Search results for 'tag:Dates tag:Before and After' matching tags 'Dates' and 'Before and After'

Re: What do you think about the war between Israel and Lebanon?

Aleen — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:46:24 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
Right to take a land? What is it? Did the Brits have a right to take over North America? Did the Spanish have a right to take over South America? Who gave the English people their right to occupy Australia and New Zealand? Who gave the Anglo-Saxons their right to occupy Britain, and the Francs to take over Gaul?
The area of Israel was occupied time and again by different people and different empires. Who gave the Assyrian and Babylonian empires their right to occupy it? And what about the Persians, the Hellenists, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Crusaders, the Mamluks, the Ottomans? Who gave them their right to occupy the land?

sure no one has this right also the jews don't have this right as well, and probably u've forgotten that jews had occupied the land of Canaans (which is eretz israel now) and they burnt it and killed them if not genocided them so they occupied it and they came back to occupy it again so it's not their land as u claim at least we palestinians are the ones who lived here for the last 17 (btw arabs were here before the 17 centuries it's islam which came to the holy land in the 17 century not the arabs)

Let us all forget for a moment that the Jewish settlement in Israel was confirmed formally by the UN as a state, and that it was backed up by the British Mandate of Palestine (who was, for itself, a formal and authorized mandatory, backed up by the League of Nations)

haven't u just said that no one has the right to occupy i guess we shoudn't also consider the jewish settlement as legal settlements they were just taken by power, just as it was backed up by the League of Nations no one consider that the Brits don't have the right to live in North america, what is that contradiction u believe that those don't have the right to take over noth america while the jews have the right to take over palestine not to mention the massacares they've done to palestinians?

you cannot ignore the simple fact is that no one "invaded" to someone else's home, because it never was "his home".
The Arabs of Israel (Palestinians, that, by the way, invaded the land just like every other nation before and after them), just like the Jews of Israel, just like the Christians of Israel, lived since ever under someone else's rule. They never had a sovereign country; their sovereignty was never breached, because they never had one!

btw what u call the christians of israel are Palestinians (clear enough u don't know a lot about this land huh?) , and what u yourself don't get the not all the palestinians are arabs and the palestinains are a mix of all these nationalities they are arabs greeks and the jews who have converted to islam or christainity ya it's sad that we were under occupation many times but we were living always living here even if we were under occupations but it's still our home definitely
if we've been many times under occupation that means it's ok to occupy us? to kill us? i don't get your logic

As for the killing, I'm sorry to break this one, but the Arabs are not less guilty then the Jews, maybe even more. Just open a history book and read for yourself: 1920 riots, Jaffa riots of 1921, 1929 riots, Arab revolt of 1936-1939â¦
Practically all of the wars that Israel had since 1948 (including) were started by its "peaceful" neighbors.

so your usual response for an occupation is to keep watching them kicking out your people? (not to mention the israeli troops that came it was clear enough that they were setting up for a war ,killing and occupying) and see the number of death; isrealis killed around 15000 arab while 6000 israeli was killed in it 4000 were troops and what about Sabra and Shatila deer yaseen thousands were dead and israel start the attacks!forgot the 17000 palestinians who were massacared they even followed them in lebanon! wasn't it enough to kick them out of their lands?

Why do we call the Palestinians terrorists? That is your interpretation. I don't like generalizations and I don't call innocent people "terrorists".
And still, the truth is that the tactics of Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatach, the Islamic Jihad and the rest of the Palestinian "freedom fighters" target Israeli civilians. They, as opposed to the Israeli army, aim their attacks at innocent men, women and children.
How would you call a man who bombs himself in a club, killing 21 teenagers (in the range of 14-19 years of age) and injuring 120 more? "Freedom fighter"? I wouldn't say

teens? cuz the israeli soldiers are teens a 17 or 18 years old israeli can be enlisted for the army. your source of information is wrong cuz they don't aim civiliasn many times they've bombed soldiers and the last three attacks were at the israeli soldiers while israelis as i see kill nothing but civilians they even shoot and hit children not to mention the bombs that are surrounding east jerusalem that target children (they put them in toys to attract teh children to play with the and god knows how many were killed by them) at least i see what's happening but obviously you're one of those who are brainwashd by media

well i don't care if u called them terrorists but i wonder why don't u call the israeli ones? a man enters a mosques and kill nearly ten what is that called? a women hits badly a palestinian girl what do u call this?

