I am sitting at a café at the moment and since I’ve got nothing better to do, I thought I’d respond to Dr. Lipstadt’s response, which I read a few minutes ago.
Here’s her response:
This is my final response on this issue:
1. MEMRI does one thing and one thing only: translate from original Arabic/ Mulsim sources. It does not rely on second hand reports.
2. MEMRI is used by responsible journalists world wide.
3. Were this report false don’t you think that both the paper and the columnist cited would protests mightily at having such an absurd and laughable report associated with them.
4. In short, it makes them look like fools and if it were incorrect, I would assume that they would object in the strongest of terms.
5. They have not, to the best of my knowledge, done so.
I will respond to this point-by-point.
1. Yes, but that is not the point. The point is, if this is true, which I already assumed it was, I want to see the original source it translated the article from. Surely MEMRI would keep a copy of the original in one way or another?
2. What exactly is your definition of “responsible journalists”? Ones who make claims about a racist article on a Syrian paper without actually linking back or providing a copy of the issue of the paper in which the article appeared? Or are journalists “responsible” when they link to MEMRI, which in turn does not provide a link to the paper?
3. They would’ve protested anyway, given that MEMRI has failed to provide a URL or graphic proof that it’s true (which I am pretty sure if it had in its possession would have posted it to begin with), except that not everyone reads MEMRI. So unless MEMRI directed a letter (snail mail or e-mail) to the author of that article and the paper, to alert them that a translation of the article was posted on MEMRI, which it should’ve done in my opinion, I don’t see why the author of that [alleged] article should have read MEMRI.
4 & 5. So just because the author under scrutiny did not complain – how do you know he did not complain? Does MEMRI also post complaints against it? – that means that he is guilty as charged? Impressive logic. Now if only proving that something happened or existed were as easy, prosecutors would have a field day!
This is getting even better and better as it goes on. Dr. Lipstadt, a PhD holder, does not even know the rules of non-fallacious debating. So much for modern-day academia!