With a cease-fire like this, who needs war?

[Mycroft]

wtf are you jibbering about? a dance? have you posted to the correct thread? This is the thread where you won't give an example of denial and revisionism...remember?

In light of Darat's warning, it's best that this latest baiting be ignored.

 

[webfusion]

denial

"So if you've posted the peace agreements that didn't require Israel to stop building settlements and someone were to claim that Israel building settlements was a violation of those agreements despite your posted evidence to the contrary...

1) Would you agree that person were guilty of denial and or historical revisionism?"


The point being, T-F, you (and many others, not just on these boards, but throughout the internet in discussions in other forums) have been claiming that building settlements is an impediment to Arab-Israeli peace because it is "illegal" in general and specificially "a violation" of the peace agreements already put forward.

From that premise, you are asking for specific examples?
Yes or no, you are now asking for examples of where it is being claimed (by you, for instance) that the building of settlements is a "violation of those agreements"?


In the thread, "Maale Adumim" a doozy of a discussion takes place in there about the overall illegality of Israeli settlements (UN Resolutions were mentioned, IIRC).

In any case, the settlements aren't prohibited in any of the interim agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority as far as I know, and to use the jewish presence as an excuse to lob missiles and bomb towns in Israel, is just unsupportable.

And that brings us back to the topic of the thread ---

This is not a cease fire, it's war by any standard.

===========================

 

[The Fool]

Re: denial

"So if you've posted the peace agreements that didn't require Israel to stop building settlements and someone were to claim that Israel building settlements was a violation of those agreements despite your posted evidence to the contrary...

1) Would you agree that person were guilty of denial and or historical revisionism?"


The point being, T-F, you (and many others, not just on these boards, but throughout the internet in discussions in other forums) have been claiming that building settlements is an impediment to Arab-Israeli peace because it is "illegal" in general and specificially "a violation" of the peace agreements already put forward.



From that premise, you are asking for specific examples?

yes. specific claims, provide specific examples and we can discuss them...otherwise its just a pointless neverending series of discussions about what you and others think was said or think was meant by what you think you remember was said.

Yes or no, you are now asking for examples of where it is being claimed (by you, for instance) that the building of settlements is a "violation of those agreements"?

yes I'm asking for specific examples of where someone has claimed that something is in violation of a particular document after they have been shown otherwise. I think you may find this issue is a little too complex for the demanded yes/no answer that has become so trendy lately......
The building and expanding of settlements in occupied territories is addressed by quite a few international laws and treaties and agreements. To be honest I can remember some people complaining it breached the spirit of some peace agreements and specifically breached other international laws, I don't remember saying that myself about a particular document except when I was sure of its contents.......once again, show me an example if you are joining the claimants.
=========================== [/B]

 

[The Fool]

In light of Darat's warning, it's best that this latest baiting be ignored.

that one was pre-warning.

anyway, I was just concerned you seem to have mixed up the threads, are you still interested in giving any (one?) example of the denial and revisionism you claim is so common?

 

[zenith-nadir]

The fool is toying with you guys. Here is 19 pages of "examples" and he asks for examples.

anyway, I was just concerned you seem to have mixed up the threads, are you still interested in giving any (one?) example of the denial and revisionism you claim is so common?

• Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas pledged to do all he can to stop rocket and mortar attacks on January 19, 2005, Feb. 8, 2005, February 10, 2005, March 18th, 2005, June 9th, 2005 and July 17th, 2005. I documented it with links. Has Abbas done all he can to stop rocket and mortar attacks? No he has not.
  
• Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas blames Israel for the tension. Is Israel responsible for the tension? No Israel is not responsible. Suicide bombing, rocket and mortar attacks by PALESTINIAN terror groups is responsible for the tension.
  
• Abbas accused Israel of exploiting the clashes between Hamas and the PA to escalate the situation. Is Israel exploiting the clashes between Hamas and the PA to escalate the situation? No Israel is not exploiting the clashes between Hamas and the PA to escalate the situation.
  
• Abbas claimed that Israel was responsible for the state of anarchy in PA-controlled areas. Is Israel responsible for the state of anarchy in PA-controlled areas? No that would be impossible for they are PA-controlled areas.
  
