Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
It would help if you noted what had already been said - do I have to keep repeating myself too ? I've already pointed out that he: 1) he claims that Sharp is claiming credit when the NYT article he's commenting on explicitly says Sharp is not doing this and is a modest, retiring guy. 2) He claims "nobody" in Egypt knows Gene Sharp, but in the same article organisers of the revolution refer to him and the Muslim Brotherhood have published one of his books online.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:20:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
so Sharp is modest.  He founded an institute, for crying out loud.  how "modest" can he be?

that is also a subjective opinion, and hardly worthy of debate.

so, a few people seem to know his name.  that hardly proves anything.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:51:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is ridiculous.
In the original diary I quoted three very different sources with three different takes on the world in general. I did this for the obvious reason. These sources quoted a lot of Arabs who WERE on the street saying the man was influential, even seminal in places.
When it became clear that not a lot of the critics here either knew or intended to know much about Gene Sharp (the whole point of the diary), I laid down enough google food, from such a wide array of sources, that only a stone, someone totally disinterested or an ossified ideologue could fail to have an informed opinion.
And still we read references to sources so discretedited that they are laughable, and angry arguments from people who have not even read the post well, or the early links, let alone any of the work of Gene Sharp.
WSow. This is a low point around here.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Quoting a source is not necessarily proof, you realize.  For example, someone just removed a line from the Wikipedia entry for Gene Sharp.  

And the NY Times with its neo-con agenda and dubious think tanks seem to have more validity here than left wing angry academics.  

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You quoted the NYT, Prospect and Voice of America.

You didn't quote any original Arabic sources.

And does this mean you're saying that Sharp has no links whatsoever to organisations like the ICNC? Or that you're saying the VA reports are simply lies?

Because if so, that's a hell of a stretch given the evidence trail - especially the ICNC link.

You know, it's not actually all that difficult to check Ackerman's history and connections.

I'll take the point about Einstein, but it still seems hi-falutin for someone who claims to be modest.

I'm not much bothered about Zunes' letter of support, because I'd rather look at the facts - and the facts really aren't as simple as you're claiming at all.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:49:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and I did quote an Arabic source.

but it got poohpoohed because some people here don't like him.

this doesn't seem to be a very rational method of evaluating the Truth.

it must be a new low in the history of this site.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I had to do your linking of Angry Arab for you, lazy as you are.

This must be a new low in your short history with this site.

Get off your high horse already.

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series