[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Problem using 'AllInOneRuby' with Tk-Program (Windows 2000 and XP

WoNáDo

1/22/2007 7:17:00 PM

Hi!

We found a problem using 'AllInOneRuby' with Tk-Program on Windows 2000 and XP.

'Tcl/Tk' does work, a generated 'allinoneruby.exe' works well with a console
program, but gives an error using a small Tk example.

>>>>> Code >>>>>

require 'tk'
root = TkRoot.new{title "My Hello"}
TkLabel.new(root) do
text 'Hier kommt Otto!'
pack{padx 15; pady 15; side 'left'}
end
Tk.mainloop

>>>>> Console Protocol >>>>>

E:\AllInOneRuby>allinoneruby tktest.rb
C:/DOKUME~1/wolfgang/LOKALE~1/Temp/eee.allinoneruby.exe.3/lib/lib4/tk.rb:1102:in
`initiali
ze': Can't find a usable init.tcl in the following directories: (RuntimeError)
C:/DOKUME~1/wolfgang/LOKALE~1/Temp/eee.allinoneruby.exe.3/lib/tcl8.4
C:/DOKUME~1/wolfg
ang/LOKALE~1/Temp/eee.allinoneruby.exe.3/lib/tcl8.4
C:/DOKUME~1/wolfgang/LOKALE~1/Temp/lib
/tcl8.4 C:/DOKUME~1/wolfgang/LOKALE~1/Temp/eee.allinoneruby.exe.3/library
C:/DOKUME~1/wolf
gang/LOKALE~1/Temp/library C:/DOKUME~1/wolfgang/LOKALE~1/Temp/tcl8.4.13/library
C:/DOKUME~
1/wolfgang/LOKALE~1/tcl8.4.13/library



This probably means that Tcl wasn't installed prop from
C:/DOKUME~1/wolfgang/LOKALE~1
/Temp/eee.allinoneruby.exe.3/lib/lib4/tk.rb:1102:in `new'
from
C:/DOKUME~1/wolfgang/LOKALE~1/Temp/eee.allinoneruby.exe.3/lib/lib4/tk.rb:1102

from E:/AllInOneRuby/tktest.rb:1:in `require'
from E:/AllInOneRuby/tktest.rb:1
from
C:\DOKUME~1\wolfgang\LOKALE~1\Temp\eee.allinoneruby.exe.3\bootstrap.rb:50:in
`load'
from
C:\DOKUME~1\wolfgang\LOKALE~1\Temp\eee.allinoneruby.exe.3\bootstrap.rb:50

>>>>> End of Console Protocol >>>>>

On my Windows 2000 installation the error is the same when 'allinoneruby.exe'was
generated with '--site'. An other person has a different error message when
using '--site' with the contents, that 'GetModuleHandleExA' is not found in
'Kernel32.dll'

The programs work well when together with 'RubyScript2Exe', but on my
environment (Windows 2000) it is always necessary to use '--rubyscript2exe-tk'
otherwise the same error will occur.

What happens there?

Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner (WoNáDo)
10 Answers

Erik Veenstra

1/22/2007 9:50:00 PM

0

> We found a problem using 'AllInOneRuby' with Tk-Program on
> Windows 2000 and XP.
>
> 'Tcl/Tk' does work, a generated 'allinoneruby.exe' works well
> with a console program, but gives an error using a small Tk
> example.
>
> On my Windows 2000 installation the error is the same when
> 'allinoneruby.exe'was generated with '--site'. An other
> person has a different error message when using '--site' with
> the contents, that 'GetModuleHandleExA' is not found in
> 'Kernel32.dll'
>
> The programs work well when together with 'RubyScript2Exe',
> but on my environment (Windows 2000) it is always necessary
> to use '--rubyscript2exe-tk' otherwise the same error will
> occur.
>
> What happens there?

