www.wikipedia-watch.org/irc/6050174.txt
Everyking, for you! You might want to note that you are not required to take anything Raul654 says against in you in good faith when he snipes about you like this behind your back:
[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. In fact, you could even use it in an ArbCom case against him (good luck with that lol)



Igor Alexander is "(Very bad person's name redacted)"?

So let me get this straight.

Raul654 thinks that we are bad because we are not vandalising Wikipedia and destroying it?

Bizarre logic there.

Maybe he likes vandals because it gives him something to do.

I just looked at http://wikipedia-watch.org/irc/ -
pity it only logs from the 24th March 2006 to 3rd April 2006, I was having fun reading :/ it's like reading your obituary kinda lol

Wikipedia Review would like to apologize for the disjointed nature of this thread. Certain material was removed in order to, well, we just decided it would be a good idea. Anyway, sorry. Back to the story...

I'm the last person to support the far right or side with some people's political agenda. However, when you get to the extremes of the political spectrum, left/right is often a gross oversimplification. For example, many on the far right want to restrict immigration for racist or nationalist reasons, while others do not want to because it would obstruct the free market and/or make it harder to get servants. There are those on the left who want to restrict immigration because "immigrants take our jobs". Hitler believed in a very strongly centrally controlled economy, not a million miles from Stalinism, which of course is anathema to many right-wingers.

Anyway, this is way off the original topic of the thread. Apologies to Somey.

No need to apologize! And I'm not so sure it's as far off the topic as it might seem. Frankly, I suspect that if Hitler were alive today, he'd probably spend most of his time in IRC chat rooms, talking about emblems and logos...

Also, I wonder if he'd use a Mac or a PC? He was supposed to be sort of artistic, at least according to that movie Max, starring John Cusack as his "artistic mentor"... I'll betcha dollars to doughnuts he'd be a Mac guy! What's more, in addition to IRC, I'll bet he'd be all over that whole "podcasting" thing.

I know he'd be into Search Engine Opportunism, as I hinted in my coinage of Hit(count)ler.

Arbcom Macht Frei ...

Jonny

C'mon, Nobs - keep up! Mosaic didn't even have a plugin architecture, much less an IRC extension, so how could it have laws? As for The Church, sure, I guess I have some of their albums... but really, the last few haven't been anywhere near as good as "Heyday" or "Starfish."

Yeah, but what kinda eyes do bees and flies, and all their queens and lords have?

Mosaic lenses !!!

Coincidence ???

I don thin so !!!

Jonny

Ok let's leave the Church alone and bring the left/right discussion upto date.

The right-wing greedy big oil administration of George W. Bush did a regime change of the right-wing fascist Ba'athist oil grubbing anti-human rights regime of Saddam Hussein. The right-wing neo-cons in a preemptive war brought democracy to Iraq. Amy Goodman and Democracy Now oppossed democracy now in Iraq. Nancy Pelosi, et al also have voiced opposition to the right-wing foreign policy of establishing liberal democracy with a constitution, independent judiciary, and protection of human rights. Influential leftist elements in the US and abroad seem intent upon allowing traditional conservative fundementalist religous leaders to gain ascendancy -- and rejecting what has been decided at the ballot box.

Read this, Statement of Edward N. Luttwak before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on “Securing America’s Interest in Iraq: the remaining options”, 23 January 2007, and tell me who’s “left-wing” and who’s “right-wing” ?

You live in such a black-and-white world, Nobs! Don't you ever see the inherent fuzziness of modern politics? Or are you just being sarcastic?

To suggest that Nancy Pelosi et al want to get the US out of Iraq because they're "intent upon allowing traditional conservative fundementalist religous leaders to gain ascendancy" there is just ludicrous right-wing propaganda. And where have Amy Goodman et al opposed democracy for Iraq? I believe the correct phrases would be "support self-determination for Iraq" and "oppose foreign intervention in Iraq," which might be the same thing, if the Iraqis were given the chance to decide for themselves. Then again, it might not.

It may well be that a US pullout from Iraq would mean a Shiite fundamentalist revolt, followed by an Iranian-style theocracy there, maybe even in short order. But let's not accuse people of not "supporting democracy" just because they want to bring the troops home, OK Nobs? When you say things like that, it just makes everything else you say seem suspect as well.

Wikipedia Admins are warching us! Everybody act normal!

Sorry, only one "straightman" -- I don't know the PC equivalent of that -- allowed per thread.

Jonny

I listened daily in 2003; need transcripts for WP:V?Ok, Luttwak said See Thumbnails for DNC - Halliburton; as to "rob Muslim Iraqis... of their religion and even their family honor", we're now getting into the area of "leftists" advocating Dominionism and family values. I see. the Malaki government was just a sham, and the mullahs or Saddam's nephew, the Ba'athists, an Iranian or al-Qeada takeover will insure true democratic self-determination. Thanks for clarifying that. read the above link; the operative phrase is "disengagement is not withdrawl."
See my disclaimer as to the left/right spectrum theory: I dispute your underlying premise. The left/right spectrum theory is effective in brainwashing third graders to have stereotyped views of the world. But as we grow up and become politically mature, l'd recommend discarding such prejudices.

