I think I made its long time ago that there is bad cultures within Islamic world but its so impended with Islamic societies that make some using its as “Religious” things like wahabisim and khomienisim.

So as any societies there are bad and goods culture practices, you and others should be specific when it comes to talk about Islam and Muslim and be clear that when you talking not insulting the religion as these bad culture are not Islamic religion or Islamic teaching.

David Irving

Anti-Islamism does not justify racism

When you came to Iran to interview Khomeini, I was fighting against him and Islamic regime for women’s rights, against the hejab, and for freedom. I knew you first and foremost for your interview with the Shah. I admired your courage and frankness then. I feel indignant now when I read some of your comments and your latest interview with Margaret Talbot in New Yorker. Your justified hatred against Islam and Islamism has been extended to all Moslems and everyone living under Islam. I am sure you do not need anyone to remind you that this is racism. I am bewildered when I read your comments against immigrants and immigration from countries under the rule of Islam, and find this in contrast with the justified pride you take in your history for fighting against Nazi-Fascism.

I’m basically a functionalist. Sergey’s comments resulted in neo’s posting more pictures. If we treat his comments as a ploy that worked, he is very clever to the benefit of us older leering males. Bravo! If he intended the comments as something else, then I’m a dolt who didn’t perceive the intent, but Sergey can still receive kudos for the result regarless of his intent. The leering males are happy (because they can still leer,–which they confuce with capability), the females are amused by the hubris of the dirty old men, and a good time can be had by all.

But, do I still think it’s a ploy? A communication act isn’t like a rose, which is a rose is a rose. A communication act is meaningful relative to a transactional usage. Meaning is transacted rather than transmitted; it is worked out (or not) by the communication participants.

Let’s take the two of us as a communication universe. I say it’s a ploy. You say it’s not a ploy. In our communication universe of two, neither of us has “functional information”– defined as that information which we recognized as valid in our universe of two. Unfortunately, we are not in a universe of two, but the universe of this list. I can maintain it is a ploy until the cows come home, but if the rest of the posters here agree it is not, I am functionally insane in this group. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong, only that I’m outnumbered. If I want to be a happy socialite, I must take my marbles elsewhere.

Aren’t you sorry you asked? But it’s your turn: Do you think it was a ploy? Or, to avoid the ontological issue of its reality, do you think we should operationalize it as a ploy in this group? (If we all agree was a ploy, we can send the nay-sayers packing–off to Shrinkwrapped.

Mr DuMaurier-Smith: you still think it’s a ploy, huh?

There’s nothing wrong with losing and paying the costs of defeat, but the French aren’t very good at even that.