Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

markhumphrys.com

  • #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,212 meditraitor


    MarkHumphrys.com
    Irish. Atheist. Liberal-right. Anti-jihad. Pro-American. Pro-Israel.
    http://markhumphrys.com/irish.left.israel.html

    Ive seen this site for a while now and everytime I am using the search for anything about the Irish Left it is on the front page.... now obviously there is no such person as MarkHumphrys and this is a troll site but who put this together.....

    Would I be right in thinking that there are financial ways to keep your site on the first page of related queries?

    Or maybe I am wrong, is there such an ignoramous around somewere trolling?


«13456789

Comments



  • Mark Humphrys is 100% a real person, I had him as a lecturer in the school of computing in DCU




  • simonw wrote: »
    Mark Humphrys is 100% a real person, I had him as a lecturer in the school of computing in DCU

    Are you sure that its the same guy?




  • Are you sure that its the same guy?

    Yep, 100%.

    last section here: http://computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/




  • ...then who was the fellah VB chucked off his show a while back?




  • No idea about vincent brown, would love to hear the story.

    Mark Humphry's is a 100% legit. He's a lecturer in DCU, he has historical links to previous irish presidents or taoisheach's i think.

    He was mentioned on QI once.


  • Advertisement


  • Thanks for the info, I thought it was a bad attempt at a troll website but obviously it takes allsorts, I am not suprised he is a lecturer though, too much time on his hands.
    There really is people like that around, gives me a warm feeling:pac:




  • No idea about vincent brown, would love to hear the story.

    .

    'Some fellah with a beard' is the best description I can give who also was (I think) described as a lecturer. The kind of fellow whose top drawer argument on the Middle East is "WHY DO YOU HATE THE JEWS?". Kept roaring crap and VB decided they'd take a break and get rid of him.

    I'd previously seen him on TV3 causing a debate with Robert Fisk to descend into chaos by effectively accusing him of using the 'blood libel' against the Jews.




  • me.2011.jpg

    that's him there, so no beard so not him.

    I don't know why people feel it's a troll website, either they don't know what the term troll means or they haven't read it.

    all of his opinions are very rational and reasonable, i don't agree with him but for every extreme view he has a suite of logic to explain it.

    the only think i don't understand is why he doesn't have the thing kitted out with google ads, he'd make a nice little sum based on the views he gets.




  • me.2011.jpg

    that's him there, so no beard so not him.

    I don't know why people feel it's a troll website, either they don't know what the term troll means or they haven't read it.

    all of his opinions are very rational and reasonable, i don't agree with him but for every extreme view he has a suite of logic to explain it.

    the only think i don't understand is why he doesn't have the thing kitted out with google ads, he'd make a nice little sum based on the views he gets.

    He's a lovely chap I'm sure, knowing his sort he would get a hard on if there was any criticism of his islamaphobia/neo con and anti left tendencies.




  • I think I'd take it more seriously if it didn't look like it was an archive. Why not migrate it to a proper blog software?

    The website is out of date as are his views IMO.


  • Advertisement


  • goes to show how brainwashed you are by current memes bman. The website isn't a blog therefore its content much be invalid. Real critical thinker you are, nobel laureates watch their back.
    This site is topic-sorted, not date-sorted

    This site is topic-sorted (like Wikipedia), not date-sorted (the blog format). The blog format has two big advantages:
    It is date-sorted. So you can drop in regularly and see exactly what is new since your last visit. You can also distribute new posts via RSS and blog search engines.
    External links always work, because what you are reading are always recently-created external links.
    The major disadvantage of blogs is it is hard to find similar material grouped together by topic. Once it has scrolled off the front page, it tends to be gone and forgotten, like last year's newspaper articles. Compare trying to understand, say, the Israeli conflict by going through articles for 20 years in the archives of a newspaper, versus reading a book with all the important material in one place.

