not paying close attention or I have a MAJOR disconnect in my presentation.
I assumed it was obvious that when you see emotion that I've written it's because I AM GENUINELY FEELING THAT EMOTION. I don't contrive things in order to play with people. I don't OVER emphasize the emotion in what I write in order to rile people up. That's not what I do.
What I'm trying to do is be emotive. I'm trying to convey my passion for these various topics. But it's not an attempt to shake people up so that we can proceed NOT to have a conversation. The ENTIRE purpose of all of this is to learn. But that has to start with me showing how I feel about things. Not just how I think about it, but how I feel about it.
Again, you're confusing this with being sure or closed on the issues. I'm not. I WANT to be shown different. Why? Because I want to know the actual truth of the matter. That's all I care about. I not only feel passionate about knowing the truth, but also about the fact that people don't seem to be paying attention. So when people ask my opinion on something I want to present the best possible opinion on the issue. Something that's been hashed to and fro by the best on all sides.
And that starts with HAVING a view and being willing to express it. I do so with a lot of force, which I think is fine and want to continue doing. What I want to STOP doing is being sloppy with my writing in terms of going off of poor information. But the emotional part is just part of how I write.
But let's be clear here: my intention is to illustrate MY emotion as a BEGINNING for a debate -- NOT to get someone else emotional in order to end END the debate. Honestly. This is truly the case.
Manipulation? I just don't see it, Arik. I don't see what you're seeing.
I am voicing the opinion that the U.S. is lame and weak with respect to the relationship with Israel. I am voicing the opinion that Israel's intelligence agency has inroads into OUR affairs while we have little or none into theirs. I am saying that we are the inferior in the relationship and that this bothers me.
I was saying that the currency issue of asking for money from the U.S. to come in another form of currency could easily be taken as a sign of disrespect. I think we all agree that people deciding not to use the dollar is bad for the dollar. This can be seen from Iran's insistence on being paid in Euros for oil. That is an attack designed to further lessen the power of the currency.
All I was saying is that if Israel asks that the U.S. not give Israel U.S. dollars it constitutes the same sort of attack. It's making a concession that the U.S. currency IS failing, and proceeding to do nothing to help, but rather exacerbating the problem by rejecting the dollar as well.
That's the point.
The thoughts on our inferior position come from nearly 20 years of observation. Does that make it so? No, of course not. That's just my current view. I want someone to change my mind. I have these same debates with my Palestinian friend -- explaining why I think Israel is right do do x, or to do y when he says it's not.
ALL I CARE ABOUT IS MATCHING MY UNDERSTANDING TO REALITY
I seek people who can show me that reality. And when I write or debate, I am passionately putting MY CURRENT VIEW forward, waiting to be shown that it's not accurate. I embrace the fact that I may be wrong. It's happened many times before and will no doubt continue to happen.
But EVERY TIME I'M WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING MY VIEW OF THE WORLD IMPROVES.
This is my approach. This is why I write. I'm either going to teach or I'm going to learn, or something in between. It's nothing but positive to me, this dialogue. That's my position on my argument style.
---
As for the personal side, Arik, that's another matter.
I have offended you and I am deeply sorry for that. I apologize to you now, openly and freely. This was NOT my intention. I do not seek to emotionally manipulate or push people for the sake of it. This could not be farther from the truth.
Again, see above. I am NOT writing in order to make people emotional so that they'll comment. That's called trolling, and it means that discussion isn't even a point of interest. It means that the ONLY point of a post is the original post, and after that the poster just sits back and watches people freak out.
I don't do this. Again, see above.
I think you're coming to the conclusion that I have not learned anything because I continue to post in a forward and emotional way. To you this seems to mean that I don't want to discuss the topic -- hence you feel I'm not learning from your advice.
But that's just it. I AM open to discussion. I think about our moral relativism discussion often, and constantly recheck my own opinion on the matter.
Let's be clear -- I wasn't joking. The claim is that the original post about what Israel's spokesperson said was a joke. I still maintain my same position regarding how I would feel if Israel WERE to say what was said.
And I want to talk about it.
Joke or not, your way of having an argument is not to my liking; So, I can either cope or disengage. Is staying subscribed valuable enough for me to cope? I don't think so.
Again, I wasn't joking. I would never be that passionate and say such things in a joking manner. That would be...err, I don't know what it would be, but it wouldn't be my style.
No, I didn't, but now that it's here I'm not going to delete it. I'll be writing you separately offline, however.
I just wanted to clarify my positions on these matters.
And just for the record, I most definitely do NOT want to see you go. You consistently challenge me on a number of issues, which I totally appreciate. I value your input greatly as it gives me a different perspective on things.
Perhaps I have done a better job above of describing why I write the way I do, and hopefully you'll see that the malicious intent that you seem to detect simply is not there. I truly hope that you reconsider your decision to leave.
Kind regards,
--
Daniel Miessler
E: Daniel@dmiessler.com
W: http://dmiessler.com<br>
G: 0xD4A8FFF6