• Palestinian Hanan Ashrawi, from the Palestinian Legislative Council, told the BBC that responses by Israel to stop suicide bombings, rocket and mortar attacks would be dangerous and irresponsible. She claims "This reinstates again the language of occupation of militarism, of unilateralism, of violence." Is that the truth? No it is not. Suicide bombing, rocket and mortar attacks by PALESTINIAN terror groups is dangerous, irresponsible and reinstates again the language of militarism, unilateralism and violence.
  
• The only peace treaty that called for a halt on settlement building was the Roadmap in 2002. That was 10 peace treaties after the first one Arafat signed. All of the treaties Arafat signed obligated the Palestinian Authority to stop terror. Did the Palestinian Authority stop terror? No. The Palestinian Authority supported and financed terror.
  
• Everyone is calling this a "ceasefire" or a "period of calm". Here's 19 pages of documentation that proves there never was a ceasefire or a period of calm on the Palestinian side. In fact the thread began with a Palestinian RPG attack on an Israeli school bus!

And I could give other examples of myth, turnspeak and propoganda documented in this thread. And that is why it is 19 pages long because it takes a ton of documentation to DEBUNK Palestinian turnspeak. Now all of that is not good enough for the fool, he wants you guys to

provide specific examples and we can discuss them...otherwise its just a pointless neverending series of discussions about what you and others think was said or think was meant by what you think you remember was said.

He is either 1) completely in denial or 2) trolling for sport because A) anyone can look up the Israeli/Palestinian peace treaties on Google and see for themselves that the only peace treaty that called for a halt on settlement building was the Roadmap while all other treaties called for and end to Palestinian terror and B) here's 19 pages of documentation that there never was a ceasefire by the Palestinian terror organizations and as usual the Palestinians try to blame Israel for their actions, I documented it so well the fool even complains about it!;

.I'm not talking about an example of ZN posting something...he has just about posted the entire internet by now. I'm talking about the people denying stuff that you constantly claim happens.

The fool is making you guys jump through hoops, and you don't have to. It is high time the myth peddlers on the fools side of the debate start jumping through hoops to support their position. Plain and simple.

 

[Mycroft]

that one was pre-warning.

anyway, I was just concerned you seem to have mixed up the threads, are you still interested in giving any (one?) example of the denial and revisionism you claim is so common?

I'm interested in pinning you down to an opinion that can be fact-checked, verified, supported or refuted.

You're very good at arguing without actually taking a position, but it's just sniping and baiting that leads nowhere.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Hamas 'still committed' to truce - BBC - Monday, 18 July, 2005, 15:58 GMT 16:58 UK

Palestinian militant group Hamas says it will uphold an unofficial truce that is on the verge of collapse amid an upsurge of violence in Gaza.

Hamas said it was committed to a conditional calm but retained a right to "resistance and self-defence".

There have also been well over 100 Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli targets in and around Gaza in recent days.

This is the kind of turnspeak I am on about. The BBC article CLAIMS the "Palestinian militant group Hamas says it will uphold an unofficial truce". Then buried down in a paragraph they say "There have also been well over 100 Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli targets in and around Gaza in recent days".

So how can they report that Hamas 'still committed' to truce when there have been well over 100 Hamas rocket attacks in recent days? It doesn't add up. 1+1 = 456! at the BBC.

No wonder Europeans have such a distorted view of the conflict.

 

[Mycroft]

This is the kind of turnspeak I am on about. The BBC article CLAIMS the "Palestinian militant group Hamas says it will uphold an unofficial truce". Then buried down in a paragraph they say "There have also been well over 100 Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli targets in and around Gaza in recent days".

So how can they report that Hamas 'still committed' to truce when there have been well over 100 Hamas rocket attacks in recent days? It doesn't add up. 1+1 = 456! at the BBC.

No wonder Europeans have such a distorted view of the conflict.

Not only that but those Hamas rockets were launched in "self defense" according to them. Meaning killing Israelis during a cease fire is their version of "self defense".

So when they say they will honor a cease fire but retain their right to resistance and self-defense, what they're really saying is they're willing to claim the benefit of a cease fire, but not feel obligated to stop killing Jews.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Not only that but those Hamas rockets were launched in "self defense" according to them. Meaning killing Israelis during a cease fire is their version of "self defense".