    I prefer to build up a "book" rather than a "newspaper". So, like Wikipedia, this is more a topic-sorted library than a date-sorted blog. This site is however similar to a blog in the sense that:

    A lot (but not all) of it is about current events.
    It's by an individual.
    It's full of annotated links.
    I add links regularly as I read new stuff.
    However, it's different to a blog in that:
    I add the new links all over the site in different topic areas.
    The Blog is as close as this site comes to the date-sorted blog format. It lists the sections I have done major work on recently. However note:

    Most of these sections will contain old links too.
    It omits sections I have done minor work on recently.




  • goes to show how brainwashed you are by current memes bman. The website isn't a blog therefore its content much be invalid. Real critical thinker you are, nobel laureates watch their back.

    No the website very much is a blog, just a bad one with outdated views and style that badly needs to be updated.




  • ah bman.

    you obviously forget the time when people had websites and not blogs. a land that existed before facebook.

    I suppose you don't appreciate the lack of flash.




  • ah bman.

    you obviously forget the time when people had websites and not blogs. a land that existed before facebook.

    I suppose you don't appreciate the lack of flash.

    I'm completely aware of it, it is in the past, there is a reason blogs aren't like that anymore.

    Flash is dying and rightly so and has been for some time :rolleyes:

    Mostly only used for ads these days.




  • I ignored this thread when it first came out, since "meditraitor" was not making an actual argument. He just seemed incredulous that anyone could have different opinions to him. This seemed too boring to engage with.

    But this thread seems to have stuck around, so I thought I would say something.

    The reason I am ranked high on Google is that a lot of sites link to me. They are mainly American, British and Israeli sites, though lots of others. Not all blogs either - quite a lot of international media links to me.

    I am quite an international site, but I like to do certain research on Ireland since that is something I can contribute. I like to think I do the research on the Irish left that the Irish media fails to. For example:

    The Irish Anti-War Movement supports Islamic terror groups:
    http://markhumphrys.com/iawm.html

    Al Qaeda approvingly quoted Richard Boyd Barrett in their terrorist publications:
    http://markhumphrys.com/iawm.html#al.qaeda

    Irish anti-Israel demos carry Islamic terrorist flags:
    http://markhumphrys.com/free.gaza.irish.html

    The Communications Co-ordinator at Amnesty Ireland is a Sinn Feiner:
    http://markhumphrys.com/human.rights.groups.html#justin.moran

    The Irish Times Middle East correspondent, Michael Jansen, is a female Muslim. She has been attacking Israel in their pages since 1987, and neither she nor the Irish Times ever told us she was a Muslim:
    http://markhumphrys.com/michael.jansen.html

    Anti-Israel TD Chris Andrews posed with Bashar Assad on a constituency leaflet:
    http://markhumphrys.com/irish.left.israel.html#chris.andrews

    The Irish President, Michael D. Higgins, is the most anti-American head of state in the west. He has a long track record that the media entirely ignored:
    http://markhumphrys.com/michael.d.america.html

    Michael D. Higgins is also the most anti-Israel head of state in the west. He mourned the death of Yasser Arafat, objected to Hamas being labelled terrorists, and signed up to share a platform with Hezbollah. The media ignored all this:
    http://markhumphrys.com/michael.d.israel.html

    The major Islamic centres of Ireland are all linked to Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood who deny religious and sexual freedom, and regularly praise Islamic terror. The Irish left and the media don't care:
    http://markhumphrys.com/islam.ireland.html
    http://markhumphrys.com/clonskeagh.html

    I am a classic liberal, an atheist who believes in religious, sexual and political freedom, and I think that Islam should be treated the same way we treat Christianity - with healthy scepticism, abuse and disrespect. The left's support for reactionary right-wing Islamists is the main reason I have contempt for the left.

    If "meditraitor" or "thebman" want to debate any of these, that would be fun. But something tells me they won't want that.

    Mark




  • humphrys wrote: »
    .............

    I am a classic liberal, an atheist who believes in religious, sexual and political freedom, and I think that Islam should be treated the same way we treat Christianity - with healthy scepticism, abuse and disrespect..............

    Yet all but two of your links above concerns allegations regarding muslims - this in a week when we've heard that FG members intend to try and block limited abortion legislation based on the supreme court decision of 1992. Not to mention the rumours of similar problems looming with regard to gay marriage.