Plain RubyScript2Exe is only able to detect and embed the
Ruby-TK bindings, not TK itself. By using the
--rubyscript2exe-tk option, it's forced to include TK itself as
well. AllInOneRuby has no --tk option. Therefore, the resulting
executable still depends on a manually installed version of TK.

In this case, --site is not relevant.

I'll consider including a --tk option in AllInOneRuby. It's
probably just copy & paste from RubyScript2Exe... ;]

gegroet,
Erik V. - http://www.erikve...

WoNáDo

1/22/2007 10:46:00 PM

0

Erik Veenstra schrieb:
> I'll consider including a --tk option in AllInOneRuby. It's
> probably just copy & paste from RubyScript2Exe... ;]

Thank you - I will copy this message to the german Ruby-Forum, where the problem
occured.

Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner

drahcir

12/8/2012 2:22:00 AM

0

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:59:07 -0800 (PST), HHW <coaster132000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 7, 6:58?pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:34:26 -0800 (PST), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I want a formal declaration by Israel that the matter is settled
>> >satisfactorily and that she asks that AIPAC register immediately as
>> >the agent for a foreign country under FARA or disband.
>>
>> H is pretending he grew up to be president. He just loves make-believe
>> - imagining himself as something other than the mediocrity he is is
>> comforting, even if very temporary. H, tell me, do you think there is
>> a soul anywhere who gives a shit what you want?
>
>Me, Missy, me.

That answer makes no sense, H. You don't need to announce to yourself
on usenet what you "want".

Hmm, seems like you "thought" long and hard about "Missey" and finally
thought better of it, eh?

And I love the effect comments like that have on you.

Here's where H, revealed yet again to be the vain ass that he is,
tries to be Mr. Cool, Calm, and Collected. So, H thus far, the reasons
you announced on usenet what you "want" are 1) you give a shit about
what you want, and 2) because of the effect announcing what you want
to yourself on usenet will have on, of all people, ME! Gosh, H, I'm
overwhelmed with emotion. What can I say? "Thanks" seems hardly
enough...

>I've been making substantive posts here for a decade.

Your posts have at most as much meaning as the above detailing what
you "want". You can't possibly post anything of substance becuase you
have no idea what the substance is. How could you! You've never read a
decent book on the topics you purport to provide "substance" about.
Rather, you've chosen the web as your news source, and not sites like
the NY Times or CNN, but laughable, two-bit nothings like Weiss and
Fink. Substance, indeed. If there were any substance at all to the
drek you post, it wouldn't be so simple to force you to flee threads
ad infinitum. You flee becuase you have no logical alternative except
to admit defeat. Now,of course, you'll vainly attempt to deny fleeing,
but this behavior is well documented and observed by all regulars
here.

You've just been
>exuding filth.

It's also been clearly establishted that your definition of "filth" is
any debate point you cannot refute. Especially "filthy" posts prove
you a liar or an idiot or, as above, a supercilious know-nothing who
actually thinks he serves some purpose in posting his nonsense.

I'm not alone in wanting an end to AIPAC as we,
>unfortunately, know it. It's a cancer on our body politic.

LOL! Mind you, I could support the disbanding of AIPAC if it is
accompnanied that that of every other PAC. Not before.

It and
>Israel have cost us tens of thousands of dead and wounded. They've
>driven us into bankruptcy by making us unable to attend to our
>interests openly and without fear of reprisal. Yes, I want to see the
>end of AIPAC.

The above is H trying to regroup, attempting a context for "want" that
allows it to be perceived as less of a demand than the context above.
Sorry, H, what you wrote is all over the world by now, causing guffaws
in may dens across the world amongst you, ahem, "readership"!