So when they say they will honor a cease fire but retain their right to resistance and self-defense, what they're really saying is they're willing to claim the benefit of a cease fire, but not feel obligated to stop killing Jews.

It truely boggles the mind that this is how the BBC works. They claim something - commitment to a ceasefire - and the contradict their claim - over 100 Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli targets in and around Gaza in recent days. - in the same article. Then they print it!

 

[The Fool]

I'm interested in pinning you down to an opinion that can be fact-checked, verified, supported or refuted.

You're very good at arguing without actually taking a position, but it's just sniping and baiting that leads nowhere.

well mycroft...Its not me that needs to take a position...you made the claim that denial and revisionism are so common....yet, funnily enough, trying to get you to provide a single example is like pulling teeth.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Gadid: Worker lightly wounded by mortar - (JP) - Jul. 17, 2005 1:28

A foreign worker was lightly wounded on Monday evening by a mortar shell which hit the Gaza Strip settlement of Gadid.

On Monday morning, six mortars were fired at Israeli settlements and an IDF post in the Gaza Strip, Army Radio reported.

Overnight Sunday, five mortars and two Kassam rockets landed in Gaza Strip settlements and the western Negev.

The IDF tallied a total of 21 mortar rounds and six Kassam rockets fired by the Palestinians on Sunday alone.

Hamas vows to observe truce accord - Al Jazeera - Monday 18 July 2005, 20:37 Makka Time, 17:37 GMT

Hamas has confirmed its commitment to a truce agreed to in Egypt but has reserved the right to retaliate against any Israeli attacks.

Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Misri told Aljazeera on Monday that the movement had reassured a visiting Egyptian security delegation of its commitment to observe the period of calm.

Israeli occupation forces raided the West Bank towns of Ram Allah and Tulkarim while Palestinian resistance fighters in the Gaza Strip kept up rocket and mortar fire on Israeli targets.

Abbas promised on Sunday to do "all we can" to prevent further rocket strikes on Israelis "regardless of the price". But on Monday, resistance groups fired about a dozen mortars at Jewish settlements in Gaza and at least one makeshift rocket into southern Israel, the Israeli army said.

well mycroft...Its not me that needs to take a position...you made the claim that denial and revisionism are so common....yet, funnily enough, trying to get you to provide a single example is like pulling teeth.

And he will keep baiting you Mycroft. Avoid feeding trolls.

 

[The Fool]

The fool is toying with you guys. Here is 19 pages of "examples" and he asks for examples.

sorry zn...just to recap, Mycroft has made a specific claim repeatedly. He has claimed that people on this forum deny readily available facts and practice revisionism...his claim is not that people disagree with ZN...that is a fact nobody attempts to deny. Mycroft used a specific example that unnamed posters had claimed that settlements were in breach of a specific agreement. I have asked him to provide an example, because I honestly want to discuss his specific claim bases on specific examples, not vague opinions of the type of things people are supposed to have said....it appears to be too much to ask.



The fool is making you guys jump through hoops, and you don't have to.

No, you don't have to provide any backup for specific claims if you don't want to...

It is high time the myth peddlers on the fools side of the debate start jumping through hoops to support their position. Plain and simple.
Its a fairly simple process, make a claim, be expected to support it. If you find that annoying....then stop making claims about other members that you won't support. I know you think the cease fire is a sham, I know your views on abbas...what is the point of telling people these things over and over and claiming people are in denial if they don't agree with you.

If you have any specific examples to help support mycrofts specific claims then give him a hand with a quote.....

 

[Elind]

well mycroft...Its not me that needs to take a position...you made the claim that denial and revisionism are so common....yet, funnily enough, trying to get you to provide a single example is like pulling teeth.

Give us a break Fool. You are pedantic to the extreme in this, almost as bad as EJA.

And BTW, providing a single example of anything proves nothing about what is common, as you would no doubt be smart enough to point out.

You know very well what is common, as you commonly respond to, or defend the same.

 

[The Fool]

And BTW, providing a single example of anything proves nothing about what is common, as you would no doubt be smart enough to point out.

Lol.....well reluctance to site a single example of something claimed as common certainly does nothing to support a position. If you also think its common maybe you could help in the search?

I think unicorns are common, I hope nobody is ever so pedantic that they insist I produce one..

