11 replies »

  1. Why was this deleted?

    Because the poster was having a personal go at the author (“no longer a journalist but rather a propaganda machine … pseudo-journalism”). Completely off-topic as well.

    Any such comments are always deleted on CiF – regardless of the author or issue.

    A complete non-issue, Hawkeye.

      • “A complete non-issue”

        Not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious and in fact they are often of great significance:

        i) Julius Streicher had nothing of value to say about the Jews because of his vicious anti-Semitism.

        ii) Peter Preston has nothing of value to say about the Jewish state because of his vicious
        “anti-Zionism”.

        “Oh dear. Clearly some people are unwilling or unable to accept the plain truth.”

        You really do need to grow a spine.

        —————

        Incidentally, about many important issues you disagree with the vast majority of posters here. Apart from the offensive attitudes you adopt both in the making of many of your arguments and also in the reaction to other people here, there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. The thing is if your ideas are adopted and they prove to be wrong then you would suffer no negative consequences. On the other hand, we might have to witness the murder of many of our brothers and sisters or possibly the destruction of the Jewish state. We may even at some point have to pay with our own lives.

        ——————–

        In that the Guardian has dedicated itself to the
        destruction of the Jewish state and employed anti-Jewish arguments and tactics in order to realise that goal, it is a profoundly evil newspaper. So too are those who support and defend it.

        —————-

        Seven Jewish Children at the Guardian

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/feb/26/caryl-churchill-seven-jewish-children-play-gaza

      • “pretzelberg

        Oh dear. Clearly some people are unwilling or unable to accept the plain truth.”

        And that’s why I say….

        Happy NAKBA pretzels!

    • Yes, booked for personal abuse, I’m guessing.

      But the rule is applied in an inconsistent and partisan fashion.

      It’s usually OK for ‘ideologically friendly elements’ to harp on the wickedness of political opponents in very robust language: for example when a coalition minister gets a token spot above the line just about every other post is an ad hom or a direct personal attack.

      From the other side, however, citing or even referring to public-domain utterances of certain contributors on certain subjects is enough to warrant deletion or even banning.

      Of course it is the Guardian’s platform: they can do whatever they want. I guess what rankles is the sanctimonious promotion of a CiF as a level playing field, when in fact there is subtle (and sometime overt) bias in terms of selection of material — including the showcasing of particular comments and bestowal of ‘contributor’ status — and moderation actions.

      Having said that, it’s best to play the ball, not the man — provided certain taboos are avoided, that should result in most posts getting through.

  2. Comments attacking other journalists or making racist or especially anti-semitic comments are almost never deleted.

  3. Really pathetic how these Guardian bigots call themselves “liberal”, which used to mean openness, absence of prejudice, intellectual honesty, etc.

    When did this incredibly biased bashing of Israel become de riguer among liberals? Why is it “OK”, whereas they would never do this to any other ethnic group, and if someone else did, the Guardian would be “outraged”.

    Shows how the Left in England and in the U.S. for that matter has totally lost its way.

  4. If the quotation was legitimate then so was the comment. To be fair both should have received the same treatment, Preston was quite aware of his bias, witness the fact that he when called to comment on the thread he was unable to respond to specific criticisms of various of his statements, the one above being among the least defensible and the most criticised

    Equally I have no doubt that he is reading this and that he will again not venture to respond point by point because he can not. The remarks in question and his general attitude to Israel are prompted by deep prejudice and not by any form of logic.

  5. I just read on one of their threads of posters complaining that pro-Israeli posters are taking over and dominating threads that are about Israel,and that these posts receive massive amounts of recommends.

    One poster even complained that pro-Israeli posters get away with murder.

    I have this strange feeling that the Guardian is run by dickheads for dickheads……..This Peter Preston is one of those giant dickheads.