HHW

12/8/2012 6:24:00 AM

0

On Dec 7, 8:02 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:59:07 -0800 (PST), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Me, Missy, me. And I love the effect comments like that have on you.
> >I've been making substantive posts here for a decade.
>
> your slogans are no more 'substantive' than
>      'i hate beer' or 'sludge washes whiter'
>
> > You've just been
> >exuding filth. I'm not alone in wanting an end to AIPAC as we,
> >unfortunately, know it. It's a cancer on our body politic. It and
> >Israel have cost us tens of thousands of dead and wounded. They've
> >driven us into bankruptcy by making us unable to attend to our
> >interests openly and without fear of reprisal. Yes, I want to see the
> >end of AIPAC.
>
> socialism is the cancer...you preach socialism

Why do you refuse to reply to my inquiry? I've asked you to give us
your definition of "socialism" so that I may evaluate your allegation.
Once you do that you will find out whether I preach it. You will also
find out whether you know what you're talking about. Both will be of
benefit to you. :-)

HHW

12/8/2012 6:35:00 AM

0

On Dec 7, 9:22 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:

Clip

> I'm not alone in wanting an end to AIPAC as we, unfortunately, know it. It's a cancer on our body politic.
>
> LOL! Mind you, I could support the disbanding of AIPAC if it is
> accompnanied that that of every other PAC. Not before.

Why has AIPAC described itself as an (unregistered) lobby for a
foreign country?

HHW

12/8/2012 6:52:00 AM

0

On Dec 8, 1:34 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 9:22 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>
> Clip
>
> > I'm not alone in wanting an end to AIPAC as we, unfortunately, know it. It's a cancer on our body politic.
>
> > LOL! Mind you, I could support the disbanding of AIPAC if it is
> > accompnanied that that of every other PAC. Not before.
>
> Why has AIPAC described itself as an (unregistered) lobby for a
> foreign country?

BTW here is a definition of the verb to lobby:

Verb
Seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue:
"booksellers lobbied their representatives".

HHW

12/8/2012 8:01:00 AM

0

On Dec 8, 1:52 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 1:34 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 7, 9:22 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>
> > Clip
>
> > > I'm not alone in wanting an end to AIPAC as we, unfortunately, know it. It's a cancer on our body politic.
>
> > > LOL! Mind you, I could support the disbanding of AIPAC if it is
> > > accompanied that that of every other PAC. Not before.

Ha! Who gives a damn what you support?

> > AIPAC describes itself as an lobby for a
> > foreign country, i.e., Israel. After all, you know it IS a lobby and should know that it is not a PAC.
>
> Here is a definition of the verb to lobby:
>
> Verb
> Seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue...
>

And here is what PACs do: They spend money "to influence federal
elections".

If you read a little before you mouth-off, and concentrate harder than
ever before, it will dawn on you that AIPAC, despite its name, does
not spend *any* money "to influence federal elections". It lobbies
Congress and federal officials, i.e., it lobbies sitting legislators
and government officials on behalf of Israel, and provides information
to its allied PACs so that THEY can spend money "to influence federal
elections" in accord with AIPACs instructions. That is a scam to avoid
federal laws governing both elections and lobbyists for foreign
countries.

That's why AIPAC should be registered as an agent of a foreign
government under FARA, the statute which regulates lobbying on behalf
of foreign governments. The law is clear. It should be registered. But
it is not only a problem that the Justice Department hasn't had the
guts to take on the Israel Lobby under FARA since the time of John
Kennedy. It would also appear that there is a conspiracy between the
lobby and the allied PACs to interfere with federal elections on
behalf of a foreign country. No one since John and Bobby Kennedy has
had the political courage to clean up this mess.