As for being being pedantic, have you any other suggestions on how people can be encouraged to provide support for unsupported claims? Is it pedantic to ask for examples?....possibly multiple times if nothing but excuses, diversions and repeats of the claim are the replies. I take your point and am planning to stop pointlessly asking for examples, I wonder if those making the claims will stop?

 

[zenith-nadir]

I know you think the cease fire is a sham

The ceasefire is a sham because there has been no cease to the fire.

I know your views on abbas...

Abbas pledged to do all he can to stop rocket and mortar attacks on January 19, 2005, Feb. 8, 2005, February 10, 2005, March 18th, 2005, June 9th, 2005 and July 17th, 2005. I documented it with links. Any Israeli knows he has not done all he can to stop rocket and mortar attacks. Therefore would you call him trustworthy?

what is the point of telling people these things over and over and claiming people are in denial if they don't agree with you.

One would have to be in denial to debate that suicide bombing, rocket and mortar attacks can be called a ceasefire or "period of calm". These are the exact same terror groups who have been firing on Israel since 1993 and that's the whole point. This is more of the same old same old, the islamist terror groups attack Israel, the Palestinian Authority says it's doing all it can do to stop it and the media prints ridiculous distortions such as

"Hamas has confirmed its commitment to a truce agreed to in Egypt...while Palestinian resistance fighters in the Gaza Strip kept up rocket and mortar fire on Israeli targets."

That is what I refer to as turnspeak. I linked the Al Jazeera story just a few posts above. They call HAMAS, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades "resistance fighters". What are they resisting? They are not "resisting", they are engaged in offensive combat. They are no different than insurgents lobbing mortars and rockets at Iraqis.

I linked a BBC story which read:

The Palestinian militant group Hamas says it will uphold an unofficial truce....There have also been well over 100 Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli targets in and around Gaza in recent days.

That is equally absurd and turnspeak. How can Hamas uphold a truce and launch over 100 Hamas rocket attacks at the same time the fool?

I linked an Associated Press report, it said:

Abbas blamed Israel for the tension. "Israel does not want peace or security, but we don't want to be dragged to their playground," he said. "Maybe they are looking for an excuse to delay the withdrawal."

That too is absurd and turnspeak. Abbas blames Israel for the tension? How does that figure? Because Israel is being attacked? Give me a frikkin break!

I linked to a BBC report, it said:

Palestinian Hanan Ashrawi, from the Palestinian Legislative Council, told the BBC that responses by Israel to stop suicide bombings, rocket and mortar attacks would be dangerous and irresponsible. She claims "This reinstates again the language of occupation of militarism, of unilateralism, of violence."

Responses by Israel to stop suicide bombings, rocket and mortar attacks are dangerous and irresponsible....go figure. Yet another example of turnspeak.

This kind of media bias and Palestinian turnspeak goes back to The Church of the Nativity seige, the Jenin hoax, and on and on. That is why people have such a distorted view of this conflict. Well this wee thread in the vastness of cyberspace is exactly where it needs to be to DEBUNK these myths and distortions when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. On a sceptics message board.

 

[Elind]

Lol.....well reluctance to site a single example of something claimed as common certainly does nothing to support a position. If you also think its common maybe you could help in the search?

I think unicorns are common, I hope nobody is ever so pedantic that they insist I produce one..

As for being being pedantic, have you any other suggestions on how people can be encouraged to provide support for unsupported claims? Is it pedantic to ask for examples?....possibly multiple times if nothing but excuses, diversions and repeats of the claim are the replies. I take your point and am planning to stop pointlessly asking for examples, I wonder if those making the claims will stop?

The point is that you need to read between lines a bit more. We all, including you, make statements that sound like absolutes, when what they really mean is "IMHO".

That is a poor point for filling pages of a thread (takes more than one to do so however). Instead of asking for proof of an opinion, perhaps try to illustrate why something different is more correct, in the same context and in the same semantic reference, of course.

(I'm just practising to take over Darat's job here )

 

[webfusion]

I looked...

Couldn't find any posts by T-F that meet the suggestion made by mycroft that unnamed posters had claimed that settlements were in breach of a specific agreement. AFAIK, The Fool has made no such statements. I used the Search function and came up empty.

