Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
How Israeli Activists Cheat on Digg: In their own words
avideditor.wordpress.com — FTA: Here is a tool for posts and the related statistics to help you in your endeavors. http://www.neaveru.com/digg/ Try it on our “friend” Yellowcakewalk and Notque. Two antiIsraeli and antiAmerican posters. ....Bad news. The script died when fed Yellocakewalk. The number of posts for that user is over 4500 and the system could not handle it.
yellowcakewalk- 1057 diggs
- digg it
- yellowcakewalk, on 06/04/2008, -60/+219I am truly rolling on the floor laughing my ass off!
- FrankHope, on 06/04/2008, -19/+63ditto. LOL.
- lazerus9, on 06/04/2008, -21/+54How does it feel to be famous Cake? Anti-American? I don't think soooooooo!!
We are hurting them my friend! Keep it up! You know I will! - fudged71, on 06/04/2008, -65/+24Hello ! How is it going?!
now that I have your attention
GET THE ***** OFF DIGG.
I say that often these days. But I realllllly mean it for you- CryRightardCry, on 06/04/2008, -18/+21It would just be easier if YOU ***** off, you know.
Then you don't have to whine like a bitch.
I like what cake is putting out there, and you seem like a little wuss. I vote for yc.- masterm1nd, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6Lol, whining about whining.
- EIderofzion, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3it's about time the sock puppet (extra digg vote) ***** made some comment defending his actual person.
From what I see with my own eyes Yellow cake is scared of getting dugg down on his anti semitic comments, when he defends himself. If only he held the same standard to the ones guarding him while he sleeps.
- InfamousAtheist, on 06/05/2008, -4/+3Seems our pal Jabberwolf has an account at that site too:
"Digg should be fined or sued.
The regularly take things out of search engines to prevent storied they do not want dugg up.
They have regularly blocked comments they do not want.
They have promoted sites that they want pushed forward.
The reason for the fine or sueing is the false advertising. Digg is not the public digging up article they feel is important, its moderated by the administrators of Digg to promote THEIR views not the public."
ORLY JW?
- CryRightardCry, on 06/04/2008, -18/+21It would just be easier if YOU ***** off, you know.
- Herkimer56, on 06/04/2008, -66/+27"I am truly rolling on the floor laughing my ass off!"
Of course you are, cake. You're an idiot and a mindless, soulless bigot so naturally you would see this as funny. What you should be seeing here is that the sane people of the world recognize you for exactly what you are and they despise you for it.- Buddhaismybuddy, on 06/04/2008, -10/+47Said the kettle to the pot.
- romistrub, on 06/04/2008, -10/+43No, seriously. I LOL'd incredibly hard @ "This amount of miss information if it goes unchecked will result in another holocaust."
Both due to terrible writing and completely ridiculous fearmongering.- romistrub, on 06/05/2008, -5/+16Addendum:
I think this is what was intended by the term "LOLocaust"
- romistrub, on 06/05/2008, -5/+16Addendum:
- CryRightardCry, on 06/04/2008, -20/+29LOL
Yeah, keep crying rightard.
As a representative of the souless and bigoted your comment is noted.
Seriously *****, how can you accuse anyone else of bigotry when you and the other muslim hating floaters from LGF post your asinine bigotry on digg daily?
Do you enjoy being dishonest?
And one more thing, loser. You don't speak for sane people. They are the ones BURYING your dumb ass.- PeppermintPig, on 06/05/2008, -4/+3I will scan over some absurd story title and typically groups like LGF are the ones posting it. And any effort I try to put in having a real debate is shut down by bury after bury, and the responses, if any, are typically ad hominem attacks.
Though you're not always fair yourself, you make a good point here. I just see too many people on opposing sides of issues going straight for their arsenal of insanity and personal insults. Then again, the internets are very serious business! - KillerFuzzball, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3You seem like a very mature person.
- PeppermintPig, on 06/05/2008, -4/+3I will scan over some absurd story title and typically groups like LGF are the ones posting it. And any effort I try to put in having a real debate is shut down by bury after bury, and the responses, if any, are typically ad hominem attacks.
- MarkusGarvey, on 06/05/2008, -13/+12your right in there with the persoal attact herkle!.......while i go you here, you never responded to the post about what the *onetimer troll said about you...here is the whole post from when he was impersonating me, the other day...
"Onetimer, Digg's worst troll, has been defeated. Check his profile!
"I'm done with digg for a while - nothing you trolls did, I just have other priorities right now."
http://digg.com/users/onetimer
Jajajajajajajajajaja! He says it wasn't because of the joint anti-onetimer effort, but he is lying. Not a day passed were there were several people with shill accounts chasing him all over Digg.
I would like to thank the diggers that supported the mission and helped out. Shouts out to Herkimer56 for providing the proxy servers to us"....5/29/2008
....so maybe you can find the time to respond to this now...i know it might be hard for you since it's on topic.... - yellowcakewalk, on 06/05/2008, -6/+20Here Herky, I made PDFs of the original blog entry of the lame hackers, and another PDF of all today's mock-fest here on digg, for your convenience.
http://yellowcakewalk.net/lame_israeli_hackers_att ...
http://yellowcakewalk.net/lame_israeli_hackers_att ...
You're welcome!
- Hortnon, on 06/04/2008, -16/+25This is kind of like the time I was talked about in an Infowars.com article.
- RationalXubrnce, on 06/05/2008, -3/+7What'd they say?
- mikesbaker, on 06/05/2008, -1/+11he was their #1 troll. also a shill gov agent etc etc
- Hortnon, on 06/05/2008, -4/+5Apparently the government pays me to be here and I'm the truther's worst enemy.
- mikesbaker, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4that was greatness. that was around the time that I had a prison planet account that was unbanned. posting all those screens on digg of their forums calling for gaming of digg sure did get me banned from PP fast.
- RationalXubrnce, on 06/05/2008, -3/+7What'd they say?
- BlueSkyfish, on 06/05/2008, -8/+84If you're sick of all this anti-semitism on Digg, there is a site called 4chan.org you should check out. Go to the /b/ message board and tell them your plight. They're really understanding and will try to help you in any way possible.
- mraustin1337, on 06/05/2008, -5/+43They helped me. Thank goodness.
I'd recommend this to everyone.
- mraustin1337, on 06/05/2008, -5/+43They helped me. Thank goodness.
- drgmdp, on 06/05/2008, -11/+5same here. the funniest thing is that notque really is my friend.
- Sham1969, on 06/05/2008, -9/+24Dude, if guys like this are against you, then you must be doing something right.
I am pleased to say that you were already my friend on here before this was posted. Peace - diggrnumber1, on 06/05/2008, -21/+12the guy actually does have a point, but he is over-generalizing digg users. true, there are a number of crazy anti-semitic douchebags that I see posting comments every once in a while, but they are definitely not the majority. just because you are opposed to israeli foreign policy does not make you anti-semitic. Unfortunately, Ron Paul is promoting anti-semitism, but digg is slowly freeing itself from his influence. I don't see how one could make the argument that Obama is an anti-semite. Also, I wouldn't really characterize the anti-semitism as jihadist: it's more along the lines of the antisemitism that hitler promoted before WWII. But again, the people that actually believe that the Rothschilds control the world and that the Israeli Shekel is the dominant currency are definitely not the majority.
- etherreal, on 06/05/2008, -2/+14There is a difference between being an anti-semite and a non-interventionist. I have nothing against the Jewish people but I seriously wish we would mind our own business and not pull strings anywhere, whether it be Israel or Palestine.
- danconia, on 06/05/2008, -5/+14Since when was Ron Paul promoting anti-semitism. It's stupid statements like that that make rational people roll their eyes when they hear about how Jews are always the victims, etc. Some people just find the rights of Palestinians being violated to be morally illegitimate. If this is anti-semitic then I'm curious as to what could be considered pro-semitic.
AIPAC is the 2nd most influential lobbying group in the US (behind AARP) as reported by Fortune (or was it Forbes?) Magazine. That's a fact and it should be disturbing that a PAC essentially representing a FOREIGN nation is that strong in Washington. If you think the media and government don't have a pro-Israeli bias then you're living in a dreamworld.- RationalXubrnce, on 06/05/2008, -4/+2 So ARRP is number one? I'll believe that when they push us into a war or two.
- diggrnumber1, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5if you look at their funding, AARP is number one by far. AIPAC is second, but it is not even close to the AARP.
- GilThielander, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5According to: Richard E. Cohen and Peter Bell, “Congressional Insiders Poll,” National Journal. March 5, 2005; James D. Besser, “Most Muscle? It’s NRA, Then AIPAC and AARP,” Chicago Jewish Star, March 11‐24, 2005.
"...In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington.AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People (AARP), but ahead of heavyweight lobbies like the AFL‐CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington’s “muscle rankings.”
I took this from page 14 of: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
March 2006
RWP06-011;
which can be found here: http://www.stopaipac.org/israel_lobby_USPolicy.pdf
- JettaMan, on 06/05/2008, -6/+8You douche bag, don't try your cheap Jedi mind tricks on us. Ron Paul does not promote anti-Semitism you retard. He just doesn't feel like making America bankrupt by giving billions to Israel and fighting trillion dollar wars that your Jewish neocons want so badly.
- EIderofzion, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1I can see why the 50 or so Yellowcake fan club dugg your comment down, it was completely objective, and used reason and logic to make sense. Sometimes I worry what the reactionary, movement to these types of idiots will be, sometimes a hate filled partizan hack makes an easier enemy
- Petrarch1603, on 06/05/2008, -1/+23wtf,the description does not make any sense at all
- JettaMan, on 06/05/2008, -7/+31Those Israelis are blaming Palestinians for digging them down here?! That's nonsense. I'm not middle eastern, I'm just sick of their manipulations. I'm sure most people sick of their crap aren't Arab either. Newsflash: Just because we don't want to fund your wars in the middle east does not make us anti-Semitic!
- doctorbasic, on 06/05/2008, -10/+7Yellowcakewalk, you hate Israel?
- jabberwolf, on 06/05/2008, -14/+10This is SAD and a pathetic attempt... there is a point but sooooooooo over blown that it actually puts things in perspective.
alestinean tards that against Israel just have propaganda ... no facts.
no genocide
no history - sorry look it up
no word "palestinean" before 1920 ( actually first used to describe jewish settlers)
no acknowledgment of the British Census around 1890
no acknowledgment of Turkish Census before that.