Nobs, believe me, I too would loooove to see people cut down on the "left vs. right spectrum" stuff. But you can't control what people think, and if that's what they think, then you have to at least allow for it, if you hope to convince them of anything.

As for the rest, I've watched Democracy Now fairly regularly ever since I got The Dish, which goes back a ways earlier than 2002. Amy & Co. might occasionally allow someone on who thinks democracy is a bad idea for Middle Eastern societies, and certainly you'll see people saying that we shouldn't be pushing it on them. But do they believe that these regimes simply should not be democratic at all? Of course not. You can quote them all you want, but let's face it, Nobs... you're already famous for removing quotes from their original context, no?

And to suggest that the Democratic leadership in the US Congress doesn't want democracy there either, well... that's not even worthy of a rebuttal. Nor is the suggestion that they (or anyone else) thinks a return to Baathist dictatorship is somehow a good idea...

Simply put, they oppose the war, Nobs. It's not the same thing.

Just for that, I'm gonna go un-ban Jorge and Lir now...

WHUT, without a WikiPlebisCITE or nuttin' ???

How unDemocratic = downrite Republican of ya !!!

Jonny "Hanging" Chad

{{citation needed}}Arundhati Roy Transcript from Democracy Now,Deroy Murdock columnist Scripps Howard News Service. Oh really? Then what the hell do they want? If you ask them, I bet they don't even know....

Baath Party#Origins
Somebody screwed up bigtime -- Wikipedia is reporting the fascist Ba'athists are "leftist" and Marxist in origin. Time to get the disinformation specialists in gear.

Here's another source: Right Woos Left: Neo- Fascist Overtures and Why They Must Be Rejected, subsection 05 Secular Humanism Conspiracy So it's win-win. If the the secular Ba'athist get back into power, anti-neocon zog ate my brain types victorious in the 2006 US Congressional elections have thier way. If the mullahs get in power then its 'self-determination'. This has been very 'enlightening'.

Actually, there was a proto-Wikipedian Request for Comment, with Lir voting against himself as some sort of protest. The vote was still 6 to 3 against censure.

Yeah, I was almost awake that week, but I vetoed the vote in order to protest the very idea that a vote in a tarpit could be in order.

Walkin' the line, one more time ...

Jonny

Well, I can't be the only one defending the so-called "principled left" around here - it's too much pressure, and too time-consuming to boot. I've got my phony-baloney job to consider here, gentlemen!


So Nobs, let me just ask you this: Do you essentially believe that, left to their own devices, there is simply no way that Iraq will avoid descending into either a Muslim Fundamentalist theocracy, or a resurgent Baathist dictatorship? There is no third, fourth, or fifth way for them?

Okay, just one more thing... What's the point of your asking for a citation on your quoting out of context, when you're doing it right here and now with these Abu Ghraib quotes? And do you somehow expect the anti-war people to look at Abu Ghraib and say, "oh well, that's really no big deal, one of those otherwise-upstanding soldiers must've goofed up by misinterpreting some perfectly innocuous DoD memo"?

And I still don't see what this has to do with Wikipedia's IRC channel, other than the fact that the channel ops would probably do the same thing if they had certain users incarcerated.

I don't think they're going to be left to thier own devices -- but that's another story. Suffice it to say, troops ain't gonna play traffic cop & social worker anymore, but we will maintain desert bases, and as Luttwak says, at least one of four of the Baghdad airports. And the Green Zone, at least for awhile (here's a tidbit...the troop surge is disinformation...it's not to secure Baghdad...it's for the coming Isreali style strike on Iran's nuke facilities...and the US is indeed now already in a state of war with Iran).
Huh? Can you be more specific?

Of course they won't be left to their own devices, at least not while the current administration is in power. But that wasn't the question, was it?


Okay. I say that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the US Congress want to bring the troops home because they oppose the war, not because they want to prevent democracy in Iraq. You quote some guy named "Luttwak" who claims that Americans want to rob the Iraqis of their religion and even their family honor, which is fine - except that Luttwak isn't a Congressman, and even if he's a leftist (which is debatable), he's hardly some sort of official spokesman, is he? Later, I say that Amy Goodman of Democracy Now doesn't say that the Iraqis shouldn't have democracy or that democracy is a bad idea for them. You then post a link to your own blog quoting Arundhati Roy, admittedly a regular guest on the show but not a member of the staff, as saying "Each prisoner tortured in Abu Ghraib was our comrade." She didn't say this on Democracy Now, she said it in a speech in San Francisco which I suppose may have been shown on Democracy Now later on, but no matter. This is clearly taken out of context, since the original context had nothing to do with whether or not democracy in Iraq is a good idea or not; the original context was that both US soldiers and Iraqi civilians are victims of the same failed and moronic policies.

