David already demanded I give my name and address so that he can forward my details to police in an attempt to shut down my free speech, for what I wrote on his last thread merely hours after he posted this article - the hypocrite.
He proved hes not about free speech at all, only when it suits him.

He's also a proven liar because he makes untrue and unfounded accusations.

I can understand he may have been a little offended by what I said, though the intention was not to deliberately offend, merely offer an opinion.

David, if you didn't write such one-sided articles I wouldn't feel the need to reply, simple.
My effort is to counter-balance the entire conversation against your biased point of view.
I'm merely trying to keep you honest, and from manipulating the Australian public with an unbalanced point of view and a foreign agenda.
Just like the other thread David - You wanna know who's responsible when I respond - You are.
I don't believe that I've crossed the line in anything that could be defined as hate speech.

Jews would define those maps as hate speech just because it tells a story they can't bs their way out of.

Why do they feel a need to control everything and everyone?

Armchair critic:, why shouldn't they?
Rhrosty.

#Geoff

Dr (not Professor - as you allege) Davidson is right in stating these maps have been around for some time - but their accuracy has been constantly questioned.

"MSNBC Live" was the most recent case when the maps were presented during one of its shows and an apology was subsequently issued by the host Kate Snow after protests lodged at their showing:

“[I]n an attempt to talk about the context for the current turmoil in the Middle East, we showed a series of maps of the changing geography in that region. We realized after we went off the air the maps were not factually accurate and we regret using them.”

You are more than welcome to contact Dr Davidson to post his comments here in response to my detailed claims.

I have by sheer coincidence already posted my objections on another web site in response to the very article written by the same Dr Davidson from which you have extensively quoted.

Unlike myself - when dealing with comments from you and others - Dr Davidson has not sought to respond to my comments.

I wonder why. Does he have no answers to my objections? Have I sent him into something of a panic? He has a golden opportunity to shoot me down in flames - but chooses to remain silent.

Interestingly one response received on that other web site claims that the Negev - some 70% of the territory shown on map 1 was "desert bedouin land" - not "Palestinian land"

Whether the Negev is described as "desert Bedouin land" (as he claims) or “State Land under British Mandatory control” (as I claim) it is abundantly clear the map as presented was for either of these reasons inaccurate and misleading.

McGraw Hill and MSNBC were perfectly justified in making the decisions they did.

Maps should accurately represent history and geography - not propaganda deliberately designed to mislead.

David is still attempting to prosecute me (on the other thread) for my free speech.

Racial hatred is doing something in public based on the race, colour, national or ethnic origin of a person or group of people likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate.

David, I don't make comments towards you based on your race.
I don't even know if you are Jewish, Australian or what.
I make my comments based on the opinion you first put forward.
I merely respond and attempt to balance your consistently biased articles.

I've stated that it's not my intention to deliberately offend, merely to state my opinion.
I believe everything I put forward has a basis to it and I often add links to justify my statements or line of questioning.
I don't simply make things up in order to vilify.

What happens when the facts themselves cause offense such as in the maps discussion?
Its not my fault you're offended by criticism of a set a maps that are more or less accurate.
Does this mean members of this forum aren't allowed to discuss these topics simply because you might take offense, which you consistently do?
Should you be allowed to hold a monopoly on discussions based on others fear of retribution?
How do we know when you're genuinely offended, and when you're using the law to stifle criticism you don't like on issues that form your agenda?

The Racial Discrimination Act also protects my speech.
It aims to strike a balance between the right to communicate freely and the right to live free from racial hatred or vilification.

Under the Act, one of the things that are not against the law if they are 'done reasonably and in good faith' is making a fair comment, if the comment is an expression of a person’s genuine belief.

Therefore my speech and opinions are protected and I haven't broken any laws.

I can even provide links where other Jewish people state that diaspora communities have been called upon to 'engage in propaganda', so my comments are not in any way unreasonable.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-jews-urged-to-take-more-critical-line-20111123-1nuz9.html

David, you continue the tired old mantra, that being, someone says something which is factual, you don't agree because you believe that somehow it reveals the true Zionist agenda or actions, and you don't like it so you prattle on trying to defend something against the facts.

This is the tried and true method used worldwide by the Jewish lobby, and in the end you usually pull the old anti Semitic card, which is odd considering around 90% of Jews residing in Israel are of European decent.

You stated "Maps should accurately represent history and geography - not propaganda deliberately designed to mislead.". Exactly, and this is precisely why the maps in the said publication should not have been changed, they represented the accurate picture of continued ethnic cleansing being carried out by the State of Israel.

You can yell and scream all you like, you can have the very powerful Israel lobby intimidate and scare people into changing documents, maps etc etc, but you can't change reality.

Unfortunately for you the emperor clearly has no clothes and I will call a spade a spade each and every time you try to write otherwise.

#armchair critic

If you are so confident of beating any action taken against you by the Human Rights Commissioner- why are you still so reluctant to give your name and address so action can be instituted against you for your offensive comments and rulings can be made by the appropriate authorities?

Name and address please...

#Geoff:

It would help if you were to address each of my objections to the four maps as set out in my article - to specifically show where I am in error.

Funny thing - you seem most reluctant to want to do that. Is it because you cannot point out that what I have claimed is anything but 100% correct? Is that why you keep ducking and weaving - because you have no answers to refute my specific objections to these maps being inaccurate and misleading?

I have no idea for what reasons McGraw Hill trashed these maps. I would suspect however that their reasons might have been similar to mine.

Whilst you refuse to specifically deal with my objections - you lack any credibility.

Unless you can disprove my objections the maps are clearly inaccurate and misleading.

No doubt this was understood by the web site on which I originally tried to post my objections to the four maps. That is why that website decided it was probably wiser not to publish. Why allow the conclusion to be drawn that McGraw Hill had made the right decision?

Keeping the public in the dark like mushrooms was a much easier decision to take.