    In addition most of the issues are quite dated. This looks more like a cry for attention than a discussion.




  • humphrys wrote: »

    ....... and I think that Islam should be treated the same way we treat Christianity - with healthy scepticism, abuse and disrespect.

    And how do you think that Israel should be treated.

    The accusations of Irish being pro-palestinian on your website are very much one-sided. You fail to consider the important question of WHY that might be the case. If a wide section of Irish and indeed international opinion feels sympathy for one side of a conflict then it is imperative that you look at why that might be the case rather than accuse people of bias. Linking this back to something like the Limerick pogrom of over 100 years ago as 'proof' makes your argument seem lacking. The same goes for IRA support for Nazis which you mention as partial proof that Irish are anti-Israel. Absurd linkage if ever I saw it. The IRA supported the Nazi's because they were enemies of the British- a simple reading of Irish history would show this.




  • Nodin wrote: »
    Yet all but two of your links above concerns allegations regarding muslims - this in a week when we've heard that FG members intend to try and block limited abortion legislation based on the supreme court decision of 1992. Not to mention the rumours of similar problems looming with regard to gay marriage.

    I talk about Christianity at length as well, but that's not what seems to annoy people like the original poster. A major theme of my site is the left's defence of Islamism, but it's not the only theme.
    Nodin wrote: »
    In addition most of the issues are quite dated. This looks more like a cry for attention than a discussion.

    I don't think you understand. This thread was started by someone else about me. I ignored it for a long time, but finally decided I should say something.




  • And how do you think that Israel should be treated.

    We should support any free society that is threatened by totalitarians. Ireland should strongly support Israel and despise its totalitarian enemies - Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah.
    The accusations of Irish being pro-palestinian on your website are very much one-sided. You fail to consider the important question of WHY that might be the case. If a wide section of Irish and indeed international opinion feels sympathy for one side of a conflict then it is imperative that you look at why that might be the case rather than accuse people of bias.

    In fact I have a section on this:
    Why do people support the Palestinians?
    http://markhumphrys.com/left.israel.html#why

    I agree it is not all about anti-semitism. For a lot of the world, it is. But for Ireland, that is probably only a minority reason.
    Linking this back to something like the Limerick pogrom of over 100 years ago as 'proof' makes your argument seem lacking. The same goes for IRA support for Nazis which you mention as partial proof that Irish are anti-Israel. Absurd linkage if ever I saw it. The IRA supported the Nazi's because they were enemies of the British- a simple reading of Irish history would show this.

    Rather disingenuous way of arguing. I provide a few one-liner links to some background events. It is obvious that 99 percent of the page is about the modern era.




  • humphrys wrote: »
    In fact I have a section on this:
    Why do people support the Palestinians?
    http://markhumphrys.com/left.israel.html#why

    The reason why people have sympathy for Palestinians (or as you quite tellingly describe them 'racist, mass-murdering Islamist religious fascists') is not in your list. In fact your list is hardly credible in its over the top hostility.

    humphrys wrote: »
    I agree it is not all about anti-semitism. For a lot of the world, it is. But for Ireland, that is probably only a minority reason.
    If you think that the reason that alot of people in the world have sympathy for the Palestinians is anti-semitism then you simply lack a basic knowledge of world affairs, and even basic human compassion. People have sympathy for innocent victims in any conflict, whether in Israel, Africa or Asia. If people see people suffer they feel sorry for them. Its that simple.


  • Advertisement


  • Heh, fun site.

    I'm 'confused'; Israel has pretty totalitarian control of Gaza (and well, most Palestinian territory), who should we support and despise there?




  • humphrys wrote: »
    I talk about Christianity at length as well, but that's not what seems to annoy people like the original poster. A major theme of my site is the left's defence of Islamism, but it's not the only theme..

    Its the major theme by the looks of things.

    humphrys wrote: »
    I don't think you understand. This thread was started by someone else about me. I ignored it for a long time, but finally decided I should say something.

    ....yep, 9 months later, depite feck all posts in the thread and the OP having closed their account. I believe you. Others may doubt, but not me.
    humphrys wrote: »
    We should support any free society that is threatened by totalitarians. Ireland should strongly support Israel.....

