Comments on: The RAND Conference, wrap-up http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/ An Arab man's attempt at bridging the cultural gap and trying to make a difference. Failing a lot. Succeeding once in a while. Thu, 24 May 2012 09:01:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: mahmood http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/comment-page-1/#comment-80153 mahmood Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:53:29 +0000 http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/#comment-80153 Amen... and good night! :biggrin: Amen…

and good night! :biggrin:

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Joel Portman http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/comment-page-1/#comment-80152 Joel Portman Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:45:58 +0000 http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/#comment-80152 But Mahmood, though I comment little, I do read your Blog, for its wittiness and its opening up to me a world I knew little about. I came to the defence of Israel when you specifically challenged someone to convince you that Zionism isn't racism. The motive was not 'ulterior' - it was completely up-front, and I can assure you it was completely under amateur rules. I have never been employed by, belonged to, or been a spokesman for any Zionist organisation. Let's finish this conversation as friends. We don't need to keep defending ourselves. God willing one day you may know me personally too, as you know JJ. You will know then that I have many other attributes and interests, and hopefully I will be less likely to be on the receiving end when you have a bad night's sleep Best regards Joel But Mahmood, though I comment little, I do read your Blog, for its wittiness and its opening up to me a world I knew little about. I came to the defence of Israel when you specifically challenged someone to convince you that Zionism isn’t racism. The motive was not ‘ulterior’ – it was completely up-front, and I can assure you it was completely under amateur rules. I have never been employed by, belonged to, or been a spokesman for any Zionist organisation.

Let’s finish this conversation as friends. We don’t need to keep defending ourselves. God willing one day you may know me personally too, as you know JJ. You will know then that I have many other attributes and interests, and hopefully I will be less likely to be on the receiving end when you have a bad night’s sleep

Best regards

Joel

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: mahmood http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/comment-page-1/#comment-80148 mahmood Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:03:09 +0000 http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/#comment-80148 Well, in all honesty Joel, and please do not take this personally, I know JJ personally and can tell you that she does not have an ulterior motive, something that I am unsure of in your case. You appear <i>only</i> when there is an issue we are discussing about Israel... Well, in all honesty Joel, and please do not take this personally, I know JJ personally and can tell you that she does not have an ulterior motive, something that I am unsure of in your case. You appear only when there is an issue we are discussing about Israel…

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Joel Portman http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/comment-page-1/#comment-80146 Joel Portman Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:03:34 +0000 http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/#comment-80146 That's quite all right Mahmood. I know it is not personal. I know you are just as likely to call Jasra Jedi ignorant, stupid and needing to educate herself the next time she doesn't say anything stupid :smile: That’s quite all right Mahmood. I know it is not personal. I know you are just as likely to call Jasra Jedi ignorant, stupid and needing to educate herself the next time she doesn’t say anything stupid :smile:

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: mahmood http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/comment-page-1/#comment-80107 mahmood Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:49:42 +0000 http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/#comment-80107 Ok, wrong side of the bed. I need more time to look into this which is in rather short supply at the moment. Ok, wrong side of the bed. I need more time to look into this which is in rather short supply at the moment.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Joel Portman http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/comment-page-1/#comment-80106 Joel Portman Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:48:10 +0000 http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/#comment-80106 Mahmood Our posts have crossed of course - I didn't see your last one before posting my last one. I should point out that I could not submit the BBC News URL as a single comment on its own - certainly breaking no "max number of URLs" limit. Perhaps you might consider withdrawing your accusation of "stupid insinuations" - or point out where you think I made them. Joel Mahmood
Our posts have crossed of course – I didn’t see your last one before posting my last one. I should point out that I could not submit the BBC News URL as a single comment on its own – certainly breaking no “max number of URLs” limit.

Perhaps you might consider withdrawing your accusation of “stupid insinuations” – or point out where you think I made them.