i don't know why don't you condem that attacks of israelis that kills a lot of kids and civilians what about their massacares? not to mention that they attack without any reason and break into our houses what about the expel?? the treatment on checkpoints? and don't they the israeli politicians wish for a drown Gazza in public isn't it clear enough that they want and ethnic cleansing?

Re: What do you think about the war between Israel and Lebanon?

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:46:54 GMT

Right to take a land? What is it? Did the Brits have a right to take over North America? Did the Spanish have a right to take over South America? Who gave the English people their right to occupy Australia and New Zealand? Who gave the Anglo-Saxons their right to occupy Britain, and the Francs to take over Gaul?
The area of Israel was occupied time and again by different people and different empires. Who gave the Assyrian and Babylonian empires their right to occupy it? And what about the Persians, the Hellenists, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Crusaders, the Mamluks, the Ottomans? Who gave them their right to occupy the land?

Let us all forget for a moment that the Jewish settlement in Israel was confirmed formally by the UN as a state, and that it was backed up by the British Mandate of Palestine (who was, for itself, a formal and authorized mandatory, backed up by the League of Nations), you cannot ignore the simple fact is that no one "invaded" to someone else's home, because it never was "his home".
The Arabs of Israel (Palestinians, that, by the way, invaded the land just like every other nation before and after them), just like the Jews of Israel, just like the Christians of Israel, lived since ever under someone else's rule. They never had a sovereign country; their sovereignty was never breached, because they never had one!

As for the killing, I'm sorry to break this one, but the Arabs are not less guilty then the Jews, maybe even more. Just open a history book and read for yourself: 1920 riots, Jaffa riots of 1921, 1929 riots, Arab revolt of 1936-1939â¦
Practically all of the wars that Israel had since 1948 (including) were started by its "peaceful" neighbors.

Why do we call the Palestinians terrorists? That is your interpretation. I don't like generalizations and I don't call innocent people "terrorists".
And still, the truth is that the tactics of Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatach, the Islamic Jihad and the rest of the Palestinian "freedom fighters" target Israeli civilians. They, as opposed to the Israeli army, aim their attacks at innocent men, women and children.
How would you call a man who bombs himself in a club, killing 21 teenagers (in the range of 14-19 years of age) and injuring 120 more? "Freedom fighter"? I wouldn't say

Re: Please and Please someone correct my english -asap -MANY THANKS

Marius Hancu — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:13:17 GMT

I have just been through your account and our records show that we have no outstanding invoices (the last invoice has been paid today).

I remember that we had this investigation about the same invoices last February. At that time, there were a couple of outstanding invoices and we paid them immediately. I am surprised that your records show the same invoices as still outstanding .

Please see the attached excel file, it will show you all the payment allocations and payment dates.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

No space before a comma or period. One space after them. No space before and after ().

Re: Armenian Genocide

YoungCalifornian — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:07:06 GMT

You again misunderstood me. But I think this confusion stems from understaning of the term politics. I tried to say even such an organization which doesnt have to do anything regarding to this case (an historical event) can make decisions because of the diaspora.As for Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights it is obviously a problematic commision and there are several criticism about the decisions of them .some of them from wikipedi

The Commission has been repeatedly criticized for the composition of its membership. In particular, several of its member countries themselves have dubious human rights records, including states whose representatives have been elected to chair the commission.