Sorry APAIC states facts upon FACTS upon
QUOTES FROM HOSTILE MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES
Quotes from resolutions of hostile countries
Time, dates, attacks,
But no amount of facts really matter to a diggtard that doesnt believe in factual history.- nycmac247, on 06/05/2008, -7/+11you forgot about the part where you call them sand monkeys - you know, like whites do to blacks in South Africa
- neocognitism, on 06/05/2008, -6/+6Thank you for posting this list of lies in so many places. Now we know you are a serious astroturfing Ziontologist.
You need to go talk to Jeremy Ben-Ami over at J Street and he will make you a better offer than AIPAC is, and you get to keep your soul and not be a traitor to boot!
www.philipweiss.org for your soul
- dn11, on 06/05/2008, -7/+2The funniest part is Kevin Rose is always being accused of being a pro Israel Jew of some kind by other conspiracy theorists (the accuracy of that statement if unknown as far as I know). But the CEO Jay Adelson if definitely Jewish. Yet these people claim digg is being edited with an antisemitic slant. The paranoia of people on the internet and their ability to point fingers, scapegoat and cast wide generalizations shows no bounds.
- s2ao, on 06/05/2008, -7/+6No, you don't get it. It's a tactic that in the past has worked very well in favor of pro-Israeli activists.
No one wants to be called anti-semitic, so call anyone who says something you don't like about Israel an anti-semite (and more recently a terrorist sympathizer). Most people are to scared to stand up for you for fear of getting under attack from a well-funded smear campaign, and often losing their jobs as a result.
Therefore, the pro-Israel lobby gets away with murder (literally).
This article gives me some hope that this tactic will stop working now...- EIderofzion, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Somehow speaking out against the "pro Israel" lobby pales in comparison to say,, being a jew and getting lost in a place like Ramallah for example.
http://masada2000.org/ramallah.html
On the morning of October 12, 2000, two Israeli reservists, Yesef Avrahami and Vadim Novesche, took a wrong turn on the highway and ended up being stopped by several of Arafat's Palestinian Authority "policemen." They were taken to a police station within Ramallah where they began undergoing an interrogation. Soon word got out on the streets that two Israelis were being held for questioning. Suddenly a mob gathered outside the police station. Chants of "Kill the Jews" and "Allah Akbar" rose from the mob and young men rushed through the gate and the second story window. The interrogation ended and the barbaric, cannibalistic mutilations began.
What would happen say if you decided to criticize a religion that demands to kill people who don't believe in it? Say in one of the 57 countries run by Sharia law for exaple.
- EIderofzion, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Somehow speaking out against the "pro Israel" lobby pales in comparison to say,, being a jew and getting lost in a place like Ramallah for example.
- s2ao, on 06/05/2008, -7/+6No, you don't get it. It's a tactic that in the past has worked very well in favor of pro-Israeli activists.
- Aggaman, on 06/05/2008, -4/+3Brilliant work. Consider yourself saluted.
- doctorbasic, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5What are you saluting?
I read the whole article and I read the headline of the digg post and I read the description. I still don't get it.
If you are able to explain please do.
- doctorbasic, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5What are you saluting?
- psyflyer, on 06/05/2008, -3/+6how does it feel to know your a useless internet nerd who hasnt gotten laid yet?
- Muslim4Life, on 06/06/2008, -4/+3Anyone checked this one yet?
How Israeli Activists Dodge Real Questions
http://digg.com/politics/AIPAC_conference_no_arena ... - yellowcakewalk, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1It's the 22 of July and I'm still ROFLMAO.
- FrankHope, on 06/04/2008, -56/+308I'm sure the reason these morons are getting kicked out of digg is because their comments have been found objectionable. If you have seen some of these comments, then you know what I mean. The defenders of Zionism rarely bother to comment on the facts, preferring instead personal attacks and derogatory name calling. Very infantile stuff. Of course when your whole argument is based on "because God said so", who needs logic?
- lazerus9, on 06/04/2008, -27/+43Another reason is that they are creating "false flag postings" using counterfeit pseudonyms using true patriots names like Markus Garvey and then posting vile filth. Typical Zionist scum methodology!
- 911ArtStudent, on 06/04/2008, -8/+27I think you mean Marcus Garvey, not Markus Garvey.
- PlagueOfMorons, on 06/04/2008, -4/+26Yes: recently an iconoclastic rightwing poser created a 'Marcus Garvey' to ape our Markus Garvey and then spewed a lot of bilge. I guess that passes for political rocket science among these sad actors.
- lazerus9, on 06/04/2008, -4/+11Yes your right. Thanks
- romistrub, on 06/05/2008, -1/+6I think you mean "you're", not "your".
/sorry - lazerus9, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2I was right about Markus but I should have re-read my other comment, it is you're and not your.
Thank you varry much........I mean very much.
- Kizilbash, on 06/04/2008, -4/+16They did that to me too.
- 911ArtStudent, on 06/04/2008, -8/+27I think you mean Marcus Garvey, not Markus Garvey.
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -42/+27"The defenders of Zionism rarely bother to comment on the facts, preferring instead personal attacks and derogatory name calling." ------ Funny, they say them thing about you guys. Funny how the world works.
- lazerus9, on 06/04/2008, -16/+27You did not address the subject that I commented on above! Typical Zionist obfuscation! We comment on the article being posted you and your friends comment on the commentary! As you just forced me to do!! See how that works?
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -13/+17Honestly, there was too much to read(I'm a lazy frenchman) so I'm just waiting to see what it is about from the comments. Plus what I said was absolutely true. I'm just pointing out a common digger behavior.
"comment on the commentary" ------ What's wrong with that? Gemora is commentary on the Talmud and the Talmud is commentary on the Torah. And there is even commentary on the Gemora so commenting on the commentary is just in the natural workings of things. - EpochOne, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3Uhm, that;'s what this site is about?
A) Finding and sharing interesting news
B) Discussing it (Thus commenting on comments)
Now you're just begging for attention, if he wanted to address to your comment he would have, directly, using the reply button on your comment, not his. Get off your high horse.
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -13/+17Honestly, there was too much to read(I'm a lazy frenchman) so I'm just waiting to see what it is about from the comments. Plus what I said was absolutely true. I'm just pointing out a common digger behavior.
- lazerus9, on 06/04/2008, -12/+14Have you noticed that I did not feel the need to digg you down as all of your friends did me. You are capable of communicating your position and usually present a reasoned argument that is why I seldom digg you down!
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -5/+12I actually never digg down. I only digg up or leave it alone. I don't bury either.
- crazydiode, on 06/04/2008, -6/+6too lazy for it?
- lazerus9, on 06/04/2008, -16/+27You did not address the subject that I commented on above! Typical Zionist obfuscation! We comment on the article being posted you and your friends comment on the commentary! As you just forced me to do!! See how that works?
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -33/+21"The defenders of Zionism rarely bother to comment on the facts, preferring instead personal attacks and derogatory name calling."
I consider myself a defender of Zionism, which is nothing more than Jewish nationalism. Please look through my history. I very much prefer commenting on the facts and the validity of conclusions than personal attacks and derrogatory name calling. You, Sir, on the other hand, seem to prefer generalizations, such as the one quoted above, which are rather meaningless.- lazerus9, on 06/04/2008, -14/+11You were sounding reasonable until the beginning of "I consider myself a defender of Zionism"
Your critique became meaningless to me after that!- Hortnon, on 06/04/2008, -4/+13Let me quote you to respond to you, on wpi's behalf:
"You did not address the subject that I commented on above! " - wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -6/+5Thank you.
- romistrub, on 06/04/2008, -5/+4Well, you certainly proved his point, then, eh? ;)
- oldhick, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4Wow Lazerus9, way to just prove yourself to be an ignoramus. Seriously, we need open and honest discussion. If wpi97 has some good points then lets hear them and discuss them intelligently.
- Hortnon, on 06/04/2008, -4/+13Let me quote you to respond to you, on wpi's behalf:
- shakbhaji, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2He said "rarely" not "never." I've seen it too. That fact that you "prefer commenting on the facts and the validity of conclusions than personal attacks and derrogatory name calling," doesn't say anything to the point of FrankHope's observation of a trend on digg. You may fall into the small group of digg users that he acknowledged don't use personal attacks and name calling, etc.
- wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3Oh, thank you. Now I can sleep at night.
- neocognitism, on 06/05/2008, -4/+2Oh man you have got to be kidding. You are one of the most ad-hominem-attacking petty Ziontologist morons of the group.
- lazerus9, on 06/04/2008, -14/+11You were sounding reasonable until the beginning of "I consider myself a defender of Zionism"
- NigelN, on 06/05/2008, -8/+40It's more like "Because we said God said so."
- DarkDx, on 06/05/2008, -9/+5I hope... I was REALLY getting tired of notque
- Phatt138, on 06/05/2008, -3/+21Well it's pretty clear that the guy considers anything less than apologetics to be equivalent to hate speech. If you're actively looking for persecution, you're going to see it everywhere.
- RationalXubrnce, on 06/05/2008, -2/+8 This is what happens when you're used to all media coverage being in your favor. When other voices are allowed to be heard this guy can't handle it all of a sudden. I'll bet anything he rarely refutes any of the points he finds so bjectionable.
- ChileanGoD, on 06/05/2008, -7/+39Can someone please explain these morons that we do not hate jews, what we hate is what they're doing to Palestine. It reminds me the either with us or against us kind of talk.
- AllBlue, on 06/05/2008, -2/+10Maybe they aren't bright enough to realize that hating the actions of a government isn't hating a people.
- AllBlue, on 06/05/2008, -2/+10Maybe they aren't bright enough to realize that hating the actions of a government isn't hating a people.
- Bodhinature, on 06/05/2008, -4/+18Indeed, they seem to be the first to cry anti-Semetism to distract from the issue. The issue is usually Israeli policy towards Palestinians and the Islamic world at large. This guy's website is full of revisionism. Revisionism that has been wholly debunked. Its much the same as the Creationists using old data to support their anti-Evolution campaign. If they keep shouting falsehoods often enough and loud enough eventually people will believe it.