aaa

12/8/2012 3:09:00 PM

0

drahcir wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 19:40:24 -0800 (PST), HHW <coaster132000@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6, 7:21?pm, drahcir <snidelywhiplashisnotmyn...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Dec 6, 7:04?pm, drahcir <snidelywhiplashisnotmyn...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >> > On Dec 5, 11:22?pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> >> > > On Dec 4, 6:50?am, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> > >
> >> > > > On 4/12/12 11:35, Zev wrote:
> > >
> >> > > > > On Dec 4, 9:21 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >> On Dec 3, 10:00 am, "Mel Rowing" <inva...@nowheret.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >>> "The Todal" ?wrote in messagenews:ai3kpkF19jnU1@mid.individual.net...
> > >
> >> > > > >> The right of conquest is long gone from international law
> > >
> >> > > > > Tibetans will be delighted to know
> >> > > > > that international law is on their side.
> > >
> >> > > > I'm less delighted to see words attributed to me that I never said. But
> >> > > > I forgive you. It will however be necessary for me to evict you from
> >> > > > your house and install my own family there. I need Lebensraum.
> > >
> >> > > The Israelis needed the Palestinians' bank accounts, their furniture,
> >> > > their factories, their equipment, their businesses of whatsoever kind
> >> > > and nature, their cities and towns, though they destroyed the latter.
> > >
> >> > FACT: The total value of the possessions of Jews forcibly banished
> >> > from Muslim lands in the forties-fifties is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE
> >> > greater than that lost by Palestinian arabs. Any sort of reparations
> >> > are a two way street, and that street has about 20 times as many lanes
> >> > in one direction as the other.
> > >
> >> RETRACTION: I was wrong about the orders of magnitude - I
> >> misremembered the results of my previous research on this issue. The
> >> estimated total value of Jewish losses is "at least 50 percent higher"
> >> that the combined losses of Palestinian arabs from 1948-49 AND 1967.
> > >
> >> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/jew_refugees.htmlhttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/122......
> >
> > If true your argument still reeks of fallacy:
>
> Ah, I see, so if true, my argumejnt is still false. Very observant.
> >
> > Did the Palestinians drive Jews from the various Arab states into
> > Israel? The answer is no, the Arab States themselves did that. Did the
> > various Arab states deliver their Jewish plunder to the Palestinians?
> > No, they kept it themselves. Accordingly the Jewish victims of Arab
> > States had a claim against the Arab States, and not just for the lost
> > assets but for the underlying crimes involved. The Palestinians were
> > simply not involved in that matter. Were those expelled Jews at least
> > theoretically free to mount their claims against the Arab States in
> > international fora? Yes. Did they do so? Apparently not. Could they do
> > so today? I don't know but doubt it. If one is free to vindicate his
> > rights but "sits on them", he generally loses them.
>
> "Vindicate his rights"??? H, your incredible pretentiousness is
> getting you into trouble again, using big words you don't comprehend
> the meaning of. "Vindicate" means "justify". I can hazard a guess
> that the word you wanted was "abdicate". You've tried that silly
> argument in the past - no one has forfeited anything. Jewish refugees
> have simply long ago moved on, creating new lives. The simple point is
> that if arabs are compensated for property the willfully left behind,
> jews should be compensated for property that was stolen forcibly from
> them. Dealing with one without the other is completely unfari and
> therefore unacceptable. Your above paragraph is silly, even without
> the misused word.
>
> > Did the Israelis perpetrate the crimes of '47-.48 and 1967 against the
> > Palestinians and keep the plunder themselves? Yes.
>
> Your question is loaded by your ignorance and therefore irrelevant.
> >
> > So you have two unconnected bundles of claims:
>
> LOL! Unconnected only in your "mind".
>
> Jews driven out of
> > Arab States vs the said Arab States and Palestinians driven out of
> > Palestine vs. Israel. The fact that the expelled Jews did not mount
> > their claims is totally irrelevant to the rights of the Palestinians.
>
> "Mount"?? What precisely are you talking about? Claims are claims,
> facts are facts. Artabs are arabs and jews are jews. The claims were
> precipitated by the same confilct, even allowing for 1967. Therefore,
> when one is dealt with, the other will be dealt with, and not before.
> >
> > The Palestinians have received nothing from the Israelis and for
> > various reasons have not been able to mount claims against them. So
> > you were not only wrong about orders of magnitude but about your
> > presumption that the two sets of claims could, much less did, offset
> > each other.
>
> You are correct, they don't offset each other. Arabs owe jews their
> 50%.