Another criticism is that the Commission has not been used for constructive discussion of human rights issues, but as a forum for politically selective finger-pointing and criticism. The desire of states with problematic human rights records to be elected to the Commission is largely to defend themselves from such attacks.

And even if you reach wikipedi you will see that this commision was even unable to reach an agreement about the adverse treatment in AbuGharib, which was proved and obvious to the world by photos and videos.

Again, I'm not trying to argue that any one person, organization, or other source of information is going to be 100% objective. It's simply impossible. However, despite that fact, some sources are still more reputable than others. The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights may not be perfect, but it's a much more reliable source than any I've seen you provide. I also notice that of all the criticisms you've presented, none center around the truthfulness of any claims the sub-commission has made.

Did i say i am not biased? Quite the contrary. But i am trying to find the true way.

Who brought up this whole UNESCO discussion? Oh dont say this.It was you who had brought several so-called objective sources. I only responded to show you there cannot be any objectivity in such a historical matter. Get it?

And you compared it with *** while we should have been discussing if it was a gencoide or not in terms of the initial aim of Turks. And worst than all, it is a very common and rotten method which is used by everyone to elicit pity in people,that is to say comparing whatever at hand with Nazi torture.And about torture against armenians you also started it by sending a source contains photos but i didnt want to respond it by sources that show massacred Turks because i think it is not what we should discuss here and nor does it help us to come to an agreement. I dont think it is good way for an efficient discussion to show photos in order to elicit pity in people.Now is it me who is off topic?

You may not have said that you are unbiased, but your attitude and comments directed towards me have implied as much. You've accused me of bias because one of the names I provided as an example of a very (not entirely, but very) impartial organization which accepts the Armenian Genocide as fact has received some criticism in the past. Well, more accurately, you attack the organization because one of its sister organizations was criticized for censorship. You then go on and act as if pointing out that the fact that any organization is liable to have some bias is some sort of great point. If that's the case, why believe anything anyone says? Afterall, we're all biased. If that's the crux of your argument I think you should rethink your position, because I can make the same point regarding any sources you provide. Besides, that was only one of the names I listed.

I'm trying to reach people in this discussion on an analytical level, not an emotional one. Still, if some of the arguments I've made tug at people's heart strings, I'm not going to apologize for that. It's a very sad event in human history. I think I've made it clear why I chose to link some photos and make the comparison to the Holocaust, and neither were to elicit sympathy. I chose to link the photos so people could see that there is indeed photographic evidence of the genocide (those photos were not taken by Armenians, by the way). I explained the parallels to the Holocaust in my last post which addressed your claim that I was only making the comparison to elicit sympathy. Even you should be able to admit that if one accepts the truth of the Armenian Genocide, the parallels to the Holocaust are uncanny. Since you seem to be a fan of Wikipedia (which is, admittedly, not a great source), I thought I've provide this well-stated excerpt from the discussion of the "Armenian Genocide" entry:

What can be termed âhostile and incivil [sicâ¦uncivil]â in this case are the attempts of genocide denialists, historical revisionist and obviously insufficiently educated commentators and fiction writers such as yourself and others here to obscure and rewrite history in an attempt to shield historical criminals of some of the most serious crimes against humanity that have ever occurred in history. In doing so you perpetuate the genocide of an innocent population of Armenians whose survivors suffer through the mental anguish not only of the loss of their relatives and kin and the destruction of their nation â but by the insult and defamation caused by the continued active and ugly denial of the truth of what occurred. This is not â as you attempt to portray it â the âArmenian version of the storyâ â it is a depiction of the history as was documented and corroborated by numerous eyewitnesses and is accepted by the vast majority of scholars, historians, Encyclopedic and history book entries â and it in fact is the truth â as known at the time it occurred and as is known today. It is not the âArmenian versionâ â your contention that it is such is completely false. It is the denial of the true history that is a POV version. No one is required to ârespectâ or acknowledge the denial of the Holocaust except in acknowledging what it is â an ugly twisting of the truth to support a particular racist and hateful viewpoint â and there is absolutely no difference between Holocaust denial and denial of the Armenian Genocide accept for the fact that Armenian Genocide denial is a view that is actively officially held by and sponsored by a nation state. Otherwise each every and all aspects of these denials are the same! If eyewitnesses described camps as concentration camps â by exact word or by description of the activities held in and around them â or more appropriately âdeath campsâ for some â then it matters not if the Turkish government has chosen to call them âway stationsâ or âbeach front villasâ. While we may never be able to know the exact number of Armenians killed or murdered â as we will never know the exact numbers of Jews (and this has been disputed in the very same manner and for the very same reasons as the Turkish deniers dispute the Armenian figures) etc â this does not invalidate the fact that certain figures are (and have always been) accepted as reasonable approximations and that the resulting disparity of Armenian population within Anatolia before and after this time is relatively unchanged in its relationship. Thus disputing the exact numbers in know way obviates the genocide claim and again there is no real controversy of any bearing as what the Turkish Government or their paid/sponsored/held hostage supporters might claim has no validity as the position itself (that genocide did not happen or that no significant numbers of Armenians beyond the norm for the time died and/or that there was no specific campaign against themâ¦etc) is already discredited and obviously spurious and in fact there is no valid dispute of the relative loss of the Armenian population, how and why it occurred and that it was with certainly and absolutely a state sponsored genocide. As for genocide âartâ or what-have-youâ¦this might be the only place were we even remotely agree. I think it is relevant and should be referenced â however considering the article lacks all of the sufficient descriptive elements of the how, why, where, when and by who and to who information that I think is relevant and necessary â I would argue that there is undue emphasis on clearly secondary issues as âartâ etc. However, Pamukâs case IMO â needs to be expanded onâ¦not his specific case â but the systematic campaign of genocide denial by the Turkish government â through laws and prosecutions, destruction of cultural monuments, changing of place names and even names of plants and animals, and of course active international sponsorship of genocide denial â through paid academic sponsorship and restrictions on independence of researchers positions, to pressures upon and threats against governments, corporations and individuals. --THOTH 17:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, I'm not the only one who sees the parallel between the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. In fact, the same discussion page has a whole section titled "Those who deny the Holocaust use the same rational and arguments as Turks who deny the Armenian Genocide"!

From the very beginning, I have told you it doesnt make any sense to me to say if something is commonly believed it is true. Actually, quite the contrary in such a world that is swayed into a direction by power holds and diasporas and so on.Look what I have found.

I do not deny that just because a belief is widespread, that doesn't necessarily make it true. Still, when the majority of academics studying an issue reach the same conclusion, that has to be given some weight. You can't brush aside every point I make by saying everyone is biased, and just because most experts agree, that doesn't make it true. How is anything to be believed then?

I think that the example you've provided of historic propoganda is an ironic one. The author of that passage intends the Indians to be analogous to the Turks, but I think that the situation of the Indians more clearly mirrors that of the Armenians in Turkey. The difference there is that after years of oppressing Native American peoples, the American government and people eventually began to question their perceptions and re-examine history. In the Western world, there is a tradition of questioning events of the past and recognizing that one's own side is not always the right one. Turkey, in contrast, would seem to have no such tradition. Apart from the fact that your government will prosecute people for questioning Turkish history (as evidenced by Orhan Pamuk's situation), the fact that you've been unwilling to say one negative thing about Turkish history (even debating the fact that the Turks pillaged Constantinople) throughout this debate suggests as much.

Also, I hope you don't seriously believe that the website you've provided is an accurate source of information.