The general assertion that people on this forum deny readily available facts and practice revisionism is no doubt a valid claim, since this is a natural result of accepting the 'turnspeak' rampant in the current MidEast conflict. One example is the Palestinian CHARTER, which some say was amended and some say was not.

The current round of blame for the terror continuing is also an example... as Z-N has pointed out several times already.

However, the only specific post by anyone I found using search criteria "violate agreements" and "jewish settlements violate" (the post I located refers NOT to the jewish settlements being in breach of the Israel-PA agreements going back to Oslo in 1993, but rather to UN resolution 242) was by Theodore Kurita:
Leader of the Draconis Combine
Posted in May 2004 "This is the Enemy" thread

Anyway, both sides are are now saying that the ceasefire is going to resume being honored again.
According to the IDF, Palestinian fire on Gush Katif declined Monday, and the western Negev was not targeted at all, for the first time since last Thursday. By Monday evening, "only" 13 mortar shells had been fired at IDF outposts in Gush Katif and the Rafah region.

Additionally --
"Hamas agreed Monday to stop the rocket and mortar fire and resume the truce agreed upon four months ago, according to Palestinian sources."

I don't know what to make of all this, but unfortunately, in the middle of the one-upmanship, a 14-year-old Palestinian boy, Raeeb al-Masri, was killed Monday by IDF soldiers, who opened fire at a convoy of Palestinian cars that had been waiting at the closed Gush Katif checkpoint for hours and decided to force their way through.

Perhaps this will be the final innocent casualty in the latest round of violence? We can hope.

 

[The Fool]

Re: I looked...

Couldn't find any posts by T-F that meet the suggestion made by mycroft that unnamed posters had claimed that settlements were in breach of a specific agreement. AFAIK, The Fool has made no such statements. I used the Search function and came up empty.

The general assertion that people on this forum deny readily available facts and practice revisionism is no doubt a valid claim, since this is a natural result of accepting the 'turnspeak' rampant in the current MidEast conflict. One example is the Palestinian CHARTER, which some say was amended and some say was not.

The current round of blame for the terror continuing is also an example... as Z-N has pointed out several times already.

However, the only specific post by anyone I found using search criteria "violate agreements" and "jewish settlements violate" (the post I located refers NOT to the jewish settlements being in breach of the Israel-PA agreements going back to Oslo in 1993, but rather to UN resolution 242) was by Theodore Kurita:
Leader of the Draconis Combine
Posted in May 2004 "This is the Enemy" thread

Anyway, both sides are are now saying that the ceasefire is going to resume being honored again.
According to the IDF, Palestinian fire on Gush Katif declined Monday, and the western Negev was not targeted at all, for the first time since last Thursday. By Monday evening, "only" 13 mortar shells had been fired at IDF outposts in Gush Katif and the Rafah region.

Additionally --
"Hamas agreed Monday to stop the rocket and mortar fire and resume the truce agreed upon four months ago, according to Palestinian sources."

I don't know what to make of all this, but unfortunately, in the middle of the one-upmanship, a 14-year-old Palestinian boy, Raeeb al-Masri, was killed Monday by IDF soldiers, who opened fire at a convoy of Palestinian cars that had been waiting at the closed Gush Katif checkpoint for hours and decided to force their way through.

Perhaps this will be the final innocent casualty in the latest round of violence? We can hope.

web
thanks for that....I wish more people would follow your example when it comes to actually looking at what people post rather than thier feelings about what people "really mean".

lets all indeed hope that this latest fatality is the last for a while.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Yes - if you have any regard for the truth and the accuracy of your own claims?

I fail to see the connection. My statements are no less true simply because I haven't jumped through your hoops. I notice you entirely ducked the question of whether you deny it. Why should I bother proving something that you haven't denied?

Once again you make an unsupported claim about me. Is that how sceptics work?

I haven't made "unsupportedd claims". I just haven't spoon-fed the support to you. The support is in this thread. Do you expect me to repeat the support in every post? Is your memory so bad that you can't keep track of what you said in this thread?

If you want to be taken seriously, please provide the context you are now making claims about.

If you want to be taken seriously, quit repeating yourself, making personal attacks, calling people who disagree with you liars, ducking questions, and pretending that you haven't said things that you have said.

