I would like to argue something pretty important to me.

[JPaul]

I thought that was the situation here too, if you bought something in good faith it was yours. The original owner took the matter up with the thief.

Or more likely claimed their insurance. Which they would have done with the car thing. Think it thro' RF, your analogy is v poor.

That's just what I thought tho', I can't support it.

In England; it will usually belong to the Insurance Company, on the basis that they will have "bought" the vehicle by paying out the insurance.

If they haven't paid out, then it belongs to the Registered Keeper whether you have bought in good faith or not.

Either way the car will, in all probability, be removed by the police until the matter is sorted.

This is why there are a lot of companies that will make sure a car is not stolen and/or subject to HP etc prior to purchase.

Thanks for that, however just a wee correction. The RK is not always the owner, tho' it usually is. I am RK for both of our cars, but my wife owns one.

[tralalala]

Another way to look at it...

Settlers didn't take the land. The government did.

The land should be returned to the rightful owners and the settlers should take the matter up with the government.

Good point, compensation from the Government.

That's exactly what's gonna happen here....

All families removed from Gaza Strip will receive some 300,000 Shekels (which is about 37,500 Pounds...
The government has also started building houses for these people in a city down south... But, these nutters don't know when to stop and take what is offered, and this is what is pissing everyone in Israel off.......

[Snee]

Another way to look at it...

Settlers didn't take the land. The government did.

The land should be returned to the rightful owners and the settlers should take the matter up with the government.

That's one way to look at it, but I've also thought about another thing, even mentioned it, but it got lost in one of billy's rants:

If we are going to look at it on a national level, couldn't, say, Jordan make a claim for it, as there was no Palestine when a lot of it was taken, and some of it used to be jordani soil, I think? I'm thinking that's one way to interpret the resolution, but I'm not sure.

Just wondering, really

[lynx]

Of course, there's one thing everyone has overlooked.

Let's suppose that 1967 is far enough back that Israel and its settlers have a legal right to keep everything. So when are the Jews going to repay all the billions back to Germany? It was more than another 20 years back, so by the same principal Germany has a right to keep the money they stole.

I don't believe that's right, but maybe someone who thinks that the settlers have a valid claim would like to back up their argument with this in mind.

[Snee]

Of course, there's one thing everyone has overlooked.

Let's suppose that 1967 is far enough back that Israel and its settlers have a legal right to keep everything. So when are the Jews going to repay all the billions back to Germany? It was more than another 20 years back, so by the same principal Germany has a right to keep the money they stole.

I don't believe that's right, but maybe someone who thinks that the settlers have a valid claim would like to back up their argument with this in mind.

That's a good point, bit hard to compare to the settlements tho', at least for me.

For one thing, it's Germany as a nation that was paying, right?
And money is just money, there's not a person in the world that gets attached to a specific bill, so any money will do, as long as it is money.

On the other hand, each settled piece of land is in a specific location and can't be replaced with another item, so someone, an individual, not a nation, is going to end up losing that piece of land.

I suppose, if looked at the same way as money, ie an asset, it can be replaced with money, or a substitute, tho'.

If the settler is a proven thief tho', I'm all for not giving him or her anything for it, it's only the innocent ones who'd be able to make any claim on the property IMO, whether this is 'cos they acquired it in good faith, or becuse they inherited it.

[RioDeLeo]

Sponsored by the Joint Program for Jewish Education of the State of Israel, the Jewish Agency for Israel and the World Zionist Organization.
Direct quotation, still care to insist that you didn't claim that a Palestinian web site was sponsored by Zionist organisations?

l was talking about the article, as you know full well. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

As for deleting posts, I have only ever deleted posts which were generally offensive in nature or against the rules. Prove me wrong. I challenge you. Prove me wrong. Or retract the statement and STFU

How do l check posts you've deleted? In one thread, (l'll find it when l get back from work), you deleted posts that were critical of you, after the poster complained, you put them back again, a good bit of moderating there don't you think?

[lynx]

l was talking about the article, as you know full well. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

And just exacly how would anyone know that? Was there a big sign saying "look, ignore the fact that I'm quoting a Palestinian web page, I'm referring to the pages from a different Israeli site". If you had wanted to quote the Israeli site, you could have simply done so, it wasn't hard when I looked into it a bit deeper. So why didn't you, you knew what the site was all the time. But by quoting a single page buried in the arab2 site, the result was that the links were hidden making it harder to find the original posting and to navigate to the index, which is exactly what you wanted to achieve.

As for deleting posts, I have only ever deleted posts which were generally offensive in nature or against the rules. Prove me wrong. I challenge you. Prove me wrong. Or retract the statement and STFU

How do l check posts you've deleted? In one thread, (l'll find it when l get back from work), you deleted posts that were critical of you, after the poster complained, you put them back again, a good bit of moderating there don't you think?

How do you check deleted posts? A good question. But of course that begs the question how do you know I've deleted any? You don't, so once again you are caught quoting things you can't prove. Except this time google isn't going to come to your aid.

Of course, you refer to a single post that I deleted. Except that when I deleted it I posted that I had deleted it because I found it offensive, and PMed the poster that I had done it. And after complaints I restored it to show why I thought it offensive.

But all this raises an interesting point. In order to find out about that means you've been looking in here for quite a long time, since you haven't had time to read all the posts in here, unless you are some sort of superman... The very suggestion makes me laugh.

Maybe you read the references to that thread on your own site, Billy, we know you talked about it. Or would you prefer to be called Rikk? I think we can now categorically say that you are exposed.

[JPaul]

But have you proof lynx, proof. Remember this is an interweb chat forum, so the level of proof must be of the highest standard.

No wait, it doesn't really, does it.

Right, hands up anyone who thinks this is not a fomer, banned member of the antipodean variety, of which we speak.

Sit down Billy.

[RioDeLeo]

... which is exactly what you wanted to achieve.

A mind reader too are you? Boy, you are SO clever, but l guess you already know that.

A good question. But of course that begs the question how do you know I've deleted any? You don't, so once again you are caught quoting things you can't prove. Except this time google isn't going to come to your aid.

Of course, you refer to a single post that I deleted. Except that when I deleted it I posted that I had deleted it because I found it offensive, and PMed the poster that I had done it. And after complaints I restored it to show why I thought it offensive.

These two sentences cancel each other out, in the first you say l know of none, and in the second you mention one. You can't have it both ways, or can you?

As to the post you deleted, it was critical of you, so you deleted it and copped shit for it, forcing you to put it back

But all this raises an interesting point. In order to find out about that means you've been looking in here for quite a long time, since you haven't had time to read all the posts in here, unless you are some sort of superman... The very suggestion makes me laugh.

l've read quite a bit of the forum before l posted, as thousands of others have, so enjoy your laugh, you've provided me with plenty of amusement, l'm glad you are getting some back.

Maybe you read the references to that thread on your own site, Billy, we know you talked about it. Or would you prefer to be called Rikk? I think we can now categorically say that you are exposed.

You people insisting l am all these other members must be really hard up for something to talk about. If you believe l'm someone who shouldn't be here then ban me, which is what l suspect this is all about anyway, an excuse to get rid of someone who stands up to you.

This really is getting boring, being stalked by a moderator should be a hanging offence, for the moderator that is.

[RioDeLeo]

But have you proof lynx, proof. Remember this is an interweb chat forum, so the level of proof must be of the highest standard.

No wait, it doesn't really, does it.

Right, hands up anyone who thinks this is not a fomer, banned member of the antipodean variety, of which we speak.

Sit down Billy.

Do you stalk people outside the internet, or is it just a web thing?