Lastly, I leave you with some another excerpt from that same Wikipedia discussion. This one is actually an excerpt of an excerpt:

In Istanbul, a Crack In the Wall of Denial - We're Trying to Debate the Armenian Issue

By Elif Shafak - Sunday, September 25, 2005; ISTANBUL

I am the daughter of a Turkish diplomat -- a rather unusual character in the male-dominated foreign service in that she was a single mother. ... throughout my childhood, the word "Armenian" meant only one thing to me: a terrorist who wanted to kill my mother. Faced with hatred, I hated back. But that was as far as my feelings went. It took me years to ask the simple question: Why did the Armenians hate us? My ignorance was not unusual. For me in those days, and for most Turkish citizens even today, my country's history began in 1923, with the founding of the modern Turkish state. The roots of the Armenians' rage -- in the massacres, atrocities and deportations that decimated Turkey's Armenian population in the last years of Ottoman rule, particularly 1915 -- were simply not part of our common historical memory. But for me today, and for a growing number of my fellow Turks, that has changed. Until my early twenties, like many Turks living abroad, I was less interested in history than in what we described as "improving Turkey's image in the eyes of Westerners." As I began reading extensively on political and social history, I was drawn to the stories of minorities, of the marginalized and the silenced Yet it was not until I came to the United States in 2002 and started getting involved in an Armenian-Turkish intellectuals' network that I seriously felt the need to face the charges that, beginning in 1915, Turks killed as many as 1.5 million Armenians and drove hundreds of thousands more from their homes. I focused on the literature of genocide, particularly the testimony of survivors; I watched filmed interviews at the Zoryan Institute's Armenian archives in Toronto; I talked to Armenian grandmothers, participated in workshops for reconciliation and collected stories from Armenian friends who were generous enough to entrust me with their family memories and secrets. With each step, I realized not only that atrocities had been committed in that terrible time but that their effect had been made far worse by the systematic denial that followed. I came to recognize a people's grief and to believe in the need to mourn our past together. I also got to know other Turks who were making a similar intellectual journey. Obviously there is still a powerful segment of Turkish society that completely rejects the charge that Armenians were purposely exterminated. Some even go so far as to claim that it was Armenians who killed Turks, and so there is nothing to apologize for. These nationalist hardliners include many of our government officials, bureaucrats, diplomats and newspaper columnists. They dominate Turkey's public image -- but theirs is only one position held by Turkish citizens, and it is not even the most common one. The prevailing attitude of ordinary people toward the "Armenian question" is not one of conscious denial; rather it is collective ignorance. These Turks feel little need to question the past as long as it does not affect their daily lives. There is a third attitude, prevalent among Turkish youth: Whatever happened, it was a long time ago, and we should concentrate on the future rather than the past. "Why am I being held responsible for a crime my grandfather committed -- that is, if he ever did it?" they ask. Meanwhile, the Armenian question has been prominently featured in Turkish media. Hurriyet, the nation's most popular newspaper, ran a series of pro and con interviews on this formerly taboo subject, called "The Armenian Dossier." The upcoming trial of acclaimed author Orhan Pamuk, charged with "denigrating" Turkish identity for talking about the killing of Kurds and Armenians, has been fervently debated. Various columnists have directly apologized to the Armenians for the sufferings caused to their people by the Turks. And stories have been reported of orphaned Armenian girls who saved their lives by changing their names, converting to Islam and marrying Turks -- and whose grandchildren are unaware today of their own mixed heritage. All this activity has triggered a nationalist backlash. That should be expected...Foreign Minister Gul,in New York, lamented what effect this would have on Turkey's quest to join the European Union: "There's no one better at hurting themselves than us," he said.Through the collective efforts of academics, journalists, writers and media correspondents, 1915 is being opened to discussion in my homeland as never before. The process is not an easy one and will disturb many vested interests. I know how hard it is -- most children from diplomatic families, confronting negative images of Turkey abroad, develop a sort of defensive nationalism, and it's especially true among those of us who lived through the years of Armenian terrorism. But I also know that the journey from denial to recognition is one that can be made.

Here's a link to the discussion, by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenian_Genocide

Re: Who or Whom?