- JettaMan, on 06/05/2008, -5/+19Their accusations about Ron Paul are just pathetic. Yes, Ron Paul will not agree to bankrupt America in order to give money to Israel and fight wars for them. But that is not anti-Semitic. And saying Obama is not very anti-Semitic? He closed the damn AIPAC conference along with Hillary, and McCain is also licking their balls like a thirsty poodle. You would never see Ron Paul at an AIPAC conference, unless he showed up just to tell them how wrong it is what they are doing.
- jabberwolf, on 06/05/2008, -19/+6Actually quite the opposite.
Palestinean tards that against Israel just have propaganda ... no facts.
no genocide
no history - sorry look it up
no word "palestinean" before 1920 ( actually first used to describe jewish settlers)
no acknowledgment of the British Census around 1890
no acknowledgment of Turkish Census before that.
Sorry APAIC states facts upon FACTS upon
QUOTES FROM HOSTILE MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES
Quotes from resolutions of hostile countries
Time, dates, attacks,
But no amount of facts really matter to a diggtard that doesnt believe in factual history. - jellygraph, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2Actually, the guys from that blog are a bunch of hypocritical asshats.They moderate all comments and only comments like, "I hate digg, they are a bunch of anti-semitic assholes" gets allowed. For example (ie. Jabberwolfs comment "Digg should be fined or sued" )
Pff, for that reason, they have proven to me they are just a bunch of ideological liars and that helps _no one_. I am glad they got banned. I'm certain they deserved it and they are just lying about the conditions of their ban.
- lazerus9, on 06/04/2008, -27/+43Another reason is that they are creating "false flag postings" using counterfeit pseudonyms using true patriots names like Markus Garvey and then posting vile filth. Typical Zionist scum methodology!
- stfucupcake, on 06/04/2008, -17/+261I wholeheartedly disagree with avideditor's opinion about Digg. I don't see how posting opinions on world events is slanted one way or the other. I mean, we all have our opinions. If anything being candid on issues is encouraged.
The LAST thing Digg needs is a group decending on the site with the sole purpose of shutting down an outlook that is different than their own. That, it seems, is what avideditor's latest blog is trying to incite.
I find Digg a great place for super-current news, interesting pics/vids plus the geeky stuff keeps me here. The variety of topics is WHY I stay and recommend the site to others.
It's sad that any religious group finds the open exchange of information threatening.- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -27/+19"It's sad that any religious group finds the open exchange of information threatening."
Open exchange of information works both ways. All avideditor was doing was responding to statements he found incorrect or bigoted. Is that not an integral part of the open exchange of information?- kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -8/+34Depends on how far you go with the claim. Is it a righteous claim or an attempt to shut down valid debate?
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -13/+13I have to go ahead and disagree. Countering a claim you believe to be false, and encouraging others to counter such claim is not at all the same as shutting down valid debate. In fact it is the debate.
- pyro789x, on 06/05/2008, -1/+13I was under the impression that he did not simply refute arguments, if I read the article right he was also a link spammer.
- oldhick, on 06/05/2008, -2/+7I think pyro789x hit the nail on the head. The blog author simply labeled some diggers as anti-semitic without so much as refuting one point or establishing a single fact. Where is the discussion in that?
- kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -8/+34Depends on how far you go with the claim. Is it a righteous claim or an attempt to shut down valid debate?
- IDIGTHEDIGG, on 06/04/2008, -6/+15It seems to me that this wackjob (the editor in the story) is a paranoid idiot who dosent know what the hell he is talking about.
- anachronaut, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4Oh, that definitely describes him. I'm about 99% sure that that guy's account on Digg -- the banned one he referred to -- was EditorResponse, and he was definitely a loony and a known liar to boot. He was also a major, major spammer, cross-posting lengthy, link-filled, racist screeds against Palestine and/or Obama to any random Digg sumbission that was even moderately politcal in nature (if I'm remembering correctly -- the trolls all start to blend together after a while).
- siobhankeogh, on 06/05/2008, -4/+6Your username is exactly what I want to say to the person who wrote this "article".
- Trublmakr, on 06/05/2008, -0/+22Avid's entire set of assumptions is based on the idea that moderators are responsible for removing comments he/she doesn't personally appreciate,.. Avid obviously doesn't understand digg is moderated by the community. Part of diggs success is rooted in the fact that uncouth or politically incorrect opinions can still be voiced and posted - and subsequently buried as the community sees fit. Im not terribly upset that Israel gets a rough ride on digg,. but if you wanna see some real digg hate, post an article praising the Bush administration.
- EpochOne, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3That'd probably be the first sub-tripple digit digg to reach four digit comments lol.
- Bloody_Mess, on 06/05/2008, -5/+21Proud to be an Atheist, FTW!
- herbertstrasse, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1dugg for veracity of statement
- UnbiasedDigger, on 06/05/2008, -0/+11"The LAST thing Digg needs is a group decending on the site with the sole purpose of shutting down an outlook that is different than their own."
I totally agree with you. I just wish people who agree with you won't be so hypocritical in other areas like politics. If you are angered by something like this, then it should anger you in other topics as well. Actions like these are far more prevalent on digg in the political arena. Every time a digg has a conservative view or a pro-republican view it is buried, regardless if its accurate or not. Also, have you ever seen anything anti-Obama, pro-Hillary or pro-McCain on this site? No. Because they are all buried by self-righteous people who want to shut down all other viewpoints that they don't agree with. Oh but you won't have a problem finding any Pro-Obama diggs. No sir. Last year it was Ron Paul, now it's Obama. Oh and we're never at a lost for a digg of HuffingtonPost.com
Now that Hillary is out of the race, mark my words, this place will have double the anti-McCain diggs it has in the last 6 months.- Steeple, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3i sympathize that you're PO'd, but i don't think it's a conspiracy, i think a genuine majority of diggers just don't have any love remaining for the right, after this administration's performance, and are perplexed that there are any defenders of it left
- UnbiasedDigger, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2ok fine, but how does this explain the love obama gets/has gotten over hillary on digg.com? they are both democrats/liberals with almost identical policies, so that is not due to diggers not having "any love remaining for the right." all you see on digg.com are anti-hillary diggs and pro-obama diggs. where are the pro-hillary diggs or anti-obama diggs?
- Mattarang, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0Within a day or two of Hilary dropping out, there has ALREADY been a spike in anti-McCain diggs. I agree with you, in that Digg may have a variety of topics covered, but not a variety of opinions.
- Steeple, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3i sympathize that you're PO'd, but i don't think it's a conspiracy, i think a genuine majority of diggers just don't have any love remaining for the right, after this administration's performance, and are perplexed that there are any defenders of it left
- diggrnumber1, on 06/05/2008, -6/+9The moderators shouldn't have banned him, though. He has the right to say what he wants.
- oldhick, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3Do you know why he was banned? It wasn't for expressing intelligent thoughts. It was for anti-Palestinian racist rants.
- diggrnumber1, on 06/05/2008, -4/+5whatever the reason, he shouldn't have been banned unless he was a serial spammer.
- oldhick, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3Do you know why he was banned? It wasn't for expressing intelligent thoughts. It was for anti-Palestinian racist rants.
- kingofkolt, on 06/05/2008, -5/+11"The LAST thing Digg needs is a group decending on the site with the sole purpose of shutting down an outlook that is different than their own."
Such as Obama supporters, perhaps? ;) - 2clone, on 06/05/2008, -1/+11Iremember when digg was a nice tech site, now it's a giant load for crap-o-rama.
- sfacets, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5"a great place for super-current news, interesting pics/vids plus the geeky stuff, lolcatz, Obama stories, top 10 lists, why Bush is a moron stories...
Current? Maybe. Relevant? Debatable. - datastorageguy, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4"The LAST thing Digg needs is a group decending on the site with the sole purpose of shutting down an outlook that is different than their own. That, it seems, is what avideditor's latest blog is trying to incite."
Are you serious? The Obamanites, Huffington post, and other left wing nonsense attempts to do exactly that. Digg has become a left wing center of propaganda. Post anything contrary to global warming or Obama and get buried into oblivion. It's all nonsense.
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -27/+19"It's sad that any religious group finds the open exchange of information threatening."
- richardhammond, on 06/04/2008, -6/+90Why can't we all just live together in peace? If two people hate eachother about god, why can't they just leave eachother alone and mind their own business? If those two people have to live on the same piece of land, can't they just engage in commerce and leave religion out of it?
A deity is a deity is a deity... and I am still agnostic.- brightlight4, on 06/04/2008, -2/+27I agree Richard, not only that ALL religions supposedly teach love one another.... so why don't they follow their religious teachings? Many of the wars we have had over the centuries have been about religion!!! So much for beliefs. and the priests are often to blame for leading the believers by the nose too instead of teaching them to love one another as their holy books teach too.
- flogistan, on 06/04/2008, -11/+17Secular zionism is not about god, it's about taking land. Most people on here have nothing against a religion. One of the methods these guys use is to make it seem like people pointing out the faults of the zionist movement have something against a religion.
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -19/+11"It's sad that any religious group finds the open exchange of information threatening. "
Oh yes, the land-grabbing Zionists! They have grabbed so much land, so much... They have build this giant Jewish Empire about the size of... Massachusetts... - romistrub, on 06/04/2008, -4/+21@ wpi
"They have grabbed so much land, so much... They have build this giant Jewish Empire about the size of... Massachusetts..."
Dude. Non-sequitur.
If I take over my neighbour's garage, you think he'd let me use it under the pretext that it is much, much smaller than Ontario? Hah. - wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -7/+6@romisturb
Please read "A Case for Israel" by Alan Dershowitz. He explains this infinitely better than I ever could.
Jews are in Israel by right. Jews have lived in the land of Israel continuously for over 3000 years. Even after the suppression of the Jewish rebellions by Rome, and slaughter and expulsion of large numbers of Jews, Jewish communities always existed there. There were always areas where Jews were the majority, e. g. Jews were a majority in Jerusalem for as long as census have been taken, since the early 19th century.
European Jews started coming to Palestine (a Roman name, which has nothing to do with the Arabs) in 1890s not as an invading force, but as refugees escaping pogroms and persecution. They bought land, often considered non-arable, typically from absentee landlords, and made it bloom.