Your argument seems to be that if Mr A (of ethnicity X) steals from Mr B (of ethnicity Y),
then it is fine for Mr C (of ethnicity Y) to steal from Mr D (of ethnicity X).

If we extend your logic to include all types of crime (including killing), then you have just given full justication of most acts of terrorism committed by Arabs against Israelis, and probably most acts of terror committed world wide!!

[For the record, so there is no mis-understanding, I reject your argument and logic completely, stealing, murder and terrorism is never justified, whether it be Arab terrorism or Israeli terrorism or any other sort of terrorism.]

drahcir

12/8/2012 5:32:00 PM

0

On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 15:09:10 GMT, "aaa" <anom@aol.com> wrote:

>drahcir wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 19:40:24 -0800 (PST), HHW <coaster132000@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 6, 7:21?pm, drahcir <snidelywhiplashisnotmyn...@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Dec 6, 7:04?pm, drahcir <snidelywhiplashisnotmyn...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >> > On Dec 5, 11:22?pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> >> > > On Dec 4, 6:50?am, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> >> > > > On 4/12/12 11:35, Zev wrote:
>> > >
>> >> > > > > On Dec 4, 9:21 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > >> On Dec 3, 10:00 am, "Mel Rowing" <inva...@nowheret.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > >>> "The Todal" ?wrote in messagenews:ai3kpkF19jnU1@mid.individual.net...
>> > >
>> >> > > > >> The right of conquest is long gone from international law
>> > >
>> >> > > > > Tibetans will be delighted to know
>> >> > > > > that international law is on their side.
>> > >
>> >> > > > I'm less delighted to see words attributed to me that I never said. But
>> >> > > > I forgive you. It will however be necessary for me to evict you from
>> >> > > > your house and install my own family there. I need Lebensraum.
>> > >
>> >> > > The Israelis needed the Palestinians' bank accounts, their furniture,
>> >> > > their factories, their equipment, their businesses of whatsoever kind
>> >> > > and nature, their cities and towns, though they destroyed the latter.
>> > >
>> >> > FACT: The total value of the possessions of Jews forcibly banished
>> >> > from Muslim lands in the forties-fifties is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE
>> >> > greater than that lost by Palestinian arabs. Any sort of reparations
>> >> > are a two way street, and that street has about 20 times as many lanes
>> >> > in one direction as the other.
>> > >
>> >> RETRACTION: I was wrong about the orders of magnitude - I
>> >> misremembered the results of my previous research on this issue. The
>> >> estimated total value of Jewish losses is "at least 50 percent higher"
>> >> that the combined losses of Palestinian arabs from 1948-49 AND 1967.
>> > >
>> >> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/jew_refugees.htmlhttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/122......
>> >
>> > If true your argument still reeks of fallacy:
>>
>> Ah, I see, so if true, my argumejnt is still false. Very observant.
>> >
>> > Did the Palestinians drive Jews from the various Arab states into
>> > Israel? The answer is no, the Arab States themselves did that. Did the
>> > various Arab states deliver their Jewish plunder to the Palestinians?
>> > No, they kept it themselves. Accordingly the Jewish victims of Arab
>> > States had a claim against the Arab States, and not just for the lost
>> > assets but for the underlying crimes involved. The Palestinians were
>> > simply not involved in that matter. Were those expelled Jews at least
>> > theoretically free to mount their claims against the Arab States in
>> > international fora? Yes. Did they do so? Apparently not. Could they do
>> > so today? I don't know but doubt it. If one is free to vindicate his
>> > rights but "sits on them", he generally loses them.
>>
>> "Vindicate his rights"??? H, your incredible pretentiousness is
>> getting you into trouble again, using big words you don't comprehend
>> the meaning of. "Vindicate" means "justify". I can hazard a guess
>> that the word you wanted was "abdicate". You've tried that silly
>> argument in the past - no one has forfeited anything. Jewish refugees
>> have simply long ago moved on, creating new lives. The simple point is
>> that if arabs are compensated for property the willfully left behind,
>> jews should be compensated for property that was stolen forcibly from
>> them. Dealing with one without the other is completely unfari and
>> therefore unacceptable. Your above paragraph is silly, even without
>> the misused word.
>>
>> > Did the Israelis perpetrate the crimes of '47-.48 and 1967 against the
>> > Palestinians and keep the plunder themselves? Yes.
>>
>> Your question is loaded by your ignorance and therefore irrelevant.
>> >
>> > So you have two unconnected bundles of claims:
>>
>> LOL! Unconnected only in your "mind".
>>
>> Jews driven out of
>> > Arab States vs the said Arab States and Palestinians driven out of
>> > Palestine vs. Israel. The fact that the expelled Jews did not mount
>> > their claims is totally irrelevant to the rights of the Palestinians.
>>
>> "Mount"?? What precisely are you talking about? Claims are claims,
>> facts are facts. Artabs are arabs and jews are jews. The claims were
>> precipitated by the same confilct, even allowing for 1967. Therefore,
>> when one is dealt with, the other will be dealt with, and not before.
>> >
>> > The Palestinians have received nothing from the Israelis and for
>> > various reasons have not been able to mount claims against them. So
>> > you were not only wrong about orders of magnitude but about your
>> > presumption that the two sets of claims could, much less did, offset
>> > each other.
>>
>> You are correct, they don't offset each other. Arabs owe jews their
>> 50%.
>
>Your argument seems to be that if Mr A (of ethnicity X) steals from Mr B (of ethnicity Y),
>then it is fine for Mr C (of ethnicity Y) to steal from Mr D (of ethnicity X).