CalifJim — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 07:54:40 GMT

The positions before and after a form of to be are both nominative case positions. (who, she, he, etc.).
The correct forms therefore never include whom in these structures.

Who is it?
Who is the president?
Who can that be?
Who might that be?
Who will be there?
Who might be in the kitchen?
Who could he be?
Who is she?

The modern convention is, however, to use the object form after the verb to be (never before it), even if this is technically a nominative case position.

That is (him, her, them, etc.).
It is (him, her, them, etc.).

Who is a question word which always ends up before the verb, so is never in a position to be a candidate for the modern convention of subsituting an object form after to be. (I suppose, however, that the rarely occurring question pattern It is who? might possibly be cast as It is whom?, but the intense dislike of whom by many speakers argues against it.)

CJ

Re: sell-by date

rishonly — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 04:30:31 GMT

Hi Paco2004,

A quick question. " The food will taste best by the date 11/11/05". To me, this sentence makes an impression that the food will taste bad before and after 11/11/05. Instead shall we say, "The food will taste best until 11/11/05"?

Thanks in advance,

Dashes and Hyphens

Guest — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:43:42 GMT

When is a dash used in writing a range? For example, it does not seem appropriate when the range is preceded by a prepostion, such as "from A-Z". It seems like that should require "from A to Z". Or "lays between 2-4 eggs" should be "lays between 2 and 4 eggs". But: "it lays 2-4 eggs".

Another question: would "between 2 and 4 eggs" mean 3 eggs? 3 is between 2 and 4. More properly, "lays from 2 to 4 eggs"? If something happened on October 8, 9, and 11, would it be correct to say "between October 8 and 11", "between October 7 and 12", would a dash be appropriate? "from October 8 to 12" doesn't seem right, since to me that implies all dates, and it did not happen on October 10. These types of ranges are use often in my field, and the way they are expressed is all over the board. I would appreciate your input.

One last thing: is there a space before and after the dash? With numbers it looks fine without (2-4), but with a mix it looks funny to me (October 20-November 4).

Re: The Punctuation FAQ

corgilan — Sun, 09 May 2004 20:28:42 GMT

Thanks very much for taking the time to post this FAQ!

I am new to this forum and looking for information on the use of the en dash and em dash.

I am a graphic designer and web designer. I am currently taking a course in which the instructor provided the following information about these punctuation marks. However, there was quite a lot of discussion about them and the accuracy of the information supplied. So, I thought I would put them forward here to see if you could provide and validation or corrections.

Thanks in advance for your help.

corgilan

Hyphen (-):
In punctuation, use only for hyphenating words.
There are no spaces before or after the hyphen.

In writing mathematical expressions, use as the subtraction operand.
[Note: I do not know the spacing rules on this when used as the minus sign]

Example Uses:
This is an example of a sen-
tence that contains a hyphen.

En dash (â):
This character is the same width as the capital letter N of the font being used. Use en dash when expressing a range of values, dates, or times. Use one space before and after the en dash character.

Example Uses:
10 â 12 students
May 15, 2004 â June 23, 2004
10:00AM â 11:00AM
[Note that the AM or PM after the time is supposed to be in small caps, but this font doesn't have that readily available so I can't put it in the post that way. Does anyone know if the convention of small caps is outdated or if it supercedes using regular caps?]

Em dash(â):
This character is the same width as the capital letter M of the font being used. Use em dash within a sentence to indicate an abrupt change in thought. There are no spaces before or after the em dash character.

Example Uses:
I am typing a post to this forumâI must go take the dog out now.

I'm not sure if my example is exactly right, but I do have to take the dog out.
(The dog would also like you to know that his emoticon doesn't seem to be working.)

Re: Joined

chris — Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:10:28 GMT

Have a look at the left of your posts. There you'll see your username: (Maj), underneath you'll find your status (advanced user), then the date that you joined (11th June 2003)

You were one of the first users here! If you look at the members list you can find out exactly how many people joined before and after you did.