The 1947 UN partition plan, which proposed the creation of a Jewish and an Arab states side by side simply recognized the de facto Jewish national home that already existed. The Arab response to this was an attack by 5 Arab nations on the newly independent Israel.
Land grab? I think not. If I had the fire-power comparable to that of Israel, and decided to grab some real estate, I would have grabbed the whole town, not just my neighbors garage. Israel did not do that, because it is not an imperialist state, it is a state trying to survive. - orientis, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1Sure I shot you, but only in the leg. Fifty times.
Injustice is irrelevant of scale.
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -19/+11"It's sad that any religious group finds the open exchange of information threatening. "
- flogistan, on 06/04/2008, -11/+17Secular zionism is not about god, it's about taking land. Most people on here have nothing against a religion. One of the methods these guys use is to make it seem like people pointing out the faults of the zionist movement have something against a religion.
- bullcutter, on 06/04/2008, -1/+11there is no reason the online community can't have civil discussion about this matter.
90% of those who take up support for one side or the other have no real physical stake in the issue and are simply caring out of boredom, because it gives them a sense of purpose and belonging.
unfortunately arguing about Israel is also a great way to channel hatred and vent frustration, so I don't think the sport will ever really lose steam. - PlagueOfMorons, on 06/04/2008, -7/+23A religion is a belief system. If the beliefs are sane and non destructive, no one outside the religion should have much right to oppose or combat that religion. I.e., the believers should be able to believe in what they want to. However, when a religion arms itself and insists that others bow to it, the world has a problem.
Wpi above says that Zionism is nothing more than Jewish nationalism. That the beliefs of a religion are to dominate the beliefs of a state. But if the actions of a religious state are to kill people, then this implies the underlying religion allows or even embraces destruction and killing of man. Is that not contradictory to the idea of the purity and spirituality of an ethic that embraces mankind? What kind of religion espouses clannish support only for its own kind and hatred and death for others? What kind of respect should the world have for such a religion? I fault BOTH Judaism as practiced in the middle-east, and Islam, as religions allowing such a split regard for mankind. Neither can claim the support of god for their secular murders. God is not about greed, hatred, or murder or oppression. Followers who claim god as their justification for this are false and not sane.- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -8/+12"Wpi above says that Zionism is nothing more than Jewish nationalism."
Yes.
"That the beliefs of a religion are to dominate the beliefs of a state."
No. You are making a fundamentally wrong assumption here. Jews are an ethnic group, as well as a religious one. Or, if you will, Jews are an ethnic group, which happens to have a unique religion, just as the Armenians have their own version of Christianity, distinct from all others.
Israel, by the way, is a secular state, where non-kosher food is sold, and thousands of police are deployed to guarantee the right of gay people to have a parade. Religious institutions are primarily concerned with family matters, specifically with marriage and burial, and that in no way makes Israel a theocracy, which is what you seem to imply.
Once again, Jews are an ethnic group, like the French, the Japanese, the Serbs, or the Kurds. As such, they have the right of self-determination, i. e. the right to form a state. Zionism was a secular political movement started in 1890s and consisting largely of atheist socialists, whose goal was to establish a country for the Jews, where they would finally be able to manage their own affairs and live free of persecution.- foopirata, on 06/04/2008, -7/+10Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews are both branches from the same tree. To look for DNA "classification" between them is, I am sorry, ignorant.
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -8/+10"so, are sephardic Jews and ashkanazi Jews both cant claim to be Jews?"
Can Northern and Southern Italians both claim to be Italians? They speak different dialects, you know, and the food is different too. How about the English descended from the Saxons, and the ones descended from the Normans? Can they both be English? How about the Iraqi Arabs and Egyptian Arabs? Somehow they both feel a part of the single Arab people.
Jews, wherever they have lived, have always a culture distinct from that of the "host" nation. At the same time, different Jewish groups, even those that have been isolated for centuries, like the Yemenite Jews, have preserved enough of their common heritage to consider themselves a single people. This is what makes all Jews a single distinct ethnic group. - Kizilbash, on 06/04/2008, -10/+16The problem with Zionism is not that it is better or worse than most nationalism as such, neither is Serbian nationalism or Greek (Cypriot) nationalism. The problem is they claim lands that are not theirs to claim and use violence (and all kinds of other nasty tricks) to achieve those aims. The Greeks got punished severely for it and so did the Serbs in the end, but the Israelis are still going.
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -2/+11To shootingsparks:
I, like many Israelis, are a both sephardic and ashkenazi. And what wpi97 is correct. - nycmac247, on 06/05/2008, -3/+3http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
- wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7"The problem is they claim lands that are not theirs to claim"
Which lands do they claim that are not theirs? The Sinai, which Israel gave back to Egypt in 1979? 10 mile-wide strip in Southern Lebanon, from which Israel withdrew in 2000, only to get cross-border attacks by Hezbollah in return? Gaza, from which Israel withdrew in 2005, only to get Hamas rocket attacks in return? Or maybe Jerusalem, which was supposed to be an "international city" according to the UN partition plan, and which has had a Jewish majority for at least as long as statistics have been collected starting in the 19th century? - drz130, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3@ shootingsparks
"so if ashkinazi and sephardic are branches of the same tree why did so many ashkinazis help Hitler massacre so many sephardim?"
What are you talking about? Does this have anything to do with Jewish world domination and making matzoh with christian children? - garvallagh, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1But the Holy book says otherwise... that G_d has scattered the race to wind,
- monsieurginger, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Just by spelling "G_d" like that tells me you don't know squat about the Holy Book.
- bullcutter, on 06/04/2008, -2/+11"A religion is a belief system. If the beliefs are sane and non destructive"
eernt! stop right there.
whats more "sane": God creating the earth in 6 days, Jesus rising from the dead or God speaking to Joseph Smith through coded stones?
ALL religious beliefs are irrational and basically insane, that's why they are under the term "religious" and not "scientific." They require a leap of faith into the non-understandible.
Religion is consensized insanity.- Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -3/+4Mankind will hopefully outgrow this selfish childish insanity called religion.
- MarioWhereRu, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4Do you atheists power your homes by burning all the smug you produce?
- Steeple, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2no, we use science- duh!
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -8/+12"Wpi above says that Zionism is nothing more than Jewish nationalism."
- ileftfark, on 06/04/2008, -4/+8You're actually atheist, whether you know it or not.
- jarjarwang, on 06/04/2008, -2/+5Do you believe in god/s ? no? You are an atheist or a nontheist.
- oblique63, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4agnosticism actually isn't even in the same ranks as theism or atheism, it is rather a subclass for each of them, your either a straight-up Theist, a nostic Theist, an agnostic Atheist, or a straight-up Atheist... obviously I would say he's leaning towards Agnostic Atheism, but yeah, agnosticism and atheism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive... just FYI
- triad203, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Wow, someone actually understands the basic tenets of belief (and non-belief). Throw in ethnicity (which is really two components: genetics and culture), nationality, et cetera, and you get quite a mix. For example a person could theoretically be an agnostic, atheist, Jewish (ethnically), anti-zionist, pro-Israeli, Palestinian. Not likely, but theoretically possible.
- oblique63, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4agnosticism actually isn't even in the same ranks as theism or atheism, it is rather a subclass for each of them, your either a straight-up Theist, a nostic Theist, an agnostic Atheist, or a straight-up Atheist... obviously I would say he's leaning towards Agnostic Atheism, but yeah, agnosticism and atheism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive... just FYI
- pintomp3, on 06/05/2008, -2/+13that's nice and well, until one of them claims a divine right to land that both of them are on. for some reason the bible has been interpreted as a real estate contract.
- tabularassa, on 06/05/2008, -2/+8They cannot leave each other alone because that is in the nature of most religions. To impose itself on others to increase the number of followers (e.g. missionaries), or to reduce the number of those who oppose. (e.g. Crusades, Inquisition, Jihad).
- benologist, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5Peace? On Digg? You're either with the mob or against it.
- haroonm, on 06/05/2008, -5/+5Well.. if you really wanna know.. This is why:
http://img315.rockyou.com/imagehost/10/10989/10989 ...- kahalani, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Your map is wrong. The British Mandate of Palestine included present-day Jordan as well, and was not "Palestinian Land." It was all part of the same mandate, just like the "Jewish Land" and Jordan, all referred to as "Palestine." Jews at the time were considered Palestinian too, so your map is simply misrepresenting the political terminology of the time to try to prove a point. Have you considered working for the Bush administration?
- sporefrog, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2I find it amusing how this original comment assumes innocence in the affair (it's just religious people fighting), when our tax money directly provides helicopters, rockets, and other fun things to Israel and Israel alone to freely annex Palestine and fuel a conflict that should have ended decades ago.
But then again, that's our government for you. You don't know that you don't know about all this, and the US government does a fine job keeping it that way:
http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_is ... - jabberwolf, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4Its not about GOD its about prejudice, political agenda, and anti-semitism
Its about Digg and others seeming to want to avoid posted facts because they contradict anti-semetic views they have.
And yes ANTI-SEMETIC. I have agree its not anti-semetic if you have some factual posts but usually they post half the facts, for whatever view or agenda they have. They make no comparisons. And when someone actually does point them out for this, give all the facts, and make the comparisons, they get blocked.
So YES anti-semitic- AllBlue, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3Which Semites? The Arabs or the Jews. Last time I checked both were Semites.
Abraham didn't come from the land of Israel.- wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3And yet the term "antisemitism", coined in the 19th century Germany, specifically means "Jew-hatred". Look it up.
- herbertstrasse, on 06/05/2008, -1/+0so yes ANTI-SEMETIC and YES anti-semitic? care to explain the distinction between the two?
- AllBlue, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3Which Semites? The Arabs or the Jews. Last time I checked both were Semites.
- counterplex, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3I think the misconception you have is fairly common. For the Palestinians this isn't about God. It's about land plain and simple. It might be about God and/or a promise for the Israeli's but at the end of the day if Palestinians at least get an equitable land deal this would be over. Think 1947 borders. Heck throw in a wall built on the '47 borders even.
- wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1"Think 1947 borders."