You may wantto read a book sometime. If you do, you may understand
that arab and israeli losses were precipitated by a single event - the
attack on israel by arabs in 1948. arabs considered themselves of one
cloth then, so treating them separately from palestinian arabs now
makes no sense. This assumes, of course, no losses from 1967, which my
figures do account for.
>
>If we extend your logic to include all types of crime (including killing), then you have just given full justication of most acts of terrorism committed by Arabs against Israelis, and probably most acts of terror committed world wide!!

I've proven you a bullshitter already, aaa. You're lost in this thread
and every move you make only solidifies your positionj.

>
>[For the record, so there is no mis-understanding, I reject your argument and logic completely, stealing, murder and terrorism is never justified, whether it be Arab terrorism or Israeli terrorism or any other sort of terrorism.]

HHW

12/8/2012 5:53:00 PM

0

On Dec 8, 10:09 am, "aaa" <a...@aol.com> wrote:
> drahcir wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 19:40:24 -0800 (PST), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 6, 7:21 pm, drahcir <snidelywhiplashisnotmyn...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Dec 6, 7:04 pm, drahcir <snidelywhiplashisnotmyn...@yahoo.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Dec 5, 11:22 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > On Dec 4, 6:50 am, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > On 4/12/12 11:35, Zev wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > On Dec 4, 9:21 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > >> On Dec 3, 10:00 am, "Mel Rowing" <inva...@nowheret.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > >>> "The Todal" wrote in messagenews:ai3kpkF19jnU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > >> > > > >> The right of conquest is long gone from international law
>
> > >> > > > > Tibetans will be delighted to know
> > >> > > > > that international law is on their side.
>
> > >> > > > I'm less delighted to see words attributed to me that I never said. But
> > >> > > > I forgive you. It will however be necessary for me to evict you from
> > >> > > > your house and install my own family there. I need Lebensraum.
>
> > >> > > The Israelis needed the Palestinians' bank accounts, their furniture,
> > >> > > their factories, their equipment, their businesses of whatsoever kind
> > >> > > and nature, their cities and towns, though they destroyed the latter.
>
> > >> > FACT: The total value of the possessions of Jews forcibly banished
> > >> > from Muslim lands in the forties-fifties is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE
> > >> > greater than that lost by Palestinian arabs. Any sort of reparations
> > >> > are a two way street, and that street has about 20 times as many lanes
> > >> > in one direction as the other.
>
> > >> RETRACTION: I was wrong about the orders of magnitude - I
> > >> misremembered the results of my previous research on this issue. The
> > >> estimated total value of Jewish losses is "at least 50 percent higher"
> > >> that the combined losses of Palestinian arabs from 1948-49 AND 1967.
>
> > >>http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/jew_ref..........
>
> > > If true your argument still reeks of fallacy:
>
> > Ah, I see, so if true, my argumejnt is still false. Very observant.
>
> > > Did the Palestinians drive Jews from the various Arab states into
> > > Israel? The answer is no, the Arab States themselves did that. Did the