Joel

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Joel Portman http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/comment-page-1/#comment-80104 Joel Portman Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:38:32 +0000 http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/#comment-80104 Mahmood I never for a single moment thought that you were censoring me, and never suggested it. All I was concerned about was that, for what has so far turned out to be 48 hours, my comment never appeared on "Going For Gold". You then wrote in post 25 above, "doc, Joel, I checked the spam queue just now and there is nothing by you there. I have no idea what’s happening there." I then found out I could get it ALL into "Going for Gold", except for a URL of a BBC website. I therefore wrote on "Going for Gold": <blockquote>It appears as if the problem of getting my above message through (of course, it was only meant to be one message) may perhaps have been that some mechanism is censoring reference to the BBC News website - I don’t know. </blockquote> That is the only suggestion I made of the POSSIBILITY that there might be some censoring process totally external to yourself – a little reminscent of the mouth gag you have painted onto your own photo. Do you then think it is reasonable to write "the insinuation that I censor you specifically is ignorant, to say the least. You could educate yourself about how WordPress and its spam plugins BadBehavior and Akismet work before lobbing stupid insinuations like this." After all, you, with all the knowledge of WordPress, BadBehavior and Akismet that you seem to think we should all have, said "I have no idea what’s happening there." I would be grateful if you could cut out the extra copies of my comment, to just leave it there once as intended. It is a fact you admitted yourself in post 25 that your website has been behaving in a way you don't understand. I do not deserve your accusations of lobbying stupid insinuations, because I never made any. I have tried to be polite, and if I multiple posted, it was only because my post never appeared. Mahmood

I never for a single moment thought that you were censoring me, and never suggested it.

All I was concerned about was that, for what has so far turned out to be 48 hours, my comment never appeared on “Going For Gold”. You then wrote in post 25 above, “doc, Joel, I checked the spam queue just now and there is nothing by you there. I have no idea what’s happening there.”

I then found out I could get it ALL into “Going for Gold”, except for a URL of a BBC website. I therefore wrote on “Going for Gold”:

It appears as if the problem of getting my above message through (of course, it was only meant to be one message) may perhaps have been that some mechanism is censoring reference to the BBC News website – I don’t know.

That is the only suggestion I made of the POSSIBILITY that there might be some censoring process totally external to yourself – a little reminscent of the mouth gag you have painted onto your own photo.

Do you then think it is reasonable to write “the insinuation that I censor you specifically is ignorant, to say the least. You could educate yourself about how WordPress and its spam plugins BadBehavior and Akismet work before lobbing stupid insinuations like this.”

After all, you, with all the knowledge of WordPress, BadBehavior and Akismet that you seem to think we should all have, said “I have no idea what’s happening there.”

I would be grateful if you could cut out the extra copies of my comment, to just leave it there once as intended. It is a fact you admitted yourself in post 25 that your website has been behaving in a way you don’t understand.

I do not deserve your accusations of lobbying stupid insinuations, because I never made any. I have tried to be polite, and if I multiple posted, it was only because my post never appeared.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: mahmood http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/comment-page-1/#comment-80100 mahmood Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:11:07 +0000 http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/#comment-80100 Joel, 5 comments (all duplicates) where in the spam queue, I have released them. The ones in this thread I have deleted (as you have represented them in the other thread) as WordPress does not have the facility to move comments from one thread to another. The <i>reason</i> for them being in the spam queue is that they contained more than the allowed number of links which is set to 3. The system thinks that anything which has more than 3 links has a high possibility of being spam. I shall now increase that level to 5 and hope that spammers won't click on to my generosity. Joel, 5 comments (all duplicates) where in the spam queue, I have released them. The ones in this thread I have deleted (as you have represented them in the other thread) as WordPress does not have the facility to move comments from one thread to another.

The reason for them being in the spam queue is that they contained more than the allowed number of links which is set to 3. The system thinks that anything which has more than 3 links has a high possibility of being spam. I shall now increase that level to 5 and hope that spammers won’t click on to my generosity.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: mahmood http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/comment-page-1/#comment-80099 mahmood Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:51:34 +0000 http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/#comment-80099 Joel, the insinuation that I censor you specifically is ignorant, to say the least. You could educate yourself about how WordPress and its spam plugins BadBehavior and Akismet work before lobbing stupid insinuations like this. Joel, the insinuation that I censor you specifically is ignorant, to say the least. You could educate yourself about how WordPress and its spam plugins BadBehavior and Akismet work before lobbing stupid insinuations like this.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Joel Portman http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/comment-page-1/#comment-80078 Joel Portman Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:55:29 +0000 http://mahmood.tv/2007/03/17/the-rand-conference-wrap-up/#comment-80078 To clarify: it seems a little comment like this gets through, but the one I really want doesn't To clarify: it seems a little comment like this gets through, but the one I really want doesn’t

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>