And what was the Arab response to the UN partition plan of 1947 again?- wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Still waiting for your answer...
- counterplex, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1I've said this before and I'll say it again: Put 1947 borders on the table and see who will balk at it. Something tells me the Arabs won't be the problem.
- wpi97, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2And you truly believe that this is a fair thing to ask? Israel accepted the partition. Arabs attacked with the goal of exterminating the Jews. They lost. Then they launched more attacks. Lost them too. And now, 60 years later, Israel is supposed to go back to their original offer?! This is the definition of Chutzpah, if I have ever seen one. This would be like Germany, demanding to keep Austria and Czechoslovakia after losing WWII!
I'll give you another example. In the US, at least in my state, if you get a speeding ticket, you have the right to appeal. You then go in front of the magistrate, and argue your case. The magistrate may reduce your fine. If you believe that even the reduced fine is unfair, you can appeal the magistrate's decision, and go in front of a judge. The catch is that by doing that you... wait for it... wave the reduction of the fine! Once you appeal, the fine goes back up to the original amount, and the judge may decide that you are responsible for the whole thing.
I think by rejecting the partition plan, and by launching the genocidal attack of 1948 the Arabs lost any moral or legal right to demand 60 years later the partition borders, under which Israeli territory was non-contiguous, with about half of it being the Negev desert. - counterplex, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1I see. So you're saying that Israel is the one who balks at the 1947 borders. Your analogy of the ticket is invalid. There are international agreements that govern the conduct of nations during war and return of land occupied as a result of a war-time operation is part of those agreements. For that matter so is a ban on settlements on land occupied during war-time operations since that land needs to be returned. This is exactly why Germany couldn't have the gall to demand possession of Austria and Czechoslovakia after WWII. Those same rules apply to Israel regardless of whether 6 days or 60 years have passed.
As far as the territory contiguity is concerned, Israel and Palestine had similar contiguities - 3 large pieces of land connected by 3 points and a very fair treatment of Jerusalem.
However, despite a virtual guarantee of peace by going to the 1947 borders (and I'd be shocked if any Palestinian would reject those borders) you're telling me that Israel is not interested in putting those borders on the table. Clearly the Palestinians aren't the only ones to blame for not being "partners for peace" as the Israeli's would have us believe. - wpi97, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1"There are international agreements that govern the conduct of nations during war and return of land occupied as a result of a war-time operation is part of those agreements."
Exactly. And usually those who start wars and lose, end up losing territory. It is unheard of in the history of humanity, that the winning side of the war sued for peace and offered to give back captured territory only to be refused, which is what happened to Israel multiple times.
Germany lost not only the territory it captured after the start of the war in 1939, or Austria in Czechoslovakia that it annexed prior to the war, but also territory that was Germany proper, such as areas that became part of Poland, and East Prussia, which became part of the USSR. Millions of Germans were deported from these areas.
There are organizations in Germany that demand the return to the 1937 borders, and nobody takes them seriously. This is no different than your demand that Israel accept 1947 borders, after it accepted them 60 years ago, and got 60 years of war in return. And if captured land needs to be returned no matter how much time had passed, then the land of Israel must be rightfully returned to the kingdom of Judea, no? By the way, let me know when the US returns California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico back to Mexico.
I deliberately said "your demand", because currently there is no Arab government or a Palestinian faction that I know of that proposes 1947 borders. Some propose 1967 borders, with various conditions attached, such as the right of return of the descendants of the refugees (e. g. the Saudi proposal), while some call for the total destruction of Israel (e.g. Hamas, Hezbollah, PFLP, Islamic Jihad, the government of Iran, etc.) Everyone of any significance seems to realize that demanding 1947 borders is beyond ridiculous any way you look at it.
"As far as the territory contiguity is concerned, Israel and Palestine had similar contiguities - 3 large pieces of land connected by 3 points"
You should get a higher-resolution map. http://www.mideastweb.org/unpartition.htm The proposed Arab Palestinian state was contiguous, while the Jewish state consisted of 3 disjoint pieces.
"and a very fair treatment of Jerusalem."
Jews were the majority of the population of Jerusalem for at least as long as census data has been collected starting in the 19th century, and probably longer. How is it fair to make it an "international city"? Would it be fair to make Mecca or the Vatican an "international city"? And if it was so fair, then why did the UN not condemn the Jordanian occupation of the Eastern Half of Jerusalem, which included the Jewish Quarter where Jews have lived for centuries?
"However, despite a virtual guarantee of peace by going to the 1947 borders (and I'd be shocked if any Palestinian would reject those borders)"
Are you not shocked that the Palestinians and the Arab countries rejected those borders in 1948? If those borders did not bring peace then, what makes you think they will now? By the way, Neville Chamberlain called. He wants his appeasement policy back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
- wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1"Think 1947 borders."
- brightlight4, on 06/04/2008, -2/+27I agree Richard, not only that ALL religions supposedly teach love one another.... so why don't they follow their religious teachings? Many of the wars we have had over the centuries have been about religion!!! So much for beliefs. and the priests are often to blame for leading the believers by the nose too instead of teaching them to love one another as their holy books teach too.
- stfucupcake, on 06/04/2008, -13/+73I missed the deadline to edit my post so let me add this:
We all post our opinions on topics but few of us come armed with some sort of "agenda" that avideditor imagines.
To me, it sounds like he is sour grapes about being banned. Digg doesn't ban people for no reason.
If posting too many long paragraphs is bannable (as avideditor cited as his reason for getting banned) then I'd have been banned long ago. Lol. Digg is actually pretty open as to what people can post.
So, I'm left wondering what avideditor actually posted that actually got him banned.- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -9/+15"Digg doesn't ban people for no reason. "
And you get arrested, you must have done something wrong, right?- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -6/+12That was "if you get arrested" of course. Sorry for the typo.
- Buddhaismybuddy, on 06/04/2008, -5/+13Right because getting banned from digg is the same as getting arrested.
- romistrub, on 06/04/2008, -3/+7I think it's a valid comparison. You broke "the law"... where "the law" in this case is the Digg TOS.
- wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Oh, I am sorry, does digg now have an independent court system, and a due process of some kind? If one's account is banned, does one have a right to a hearing? Can one appeal? Can one face one's accuser?
Digg is a private company, and they can do pretty much whatever they want on their website. However, the "if they banned you, you must be bad" mentality is what allows police states to exist. - zombies187, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Digg is not a police state. Even if it isn't fair... Every page has crazy people sayin' objectionable stuff. People are free to defend Israel gratuitously. You're doing it now.
- RationalXubrnce, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2 It's a perfectly valid comparison.
- tehbored, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2It depends on what country you're in.
- orientis, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3I've been banned from Digg before. When I asked why, they told me I broke the TOS. When I asked when, they didn't reply. When I sent a follow-up asking again, my account was reactivated with no response. Not a big deal, but it seems accidents do happen.
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -9/+15"Digg doesn't ban people for no reason. "
- yellowcakewalk, on 06/04/2008, -34/+118Well, to keep the record straight, here are some of my favorite Israeli peace organizations:
http://yellowcakewalk.net/israeli_peace_movement.h ...- romistrub, on 06/04/2008, -4/+17Who the ***** dugg you down for that?!
- diggrnumber1, on 06/05/2008, -2/+4those would be the anti-semites that the guy was talking about. But he is overgeneralizing, as the net digg count is still positive.
- 911ArtStudent, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1More like Zionists, not antisemites
- diggrnumber1, on 06/05/2008, -2/+4those would be the anti-semites that the guy was talking about. But he is overgeneralizing, as the net digg count is still positive.
- dn11, on 06/05/2008, -3/+17here's what I posted on their board, it probably won't pass moderation:
You people, along with Lieberman and his Holocaust apologist friend Hagee, need to learn the difference between “Nationalism” and “Religion”. Criticism of Israel is not hate speech - just as criticizing the United States or Iran or any other Nationalistic entity is not hate speech. The manipulations by pro Israel constituencies to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism is truly disgusting. Groups Like “Christians United for Israel” are the real anti-Semites. In their hearts they believe the Jews must still be converted to achieve salvation. They don’t want Israel to be safe for Judaism - they want it safe for their apocalyptic vision of Jesus return - in which he will vengefully annihilate the stubbornly unrepentant Jews along with the Muslims and the other Pagans in the global war these fanatical Christians are so eager to help initiate. This horrific world view can no longer be allowed to influence US foreign policy. You speak of a “Palestinian problem” but you conveniently forget that Jews and Muslims once lived in peace in the region before the rise of militant Zionism. As difficult as it may be, many in Israel need to reevaluate the true source of their problems. Until then, there will be no true solutions.
Signed
An AMERICAN Jew- jwkpiano1, on 06/05/2008, -5/+3We never lived in peace. That's a load of crap. Here's what you're missing here: you're right, criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitism, of course. However, denying the right of Israel to have a state can be construed as such, and many so-called "anti-Zionists" claim exactly that, that Israel does not have a right to exist. A two-state solution is and has always been the correct one.
- jabberwolf, on 06/05/2008, -6/+2"“Palestinian problem” but you conveniently forget that Jews and Muslims once lived in peace in the region before the rise of militant Zionism."
Actually NO they havent. Jews have been literally second class citizens of EVERY F*CKING middle east country as have other people who were not Muslims. Literally called non-muslims and treated as such.
But then a naive stupid AMERICAN jew that hasnt been anywhere, probably knows better from reading material given to him, rather then searching for actual facts.
Shame on you, - for being stupid!
Actually with Palestinian colors? HAHA shame on you for PRETENDING to be an American jew and being stupid for being an obvious fake!- dn11, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5You are simply wrong, and you are part of the problem. Stop living in fear. At least you didn't call me a self hating Jew, I'm only a "fake" Jew... but by the laws of Israel I would be welcomed in... the irony
- jabberwolf, on 06/05/2008, -4/+2No what I meant is that you are not a jew but a fake pretending to be jewish.
THAT is accurate.
I'm sure some where in your family there is someone jewish that does not make you a jew. Its a religion moron. Fact is your a Pali-tard pretending to be a jew - as usual.
And sorry, I've been Israel many times, and Ramallah and Egypt.
YOU obvious have not and have absolutely no knowledge of any history nor want to.