> > > various Arab states deliver their Jewish plunder to the Palestinians?
> > > No, they kept it themselves. Accordingly the Jewish victims of Arab
> > > States had a claim against the Arab States, and not just for the lost
> > > assets but for the underlying crimes involved. The Palestinians were
> > > simply not involved in that matter. Were those expelled Jews at least
> > > theoretically free to mount their claims against the Arab States in
> > > international fora? Yes. Did they do so? Apparently not. Could they do
> > > so today? I don't know but doubt it. If one is free to vindicate his
> > > rights but "sits on them", he generally loses them.
>
> > "Vindicate his rights"??? H, your incredible pretentiousness is
> > getting you into trouble again, using big words you don't comprehend
> > the meaning of.  "Vindicate" means "justify".  I can hazard a guess
> > that the word you wanted  was "abdicate". You've tried that silly
> > argument in the past - no one has forfeited anything. Jewish refugees
> > have simply long ago moved on, creating new lives. The simple point is
> > that if arabs are compensated for property the willfully left behind,
> > jews should be compensated for property that was stolen forcibly from
> > them. Dealing with one without the other is completely unfari and
> > therefore unacceptable. Your above paragraph is silly, even without
> > the misused word.
>
> > > Did the Israelis perpetrate the crimes of '47-.48 and 1967 against the
> > > Palestinians and keep the plunder themselves? Yes.
>
> > Your question is loaded by your ignorance and therefore irrelevant.
>
> > > So you have two unconnected bundles of claims:
>
> > LOL! Unconnected only in your "mind".
>
> > Jews driven out of
> > > Arab States vs the said Arab States and Palestinians driven out of
> > > Palestine vs. Israel. The fact that the expelled Jews did not mount
> > > their claims is totally irrelevant to the rights of the Palestinians.
>
> > "Mount"?? What precisely are you talking about? Claims are claims,
> > facts are facts. Artabs are arabs and jews are jews. The claims were
> > precipitated by the same confilct, even allowing for 1967. Therefore,
> > when one is dealt with, the other will be dealt with, and not before.
>
> > > The Palestinians have received nothing from the Israelis and for
> > > various reasons have not been able to mount claims against them. So
> > > you were not only wrong about orders of magnitude but about your
> > > presumption that the two sets of claims could, much less did, offset
> > > each other.
>
> > You are correct, they don't offset each other. Arabs owe jews their
> > 50%.
>
> Your argument seems to be that if Mr A (of ethnicity X) steals from Mr B (of ethnicity Y),
> then it is fine for Mr C (of ethnicity Y) to steal from Mr D (of ethnicity X).

Their position doesn't just "seem" to be as you say. It is precisely
as you say. How can it be denied the Palestinian people are suffering
for Hitler's crimes? Or more broadly for Europe's oppression of the
Jews.
>
> If we extend your logic to include all types of crime (including killing), then you have just given full justication of most acts of terrorism committed by Arabs against Israelis, and probably most acts of terror committed world wide!!
>
> [For the record, so there is no mis-understanding, I reject your argument and logic completely, stealing, murder and terrorism is never justified, whether it be Arab terrorism or Israeli terrorism or any other sort of terrorism.]

How can it be that not a single Zionist here will admit to even
understanding what you say much less acknowledging the truth of it.