As long as you continue to make unsupported claimsI will continue to point that fact out.

More evasion. This does not answer my question, and I can only assume that your continued employment of a tactic which you have already been told is annoying is a deliberate choice to express contempt.

Once again you make claims about me but fail to actually quote my words to support your claim. Will you never learn?

Are you insane? Do you seriously expect me to repeat every single thing that has said in the entire thread every time I ever respond to you? Your continued insistence on ridiculous standards is even more evidence for the "EJA is a troll" hypothesis. Why should I include a quote? Are you denying that my statement was accurate?

Honestly, what is the deal? Do you believe that you didn't say that you presented quotes? Do you not remember whether you did or not, and would like me to remind you? Or do do you know that you did, are asking out of some sort of principle?

What anti-Israeli propaganda are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

What facts exactly?

You just quoted them. Not really following the conversation, are you?

You make the false claim that I am incredibly biased against Israel but once again you have failed to provide one single word of mine to support your latest, deliberately nonsensical, allegation. [/quoite]Quoting a single word would be silly. Duh. Bias is something that becomes apparent over a long time, so unless you expect me to quote every sinle post of yours (in which case, too bad), you'll just have to acceptthat that is my judgement.

You seem to equate the highlighting certain unacceptable behaviour by Ariel Sharon and the IDF amounts to incredible bias against Israel.

Gee, absolutely no quotes to support that allegation. Isn't that, like, a capital crime in EJA world? Or only when someone else does it?

Firstly you need to establish that what has been said is in any way incorrect,

I have. You'd just played word games to avoid admitting that you're wrong.

thirdly that Ariel Sharon and the IDF is equivalent to Israel.

No, that is not necessary. According to your logic, attacking black people isn't evidence of bias against black people, unless one attacks every black person.

Despite me challenging you publicly in the last few posts to support your allegations about me with my own words you have repeatedly failed to do so.

I asked you point blank whether you denied my statements, and you ducked the question. So don't pretend that I am the one being evasive.

In this repellent and I believe deliberate way you have now invented the claim that I think the life of an IDF soldier is worthless.

That is a lie. I guess lying is only wrong if someone else does it?

I am now publicly challenging you to immediately publish any words of mine that state the lives of IDF soldiers are worthless.

I challenge you to produce a quote of me saying "you believe the life of an IDF soldier is worthless".

After inventing a lie you bizarrely go even further by implying anti-semitism on the back of it.

Right, it's absolutely absurd to imply that anti-semitism just maybe might have something to do with a disregard for IDF lives.

This latest attempt to attach the anti-semitism label to those who highlight Sharon's activities is publicly noted.

More dishonesty. Sharon has nothing to do with this issue. Your strategy seems to be to post whatever you want, and pretend that anyone who disagrees is just picking on you for criticizing Sharon.

You keep challenging me to provide quotes, here's one for you:
Where have I ever responding to criticism of Sharon by implying that it's motivated by anti-semitism? Hmmm?

You were publicly asked to support your claim after you claimed 'Sort of like how you didn't use any modifiers when you claimed that Israelis murder schoolchildren (and then played word games when asked to support your assertion)?' You failed to provide any words of mine to support your quote.

And you were publicly asked whether you would apologize if I did support my claim, and you failed to answer. Why should I bother proving you wrong, when you refuse to accept responsibility for your errors?

You then bizarrely claimed that 'It might not be antisemitism that makes you think that the life of an IDF soldier is so worthless, but it certainly does raise suspicions.' and spectacularly, but by now unsurprisingly, failed to support it with any words of mine.

And you, unsurprisingly, have failed to actually ask for an explanation.

It really seems to me that you are doing this merely to duck the issue. Instead of discussing your previous statements, you keep asking to be reminded of previous posts.

EJA, if you are indeed a troll, I guess I'm wasting my time, but if you are not, you need to seriously listen to this:

Asking people to remind you of your own words is legimitate on a limited basis, but once you do it repeatedly, and in an apparent attempt to obstruct the discussion, people will lose patience. And if people feel that actually finding a quote won't do any good, they won't bother. And criticizing someone for not providing a quote, when you haven't even asked for one yet, is just going to get them pissed at you.

 

[Elind]

Are you insane?