Why? History would give you the truth and well... Palestinians need the lie to continue. - dn11, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5My mother is Jewish, that makes me 100% Jewish according to the laws of Israel. If I lived in Europe during the Holocaust I would have been exterminated - that is qualification enough in this context. And, whether I'm religious or not makes no difference in my qualification for Israeli citizen. Mr. "been everywhere seen everything" you don't know ***** about history. Everything is so "OBVIOUS and ACCURATE" in your evaluation of a person in one paragraph on a message board... I certainly wouldn't trust your judgment on history or global politics that's for sure. You've already made up your mind about reality, facts are simply a nuisance to you.
- jabberwolf, on 06/05/2008, -5/+5Uhuh and those are about 1% of jews.
Put things in perspective. They dont know history, they dont live in Israel, they also stem from a crazy sect that believes that god himself will come to create israel and kick everyone out, that we shouldnt do it ourselves (mind you they still want Israel).
- romistrub, on 06/04/2008, -4/+17Who the ***** dugg you down for that?!
- Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -24/+19lol
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -9/+71Shalom
- yellowcakewalk, on 06/04/2008, -10/+27Shalom
- 911ArtStudent, on 06/04/2008, -8/+25Salem aleikum
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Does any one know what 'yasna' means in arabic?
- 911ArtStudent, on 06/04/2008, -3/+4That's Zoroastrian, not Arabic
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Are you sure? It's used in modern Hebrew slang in Israel but I know it isn't a Hebrew word.
- PlagueOfMorons, on 06/04/2008, -2/+8"Does any one know what 'yasna' means in arabic?"
I hope it doesn't mean 'yeast infection', or else I have a small medical problem. - triad203, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasna
It is actually Avestan, which is the language used in the sacred texts of the Zoroastrians.
The internets come with a "search" function. You should try it out. - monsieurginger, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Words can have different meanings in different languages. Timmy.
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Does any one know what 'yasna' means in arabic?
- drgmdp, on 06/05/2008, -1/+11shalooooooooooooooommmmmmmm
- myass666mlong, on 06/05/2008, -14/+1sorry gay u fail
swallowm - DarkDx, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4DESU DESU DESU
- RobotCitizen, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3Klatu Barada Nikto
- orlyfactor, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3Where were you when Bruce Campbell needed you?!
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -39/+23"It got so bad over the last six months that I spent more then two hours a day building up like minded people and creating a collation to combat stories and comments ranging from out right lies about Israel to blood liable to blaming the Jews for all the worlds problems including 9-11. .... Two months ago I was kicked out but it was understandable because I was posting muliti paragraph responses and multiple links to clear up misinformation in one comment thread."
How is any of this cheating? The quote in the summary is not from the article, but from a comment on the article. And what is wrong with using a third-party tool anyway? Especially one that is available to everyone?
Buried as inaccurate.- foopirata, on 06/04/2008, -18/+23Psssst....when Palestinian-supporters and Israel-haters do it, then it is "grass root mobilization"....when Israel-supporters do it...it's cheating.
Damn, wpi97, keep up with the groupthink or they'll get you banned as well!
/sarcasm- romistrub, on 06/04/2008, -4/+6You *know* there's some misinformation going on here. Nobody gets banned for reasonable discourse. Your friend was probably making some hardcore copy-pasta or something.
- fgsfds, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5Well, he said that he was repeatedly posting a multi-page chunk of text, so I think he might have gotten banned for spamming.
I don't think that ANYBODY should be supporting this guy, since he's the kind of nutjob who hurts his own cause.
I mean, look at this crap -> http://avideditor.wordpress.com/a-solution-to-the- ...
The sickening discord of an Israeli citizen suggesting that the "solution" to "the (groupName) curse" is to corral them all into a "walled-in encampment" is about as subtle as a rocket-powered sledgehammer.
I can only hope that he's doing false-flag campaigning.
- fgsfds, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5Well, he said that he was repeatedly posting a multi-page chunk of text, so I think he might have gotten banned for spamming.
- romistrub, on 06/04/2008, -4/+6You *know* there's some misinformation going on here. Nobody gets banned for reasonable discourse. Your friend was probably making some hardcore copy-pasta or something.
- jcm267, on 06/04/2008, -7/+22Well when you're organizing outside of digg to game digg, I'd call that cheating the system. If you want to counter their BS create a visually appealing blog with quality articles and a little forum (think of Kos or LGF) for comments. Just creating a group like that is certainly wrong no matter who does it.
I've gotten Ron Paul supporters and 9/11 Truthers banned for organizing outside of digg for no other reason but to organize to bury dissenting articles and comments, and digg up spam submissions from sites such as Prisonplanet.- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -10/+7"Well when you're organizing outside of digg to game digg, I'd call that cheating the system."
What exactly is wrong with organizing? Is making "friends" on digg cheating? Is inviting your off-line friends to join digg cheating? These are instances of organizing, are they not?
The only thing that can reasonably be called "cheating" is one person using multiple digg accounts, and I have not seen avideditor accused of that.- shakbhaji, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1He should have said "organizing with an agenda." Inviting your friends to join digg because you like the content and you think they might as well is one thing, but inviting people you know to join digg with the purpose of burying articles that conflict with your viewpoint on a SPECIFIC issue and contributing nothing to the site other than spamming your viewpoint is cheating I'd say. The key difference is organizing with a purpose in mind.
- nitephyyre, on 06/05/2008, -1/+0uhhh, he actually admits to having multiple accounts. Unless, I'm reading it wrong. Which isn't too hard considering how bad the english is on that site.
- geoken, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6Basically the way digg works is that stories are promoted and demoted in a natural, democratic fashion. The stories that are promoted are the stories that are of general interest. All digg users aren't always on-line, but the system works because the users logged in at a given time represent an accurate cross section of the entire digg population. If someone organized a group of people to log in at a given time, thereby skewing the cross section, they would be acting against the spirit of digg and would be transforming the site into something that is not appealing to the majority of users. Digg has every right to try and stop people from engaging in such actions.
You're free to start your own site where you openly allow people to promote stories/spam through the use of organized action. If people are interested in a site where stories are promoted through active spammers you'll probably make a lot of money.
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -10/+7"Well when you're organizing outside of digg to game digg, I'd call that cheating the system."
- thelastwarrior, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4XENU will come for you
- foopirata, on 06/04/2008, -18/+23Psssst....when Palestinian-supporters and Israel-haters do it, then it is "grass root mobilization"....when Israel-supporters do it...it's cheating.
- pentupentropy, on 06/04/2008, -23/+71and which presidential candidate will stop funding israel?
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -35/+19A candidate cannot stop anything. A president can. And why would a president stop funding a strategic ally in a vitally important region of the world? An ally, which provides safe harbor and repair facilities to the US Navy, an ally which would never refuse to allow the US the use of its airspace, an ally which allowed its own citizens to come under attack by Saddam's missiles, because the US asked it not to respond, an ally which has never voted against the US in the UN, an ally, which is a beta-tester for the US military tech, an ally which is a high-tech powerhouse, a source of new technologies, where American companies have billions of dollars of investments, and finally a fellow democracy?
- jcm267, on 06/04/2008, -24/+12Yes. The antisemites on digg hate that ally and everything it stands for.
- 911ArtStudent, on 06/04/2008, -12/+25An 'ally' that proved useless during every Middle East conflict in which the US has been engaged. An 'ally' for whom America enacted retribution during the first Gulf War because Israel's involvement would be counterproductive and fracture our mulitnational alliance. An ally that is the last openly racist state on earth, that prohibits gentiles from bearing witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. An ally that has uprooted and ethnically cleansed the oldest Christian population in the world. An ally that conducts the most extensive spying operations on American soil. an ally that sunk the USS Liberty. An ally that is given the lion's share of foreign aid. An ally whose allegiance has endangered and undermined popular support for friendly Arab regimes, an ally which claims it cannot defend itself and needs even more aid from America than it is presently receiving - in other words a worthless PARASITE that wants to leech American blood and treasure.
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -6/+7"An ally that is the last openly racist state on earth, that prohibits gentiles from bearing witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ." ----wtf?
"An ally that has uprooted and ethnically cleansed the oldest Christian population in the world." huh?
"undermined popular support for friendly Arab regimes," ---- oh yea, you like dictators don't u? oh yea. - bluto36, on 06/04/2008, -6/+7an ally that until recently was the only place arabs could vote in the entire middle east.
an ally that is the only refuge for womens and gay rights in the middle east.
prevents the gospel? are you insane? how is Bethlehem doing since the PAli's took it? - foopirata, on 06/04/2008, -4/+5An ally whose technological input and experience is helping save the life of brave American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, every day.
Check the story of the Predator, a tool that is serving the US Armed Forces in a revolutionary way, to see how the US benefits from Israeli input. - romistrub, on 06/04/2008, -5/+2Let's just clarify the argument. Anti-zionists are against an *ideology*. The fact that they disagree with zionist ideologies overrides any practical benefits that being an ally of Israel may have.
A parallel would be the way that America currently treats Cuba. - wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2@romistrub
Please define the Zionist ideology. Then please go to www.m-w.com and look up the word Zionist. You may be enlightened.
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -6/+7"An ally that is the last openly racist state on earth, that prohibits gentiles from bearing witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ." ----wtf?
- americangoy, on 06/04/2008, -8/+15Israel is America's strategic ally?
Huh?!- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -2/+8The US military aid to Israel did not begin until after 1967, when the US realized that Israel can be used as a counterbalance to the Soviet influence in the Middle East, i. e. a strategic ally.
- atdigg, on 06/04/2008, -5/+10Newsflash: cold war has ended in 1990.
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -3/+6Is that what you do to your friends, ditch them when they are no longer useful?
Yes, I know, in international politics, there are no friends, only interests. And despite the fact that the Cold War has ended, the US still needs a stable foothold in the region.
- EIderofzion, on 06/04/2008, -6/+9I think alot of the 911 truthers forget why Sadaam was firing Scudd missles at Israel when he was loosing the first gulf war. But that is JUST the tip of the Iceberg.
- argyle747, on 06/05/2008, -3/+8If you don't know why we need to stop funding Israel please watch Occupation 101 - great documentary. What's happening to the Palestinians is sickening...
- wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -5/+4Read "A Case for Israel" by Alan Dershowitz.
- orientis, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6wpi97 that book is full of blatant misinformation. Several of his chapters have been debunked. Read My Israel Question by Antony Lowenstein
- monsieurginger, on 06/05/2008, -5/+3Great book by dershowitz
- wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2@orientis
I have not read the book by Lowenstein, but I have read quite a bit on the history of Israel, and I found no reputable source that contradicts Dershowitz.
- akamurph, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2You can really tell by how you're getting dugg down that a lot of diggers are around 13 years old.
- EIderofzion, on 06/04/2008, -20/+14Hopefully it will be the same one that stops sending 10's of millions of dollars a year to the so called Palestinians and Pakistan.
- xerosawyer, on 06/05/2008, -6/+1yeah 10's of millions versus $3 billion/yr. shut the ***** up.
- monsieurginger, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4The Palestinians actually get a billion a year.
- wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5About $3 billion/yr. to Egypt, $2.5billion/yr. to Jordan... Shut the ***** up, you say?
- xerosawyer, on 06/05/2008, -6/+1yeah 10's of millions versus $3 billion/yr. shut the ***** up.
- subterfuge, on 06/05/2008, -6/+23let israel fend for itself.
political evolution.- wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5We should have left Europe fend for itself during WWII, right?
- orientis, on 06/05/2008, -3/+2If 'Europe' was a single racial and religious group that had taken land from all the other peoples there, then yes we should have.
- jwkpiano1, on 06/05/2008, -3/+3How extremely narrow-minded of you. Jews != Israel, dumbass.
- wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3"If 'Europe' was a single racial and religious group that had taken land from all the other peoples there, then yes we should have."
What does being a single racial or religious group have to do with anything? And last I checked, a vast majority of Europeans were white and Christian.
And which European countries did not take land from others? Britain, which had its huge empire, and which still controls places like the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar? France, with its colonies in Africa and elsewhere? Russia, which acquired various territories before and after the war, including East Prussia, from which millions of Germans were deported?
Please read the history, so that you may avoid making such blatantly inaccurate claims in the future.
- elipabst, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3Why would we want to do that? They're our only actual ally in the entire region.
- wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5We should have left Europe fend for itself during WWII, right?
- thelastwarrior, on 06/05/2008, -3/+10XENU will stop all spending
- oldhick, on 06/05/2008, -8/+21If elected, Ron Paul and Bob Barr. But of course they are immediately labeled anti-semitic...
- blarch, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2www.votenader.org/index.html
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -35/+19A candidate cannot stop anything. A president can. And why would a president stop funding a strategic ally in a vitally important region of the world? An ally, which provides safe harbor and repair facilities to the US Navy, an ally which would never refuse to allow the US the use of its airspace, an ally which allowed its own citizens to come under attack by Saddam's missiles, because the US asked it not to respond, an ally which has never voted against the US in the UN, an ally, which is a beta-tester for the US military tech, an ally which is a high-tech powerhouse, a source of new technologies, where American companies have billions of dollars of investments, and finally a fellow democracy?
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -9/+43I don't get it. What's the issue?
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -7/+14Seriously, what's the issue?
- nycmac247, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1White South Africans saying they really "want to help" blacks ... but that they need to live outside of cities and have special papers to travel anywhere, buy food, etc.
- Corrosionx, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3Don't we need special papers to travel anywhere and buy food here too?
- nycmac247, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1yeah, keep distracting...
- nycmac247, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1White South Africans saying they really "want to help" blacks ... but that they need to live outside of cities and have special papers to travel anywhere, buy food, etc.
- fgsfds, on 06/05/2008, -2/+12As near as I can tell, he was going around making multi-page replies to people's comments. It seems likely that they were just posting the SAME multi-page comment over and over again, which would be spamming.
Also, on this page -> http://avideditor.wordpress.com/a-solution-to-the- ... he refers to Islam's prophet as a pedophile, so he was likely making hateful statements like that in his comments.
TL;DR: Guy got banned for hate speech and spam. Now he's BAWWWing about it.- arobicha, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4In the eyes of most religious people I've done worse than call their human prophets pedophiles... Digg hasn't banned me yet. I haven't spammed, but I'm sure more than a fair share of people hate me here.
- fgsfds, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2I'm sure if you spammed those offensive comments they'd ban you.
IIRC, they look at a person's posting history before they ban them to tell if they're an obvious troll or just excitable. Not sure though. - arobicha, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0I just like playing devil's advocate. Sometimes people get entirely too wrapped up in their personal beliefs to see the other side objectively. I figure the best way to understand my point is to try my best to understand everything against it too.
- fgsfds, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2I'm sure if you spammed those offensive comments they'd ban you.
- arobicha, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4In the eyes of most religious people I've done worse than call their human prophets pedophiles... Digg hasn't banned me yet. I haven't spammed, but I'm sure more than a fair share of people hate me here.
- nycmac247, on 06/05/2008, -7/+1South Africans saying that they really "want to help" blacks but that they must live outside the cities in places away from everyone.
- jabberwolf, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2YES while ANC and Zulus kill eachother many times more so than whites have killed blacks.
Now south africa having the highest murder rate of all time, killing sprees on foreigners (whites). Land being repossesed without recourse.
Man its amazing when you actually look ***** up.
Yes there are more than just blacks and whites as groups but then anyone who did some mild research would know that. But here on DIGG you can pretend to know *****, and others can agree with you. Now dont you feel special !! ;)
- nycmac247, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2So by that logic if Palestinians start killing each other with internal factions / fights its OK for Israel to march them into ovens, right?
The White Man's Burden is so heavy!!
- nycmac247, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2So by that logic if Palestinians start killing each other with internal factions / fights its OK for Israel to march them into ovens, right?
- jabberwolf, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2YES while ANC and Zulus kill eachother many times more so than whites have killed blacks.
- n0gnuz, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5The issue is that a group of pro-Israel activists have been using Digg to spread their perspective (sometimes, hatefully), and to shout down anyone critical of Israel or the American Israel lobby. Some of them have been banned for making remarks that other Diggers reported as offensive, and others are just realizing their numerical inferiority, and are trying to use external sites and software applications to rally other Zionists to descend on Digg and enforce their point-of-view.
Unfortunately, from their perspective, any criticism of Israel or its lobby that dominates US foreign policy decisions is claimed by these zealots to be 'anti-semitic' and 'hateful.' This is because they know fear of being labeled 'anti-semitic' has deep roots among people and companies who have careers sensitive to negative publicity, since the news media is heavily controlled by Jewish executives who tend to allow their news products to be used as a podium for media lynchings of so-called 'anti-semites.' Groups of zealous Israel supporters use this media bias, and their disproportionate wealth, to effectively stifle any criticism of Israel or the lobby, even criticism made by Jewish men and women, who are tarred as 'anti-semites' and 'self-hating Jews.'
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -7/+14Seriously, what's the issue?
- jcm267, on 06/04/2008, -19/+33That description that was "FTA" was actually from a comment posted by some other user at the bottom of the article, yellow. Buried as inaccurate.
- yellowcakewalk, on 06/04/2008, -9/+18You are correct. Thank you for the clarification.
- chrisjj, on 06/04/2008, -28/+89Glad to hear Digg has been actively banning the Ziono-Diggers for baseless innuendo and vitriolic unfounded personal attacks on the reasonable opinions of reasonable people. Most of us who actively advocate for a fair and just settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict here on Digg have come under fire from these people. I myself have been accused of supporting David Duke, the KKK and of being antisemitic. Recently, there has been a reduction in such attacks, no doubt as a result from instructions from AIPAC who are realizing that such vitriol has only served to discredit their cause. And of course it's ludicrous that these people should seek to discredit the most respectable and trusted site on the Internet - Wikipedia.
- patpl22391, on 06/05/2008, -16/+6There are digg users that support Israel that have made offensive comments and there are opponents of Israel have written offensive comments pertaining to Israel. Unfortunately, the only "trolls" I have ever seen kicked off are the ones that support Israel, as opposed to users like Cryrightardcry and yellowcakewalk, who I've seen around here for over a year and has made very vitriolic and hateful comments, mainly about conservatives, republicans, and Israel-supporters. Yet they are still allowed to be on here? Iconoclast25, who I found out recently was banned, was a "zionist", so of course Digg removed him.
- headzoo, on 06/05/2008, -4/+6I think it's a stretch to say Digg removed them. Digg doesn't even have enough employees to track all the users on the site. That's why they have the "Report User" button. I could be wrong, but I suspect that if enough people click the report user button for the same user, it flags the user for further inspection from Digg moderators.
If people like Cryrightardcry and yellowcakewalk are still here, then it means not enough Digg users have found them offensive, and clicked the report user button.
What does this mean? It means what we all already know: Digg is a community controlled site. If pro-Isreal users are getting kicked off more often than other users, it simply means the Digg community doesn't want them here. Don't go blaming Digg.com the company.- headzoo, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4"Actually, it means:"
So what you're saying is, "Yes headzoo, you are right. Some digg users are getting reported more than others." - craven005, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1"Actually, it means:
(1) conservatives aren't like the puissant pansy liberal snitches with eggshell egos who go running behind the teacher's skirt if a shadow crosses their path and
(2) the largest segment of Digg users are the same sort of cowardly, traitorous losers one sees on huffington, daily kos and similar cess pools."
And this is a perfect example of why Iconoclast and others are getting banned. This comment does nothing but personally attack other digg users. "cowardly, traitorous losers", "puissant pansy liberal snitches with eggshell egos" yeah....don't complain when you get banned again.
- headzoo, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4"Actually, it means:"
- headzoo, on 06/05/2008, -4/+6I think it's a stretch to say Digg removed them. Digg doesn't even have enough employees to track all the users on the site. That's why they have the "Report User" button. I could be wrong, but I suspect that if enough people click the report user button for the same user, it flags the user for further inspection from Digg moderators.
- plaing, on 06/05/2008, -5/+6yeah, this goes both ways, some dude was calling me a part of CAMERA (some kind of israeli online brigade or something) for disagreeing with him on something mid-east related. no one has the market cornered on inauthentic exchanges of opinion.
- Hangly, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6They're banning the ones that can be identified as agents provocateur.
The ones that lay relatively low and just fling ***** are allowed to stay. - jwkpiano1, on 06/05/2008, -4/+4Don't label people. Claiming that all people who support Israel on Digg do such things is like claiming all Muslims are terrorists, dude. Sorry all that stuff has happened to you, but you can't blame it on everyone, including AIPAC, which you and I both know does not have time for petty idiocy like that.
- jabberwolf, on 06/05/2008, -6/+4So retarded Diggers dont get that DIGG us dictating fact and fiction.
Facts that these so called ZIONISTS have while the other side has simple propaganda.
Oh can you hear yourselves saying HILE DIGG soon?- n0gnuz, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5...and the first pro-Israel zealot to make a Hitler reference in order to stifle criticism is...wait for it!...jabberwolf!
By the way, if you're going to smear individuals with opposing views using such a barbaric insult, you might want to learn spelling and grammar first.
- n0gnuz, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5...and the first pro-Israel zealot to make a Hitler reference in order to stifle criticism is...wait for it!...jabberwolf!
- gummih, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Digging for Zion? As in Matrix Revolutions?
- patpl22391, on 06/05/2008, -16/+6There are digg users that support Israel that have made offensive comments and there are opponents of Israel have written offensive comments pertaining to Israel. Unfortunately, the only "trolls" I have ever seen kicked off are the ones that support Israel, as opposed to users like Cryrightardcry and yellowcakewalk, who I've seen around here for over a year and has made very vitriolic and hateful comments, mainly about conservatives, republicans, and Israel-supporters. Yet they are still allowed to be on here? Iconoclast25, who I found out recently was banned, was a "zionist", so of course Digg removed him.
- EIderofzion, on 06/04/2008, -40/+29digg was a great place to learn hacks networking info and workarounds for buggy bloated OS problems.
Now it's all about denying Israel's right to exist.- yellowcakewalk, on 06/04/2008, -19/+36No other country in history has made the arrogant demand that others "accept its right to exist". Countries are "recognized" by other countries, in normal diplomatic parlance. I recognize Israel, within its 1967 borders, as does the rest of the world. You won't get me nor others to talk in your Orwellian newspeak. Sorry.
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -14/+14"I recognize Israel, within its 1967 borders" ---- have you seen all of those naqba rallies, they want it all, and i'm talking about rallies in the US.
Israel is the only country in the world sanctioned by the UN. What about all of those Arab countries, artificially made?- americangoy, on 06/04/2008, -5/+22"Israel is the only country in the world sanctioned by the UN."
Okee dokee!
Lets make Palestine into what was sanctioned: a 50-50% split between Arabs and Jews.
I am all for it, glad you are on board monsieurginger!
:-) - monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -10/+13Unfortunately, the Palestinians voted for Hamas, the KKK of Palestine(check their charter), and they don't want any Jews in their "kingdom". So I don't see how people can support them, the Palestinians, while wanting peace.
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -6/+14"Lets make Palestine into what was sanctioned: a 50-50% split between Arabs and Jews."
Okee dokee. Tried that already. Does "UN Partition Plan" ring a bell? Guess what happened? Jews agreed, Arabs started a war. - fgsfds, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7Israelis agreed, Palestinians agreed, the rest of the Arab world started a war.
As far as the riots before the war, those are an expected part of any boarder changes. Compared to Africa, those two nations were making out in the back seat until the football team decided to KO Palestine and gang-rape Israel.
Wait, I think that analogy fell apart somewhere... - wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3@fgsfds
Actually, no, the Palestinians did not agree to the UN compromise.
- americangoy, on 06/04/2008, -5/+22"Israel is the only country in the world sanctioned by the UN."
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -11/+16"No other country in history has made the arrogant demand that others "accept its right to exist". "
Could it be because today Israel is the only country in the world whose legitimacy is called into question by the likes of you? Could it be that Israel's existence has been threatened since before it was founded?
"Countries are "recognized" by other countries, in normal diplomatic parlance."
Exactly. And this recognition is an implicit prerequisite to any kind of peace treaties between countries. Israel, on the other hand, is the only country in the world which is somehow expected by the likes of you to negotiate with and to make concessions to parties who not only do not "recognize" Israel, but who openly call for its destruction, thus denying it the right to exist.- Conspiracy20, on 06/04/2008, -8/+2NETUREI KARTA AROUND THE WORLD
International Protests on the 60th Anniversary of the creation of Zionist State
May, 2008: Anti-Zionist Orthodox around the world gathered to mourn and to demonstrate in protest against the 60th anniversary of the creation of the so-called state of 'Israel'.
http://www.nkusa.org/
- Conspiracy20, on 06/04/2008, -8/+2NETUREI KARTA AROUND THE WORLD
- jabberwolf, on 06/05/2008, -3/+5USA
KURDS,
ALL OF SOUTH AMERICA AND CENTRAL AMERICA
TURKISH EMPIRE
MOST OF MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES
PAKISTAN
TAIWAN
I could go on but you get the point - go back to school retard!
- monsieurginger, on 06/04/2008, -14/+14"I recognize Israel, within its 1967 borders" ---- have you seen all of those naqba rallies, they want it all, and i'm talking about rallies in the US.
- EIderofzion, on 06/04/2008, -20/+12god you really don't understand/see how hate bs filled you are,, I really don't have time for you to age 10 years , but I WILL ask you one question though.
What was the only other product (other than Yellowcake uranium) that Nigeria exports, when Sadaam's minister in charge of Nuclear devellopment went there for a "visit"?
The second part of the quesiton is given the weapons were not found what reason would the documents be forged for,, or in a different way might I ask, for what reason would someone make counterfeit money on a currency that is already completely bankrupt? Can you think of a reason?- Kizilbash, on 06/04/2008, -9/+13Hate-filled? That's ***** rich coming from you. 90% of your submissions are hate-mongering articles that would have looked well in Der Sturmer only about Muslims instead of Jews.
- EIderofzion, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Coming from a global Shiite jihadist I will take that as a compliment.
- toowired77, on 06/06/2008, -1/+0The country with the "yellow cake" connection is Niger not Nigeria.
I don't think it is possible to spam people out of anti-semitism. Bigoted people are going to be bigoted. I understand the need to increase awareness and to educate the public about these issues, but this information warfare method will one day backfire. Israel has the right to exist, but the nations surrounding Israel will never accept that. Remember that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Israel should not piggy back on anti-Muslim rhetoric from the American right. The creation of Israel is no miracle, but for Israel to survive a world where America is not in charge, is a miracle. Islam will be around a lot longer than America. America should not be working for Israel's interest, it should be Israel working to keep America strong. Israel cannot survive without the USA.
- Kizilbash, on 06/04/2008, -9/+13Hate-filled? That's ***** rich coming from you. 90% of your submissions are hate-mongering articles that would have looked well in Der Sturmer only about Muslims instead of Jews.
- Chassit, on 06/04/2008, -16/+18Israel lost it's right to exist when it was destroyed, thousands of years ago. Would you seriously expect that the world hand Rome over to the Etruscans? Puh-lease, modern Israel is as much a terrorist nation as Palestine. To deny such is to lie.
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -13/+12"Israel lost it's right to exist when it was destroyed, thousands of years ago."
And the fact that Israel has existed for the past 60 years is what, chopped liver?
"Would you seriously expect that the world hand Rome over to the Etruscans?"
The world has handed nothing over to the Jews. In 1948 there was a de facto Jewish national homeland in the British Mandate Palestine. The UN partition plan simply recognized this fact. Etruscans, by the way have not existed for over 2000 years. The Jews, on the other hand, are alive and well, thank you very much.
"Puh-lease, modern Israel is as much a terrorist nation as Palestine. To deny such is to lie."
And to affirm this nonsense without even an attempt to back it up is what?- FrankHope, on 06/04/2008, -8/+15The British wanted nothing to do with Zionism. The Zionists declared a terrorist campaign against the British. That's the real history of Israel. Now you complain about Palestinian terrorists, but Zionists got there start as terrorists and those people are considered heroes in Israel today. What a bunch of hypocrites!
- Conspiracy20, on 06/04/2008, -8/+9Kidnappings, Beatings, Murders and Hangings
Attacks by the Irgun and Stern Gang
Jewish resistance to the British mandate had begun before the Second World War when Jews extremists set up an organization called, "Irgun Zvia Leumi" (IZL) or simply, "The Irgun". Their aim was to campaign for the establishment of the state of Israel.
At the outbreak of the Second World War most of the Irgun selected to support the Allies and fight the common enemy, "Nazism. "A splinter group led by a Abraham Stern decided to continue the fight against the British. This group, better known as the "Stern" gang, was responsible for many terrorist atrocities and murders in the following decade, though Stern himself was killed in a gunfight with the Palestine Police in the early 1942.
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap ... - wpi97, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2"The British wanted nothing to do with Zionism."
And I suppose the Balfour Declaration never happened, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_o ...
- jabberwolf, on 06/05/2008, -5/+6Would you SERIOUSLY look up if the word "PALESTINIAN" existed before 1920 ?
Or look up any native group of Israel that was called anything before 1920?
Did you know DOESNT EXIST?
No not the world "Palestine" the word "PALESTINIAN"
Go on, look it up stupid!
Actually the word palestinian was used to describe jewish settlers in 1920.
Then go look up the British Census of 1890 or the Turkish Census before then.
Now that you may have looked them up, you can say something they already know - THEY ARE SETTLERS. BUT SO ARE THE ARABS THERE AND FROM ABOUT THE SAME TIME.
The only difference is that ISRAEL was given a sliver of land and Arabs evereything else and wanted to destroy Israel several times.
But then historical facts arent really something an anti-Semite is interested in ,,, is it?!
- wpi97, on 06/04/2008, -13/+12"Israel lost it's right to exist when it was destroyed, thousands of years ago."
- MrTito, on 06/05/2008, -8/+7You are what's wrong with this world. Not as a Jewish
- yellowcakewalk, on 06/04/2008, -19/+36No other country in history has made the arrogant demand that others "accept its right to exist". Countries are "recognized" by other countries, in normal diplomatic parlance. I recognize Israel, within its 1967 borders, as does the rest of the world. You won't get me nor others to talk in your Orwellian newspeak. Sorry.
