We have Women Music and Dancing galore! (WMD)

...that number 1! I agree with every word of it. It appears that other TBers also appreciate it Care to comment on it? Hmm....Looks like you chose to take a swipe at Robert instead. We all copy and paste these days and although Robert failed to mention that he took the article from Ms. Glick in the JP last week..so what?...it doesn't warrant such nit-picking. Your hormones are clearly playing tricks on you.

I realise many people see no problem with the idea of stealing someone else’s idea and taking the credit for it (even some countries do it… wholesale), and of course people cut-and-paste to a certain extent. However, what Blum has done at number one is entirely cut an excerpt from another persons work, attach his own name to it and then post it. He could have easily cut-and-pasted Caroline’s name, added his own comment to indicate he had read it elsewhere, or posted a link, as Cynthia at #28 has done, and I doubt it was simply a case of Blum just “failing to mention” it. His only contribution was a silly headline and his full name. To some people, it appears Blum is attempting to enhance his reputation as an astute and fluent commentator, taking kudos for another person’s effort. Sad. As for asking me to comment on Caroline Glick’s piece: shouldn’t you be asking Blum that question?

I wondered about the name "berlin" honestly although I didn't voice it. Could it be "beilin" rather than Berlin ha? But still more like Irvin Berlin to be sure no? Your wonderful rendition of all the munificence you wrote pertaining the whole scenario cheers me up. Ahmad Cohen you have done the subject in your own innimitable way thank you. Now we await the next episode,and may it end with the defeat of those deluded SCUMBAGS. INSHALLAH Please come back.What took you so long??????????

The supplies will not be blocked. They will be checked and cleared through Ashdod, and sent into Gaza. If the flotilla has nothing to hide, then there will be no problem.

Your response is a -perfect- example of brainwash. Regardless of the source, post #1 presents a VALID ARGUMENT. You are unable to counter the argument. And, you are unable to accept any view that differs from your own. Your response typifies liberal brainwash in that it ignores factual information, argues by irrelevant criteria, and finishes by taking the imagined moral high road. Yet a moral liberal is an oxymoron, because as atheists, agnostics, and secularists, you have no moral compass other than SELF. Liberals call themselves "progressive" and "forward thinking" but the sad truth for you is that enlightenment begins with humility. - The wise have always known that little good can come of ones life until self-searching becomes a regular habit. - What I see in the "progressive" movement is a continual barrage of spite-filled epithet-laden sarcastic derisive spew. To which I respond: "Of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." Of course you will ignore the validity of the statement and instead resort to accusing me of attempting to take credit for a NT quote. Go ahead and spew. Your words are nothing more than an open declaration of what YOU are made of yourself, and bears no relativity to your target.

Your rant is laughable. It’s always good for a laugh when you neo-con types level accusations at all and sundry of the very faults of which you yourselves are guilty. My target was Blum’s plagiarism of Glick’s article, not the article itself. And I’m suspicious of Blum’s motive when he could have easily acknowledged or simply provided a link. Blum’s political persuasion has nothing to do with his thievery and whether it‘s right or wrong - it‘s wrong, by the way, whatever his bent. Keep ranting, Ben. There’s nothing like a “barrage of spite-filled, epithet-laden sarcastic spew” [whew!] to give me a good chuckle. Thanks.

I have done the same,but I usually announce on my caption as: Paraphrasing. I also add my views in parts and at the end of the article/ subject space permitting. It is perfectly okay and I see no reason to tell the responder he was PLAGIARIZING. Since I have not read the response I cannot condemn either way. Besides why use ad-hominems and silly accusions.

Thanks for providing such a gem to underline precisely what I said: 1) Ignored factual information. You STILL have not acknowledged any of the actual argument. 2) Followed by irrelevant argument, in this case an ad hominem attack. 3) Finishes by taking the imagined moral (or intellectual) high ground.