Regardless of tone, the substance of Dr. Finkelstein's critique warrants a response.
Professor Morris's reversal of his word, and 'contradictio in terminis' as Mr. Verelli may put it, is a disappointing silence that raises questions about his scholarly credibility.
It does certainly raise questions, the debate was shocking in that sense. As he came across more like an Israeli fanatic than an Israeli Academic. Worst of all, I do not believe one compliment necessitates that the person returns it to the one who made it. However Norman was adamant on praising the work of Professor Morris. Which I think speaks to Normans sincerity, that despite a person opposing your views or preceding with bad manners by cutting you off, you still are able to view them and their work in an objective manner. Professor Morris, however refrained from mentioning the work of Norman which was disappointing and percussive to say the least. Professor Morris reminds me so much of Alan Dershowitz, in that they speak but view words as as butterflies that fly away and never come back. Alan made a challenge promising money, it was met, and yet he does not hold his end of the bargain, sad really.
Another great piece. It made me smile, but also pause which is interesting and rare fore me to do. As I am a quick reader. Your including the time mark of 2:37:13 is not only amusing but clever. Given that you Norman Finkelstein, in that very moment seemed to realize that sad reality that Professor Morris would most certainly not emphasize nor reinstate his retraction. Your response in the bold is great as well. What intrigued me most about the debate in regards to ‘the one sitting next to professor Morris’ lol and professor Morris, this hatred of you and your quoting. But it seems to me they hated that, only because words are like a debt that must be paid. It is either you regret what you said or stand by it, quoting makes it very hard to let that debt pile up. Please write more, your work is wonderful to read. You write how you speak and I love it.
Regardless of tone, the substance of Dr. Finkelstein's critique warrants a response.
Professor Morris's reversal of his word, and 'contradictio in terminis' as Mr. Verelli may put it, is a disappointing silence that raises questions about his scholarly credibility.
It does certainly raise questions, the debate was shocking in that sense. As he came across more like an Israeli fanatic than an Israeli Academic. Worst of all, I do not believe one compliment necessitates that the person returns it to the one who made it. However Norman was adamant on praising the work of Professor Morris. Which I think speaks to Normans sincerity, that despite a person opposing your views or preceding with bad manners by cutting you off, you still are able to view them and their work in an objective manner. Professor Morris, however refrained from mentioning the work of Norman which was disappointing and percussive to say the least. Professor Morris reminds me so much of Alan Dershowitz, in that they speak but view words as as butterflies that fly away and never come back. Alan made a challenge promising money, it was met, and yet he does not hold his end of the bargain, sad really.
Another great piece. It made me smile, but also pause which is interesting and rare fore me to do. As I am a quick reader. Your including the time mark of 2:37:13 is not only amusing but clever. Given that you Norman Finkelstein, in that very moment seemed to realize that sad reality that Professor Morris would most certainly not emphasize nor reinstate his retraction. Your response in the bold is great as well. What intrigued me most about the debate in regards to ‘the one sitting next to professor Morris’ lol and professor Morris, this hatred of you and your quoting. But it seems to me they hated that, only because words are like a debt that must be paid. It is either you regret what you said or stand by it, quoting makes it very hard to let that debt pile up. Please write more, your work is wonderful to read. You write how you speak and I love it.