    ....and as soon as Israel stops its colonial escapade in the occupied territories, I'm sure people will take an entirely different attitude.




  • The reason why people have sympathy for Palestinians (or as you quite tellingly describe them 'racist, mass-murdering Islamist religious fascists') is not in your list. In fact your list is hardly credible in its over the top hostility.

    So Hamas are not racist, mass-murdering Islamist religious fascists?
    Which part of that description is inaccurate as applied to Hamas?
    Do you know anything about what Hamas is and what it believes?
    If you think that the reason that alot of people in the world have sympathy for the Palestinians is anti-semitism then you simply lack a basic knowledge of world affairs, and even basic human compassion. People have sympathy for innocent victims in any conflict, whether in Israel, Africa or Asia. If people see people suffer they feel sorry for them. Its that simple.

    Nonsense.The reason why the Arab Muslim world hates Israel is mainly because they are Jews versus Muslims. If they were Muslims, doing exactly the same things, no one in the Arab world would care. Where were the Muslim tears for the south Sudanese?

    Jordan killed 10,000 Palestinians in 1970, and Syria killed 20,000 Islamists in 1982, and Kuwait ethnically cleansed the Palestinians in 1991 and the Egyptian dictator Nasser gassed Yemen in 1967. But the Muslim world and the left don't care, because the culprits were not Jews / first-worlders.

    If the Israelis were Muslims, and the Palestinians were Christians or Jews, and both sides behaved exactly the same (i.e. Christian radicals suicide bombing Muslim buses), then the Arab Muslim world would support the Israelis. In fact, the western left would support them then.

    For much of the world - but not for everyone I agree - it's all about religion. If you don't understand this, you understand little about the conflict.

    Your view is the standard left-wing view of Israel taught by almost everyone in Ireland. You seem to think it is the only view.




  • humphrys: You do realise that not all Palestinians are Muslims, or even religious?




  • Okey, so apparently all Muslims have an irrational hatred of Jews, and the Jews (or to avoid such generalizations, the Israeli government :)) are just minding their own business defending themselves, by slowly annexing the West Bank and keeping Gaza under siege?




  • Muslims not the only "theme", comes on with another rant about the muslims....I still believe though.
    humphrys wrote: »
    So Hamas (....) the only view.

    You'll find that 10,000 figure for Jordan is a tad off, by about 5,000.

    You do realise that then, and still now, a great deal of the middle east is run by monarchies, dictatorships?

    Why do you make no mention of the colonisation of the occupied territories?




  • humphrys: You do realise that not all Palestinians are Muslims, or even religious?

    Yes I see the wonderful secular liberal democracy in Gaza. Gay rights, sexual freedom, religious freedom for all.

    http://markhumphrys.com/gaza.html#taliban.hell




  • Nodin wrote: »
    Muslims not the only "theme", comes on with another rant about the muslims....

    People wanted to talk about Israel. The Israel conflict is all about Islam.

    By claiming that it is about nationalism or human rights, the left is trying to shoehorn it into a western framework that makes sense to them. But that is not what it is about. It is about Islam and the place of the dhimmi within the lands of Islam. It's all about Islam. It always has been, since the Arab states invaded in 1948.

    You are projecting your secular western values onto people who do not share them.




  • humphrys wrote: »
    Yes I see the wonderful secular liberal democracy in Gaza. Gay rights, sexual freedom, religious freedom for all.

    http://markhumphrys.com/gaza.html#taliban.hell

    Not all Palestinians live in Gaza.

    You might get back to me on the points raised in post 27.


  • Advertisement


  • humphrys wrote: »
    People wanted to talk about Israel. The Israel conflict is all about Islam.

    By claiming that it is about nationalism or human rights, the left is trying to shoehorn it into a western framework that makes sense to them. But that is not what it is about. It is about Islam and the place of the dhimmi within the lands of Islam. It's all about Islam. It always has been, since the Arab states invaded in 1948.

    You are projecting your secular western values onto people who do not share them.

    Rrreeeally. So being colonised by Israel makes no odds to the people in those areas at all?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement