Zippo wrote:Setanta wrote:You're the only one whining about the holocaust. The fact of the matter is, you've got hearsay evidence at third hand, and it is only reasonable for people to reserve judgment if you don't come up with anything better than that.
I'm going by the Foreign Office report by a diplomat lead.
That does not alter the fact that this is a report of what the diplomat claimed someone else claimed that someone else said. That is still hearsay at third hand.
Quote:You're going by the Israel can do no wrong lead.
No, i'm not. In the first place, i didn't say it is untrue, just that there's no reason to believe it when the only basis is hearsay at third hand. As for claiming that i say that Israel can do no wrong, that is hilarious, and it proves that you don't know anything about the history of what i post in these fora regarding Israel. According to the rightwingnuts, and even some people on the left, such as Advocate, my point of view is that Israel can do no right.
When both sides accuse you of having a prejudicial view, and their claims are based upon unfounded accusations which are diametrically opposed, it constitutes good circumstantial evidence that you're striking a nerve with people who rely upon their own prejudices rather than facts, and that you is likely nearing the truth.
Quote:Considering that the Britz are pro-Israel, i doubt they're lying about this information.
Basically they have no reason to lie.
I haven't said they are lying. I have no doubt that they are sincere in stating that one of their diplomatic staff reported that someone else told him that someone else said something. I don't think they're lying, i'm just pointing out that all they are providing is hearsay evidence at third hand.