Arundhati Roy is from India, Nobs. Arundhati Roy is not a US citizen; Arundhati Roy does not speak for the Democrats in the US Congress; she does not speak for me; she does not even speak for The Political Left In General. Even if she did, she doesn't claim that democracy in Iraq would be a bad thing either! These claims of yours are dilatory, they are distractionist, and they are wrong. And frankly, I'm getting kind of tired of them.

Whewww...what an indictment. Can I sidestep the question?

I ain't trashing Pelosi or the Dems. I accept the decision of my fellow citizens. But don't get your hopes up about bringing the troops home, cause it ain't gonna happen (well, at least not totally)

Now back to Bush & the Axis of Evil: ( A ) Saddam removed; ( B ) North Korea back to the Five Party Talks; ( C ) Iran's nuke program about to get 'preempted' (with the help of NATO, I might add...). So let's not discuss the success/failure of G.W. Bush's foreign policy yet....

Arundhati Roy? I posted that transcript cause it was handy, but other WP:V stuff is available. Point is Democracy Now aired all the stuff, to much applause I might add, about "our comrades", i.e. murderers rapists and terrorists. Don't make me go one, please. to the American Sociological Association...this one's too easy...where did I hear that before....hmmm....was it here....Luttwak said on 23 January 2007Nobs01 posted this excerpt from Toynbee on 18 January 2007

Wikipedia Review has now officially jumped the shark. Nobs, get a grip, and take it to Little Green Footballs or somewhere else where they care.

Is that a trick question?


But that isn't the "point," Nobs. That isn't the point at all. Lots of people air stuff, and they don't necessarily take it on as official policy, or even agree with it. They're reporters, it's their job to air stuff. In this case the stuff is obviously biased towards the so-called "left," but considering how much right-wing bias there is in the media, as in vastly more than the left could ever possibly hope to equal in the foreseeable future, can you really blame them?

I sure don't!

Yes. I agree. This is one example. We need the full qualifiers in this instance of Amy or Juan Williams introduction to properly verify the point (if any). But I can guarantee, no disclaimer was made of this tape being the view of an extreme minority before or after the "our comrades" comment referring to terrorists.

Here's another interesting link on the same subject ZOG & the anti-War movement, excerpted,

Does CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, or even Fox News air "disclaimers" prior to showing video clips from speeches? Telling their viewers, "The speech you're about to see represents an extreme minority viewpoint"? I should hope not! So why should FSTV and Democracy Now do things any differently?


Referring to prisoners, Nobs. Abused prisoners at that, many of whom were not proven to have been terrorists at the time, even by US tribunals.

In fact they do. The History Channel after being cited as the source that said LBJ whacked out JFK now disclaims stuff with something like, "The crap you are about to view is not necessarily the view of the History Channel" (we're just commercially exploiting for profit these lies").

See my WP:ATT, WP:CITE,WP:RS, WP:V above. What's more mainstream, Scripps Howard or Democracy Now, an organization advocating democracy now around the planet with the exception of its support for democarcy now in Iraq.
Breaks my heart. If 1949 ever comes around again, perhaps these poor abused prisoners could sign the Geneva Convention of 1949 again. In fact, that's a whole story by itself....

These "abused prisoners" aren't just fighting or opposing US 'intervention', or the 'Christian Crusaders', or 'Western influence', they're fighting the idea of Western institutions itself: the very idea of the United Nations, the Geneva Convention, or the Nobel Prize Committee. They are enemies of the Geneva Convention.

...Is not the same thing, nor did I mention them as a possible exemplar. What's more, a disclaimer that "the views expressed do not necessarily represent..." isn't the same as what you're calling for, a disclaimer that "the views expressed are those of an extreme minority."


I see no such thing. Anybody else see anything like that? No, I've checked and re-checked, and I see nothing of the sort.


Who cares which is more mainstream? Why should that be relevant to anything we're discussing, in any way whatsoever? Are you actually trying to suggest that because a news-gathering entity isn't "mainstream," they should preface their reporting with a disclaimer, saying "this is an extreme minority view"?


Ahh, I see. It's okay to torture them, abuse them sexually and psychologically, and even kill them, because hey - they're enemies of the Geneva Convention! Well, that explains everything! What happens if they're enemies of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, then? A baseball bat to the head, maybe? Perhaps the ol' sixteen-ton weight?

Newsflash: History Channel is CBS.Scripps Howard OK, you sold me. Henceforth we'll depend on unreliable sources, like Wikipedia (it's own policies say so).Hmm wow. An intelligent, rational and relevent discussion in WR. OK, answer me this, Why was Sadat murdered?

So?


Again, are you trying to suggest that all "non-mainstream" sources are inherently unreliable? Do you have any idea how ludicrous that position is?

Nah, I'm not making a broadscale assertion. Democracy Now, and FSTV, for example, truelly are very valuable sources for some kinds of information. On the other hand, a person who takes wholesale their crap I'd truelly worry about being off their medications.

Now the particular example I've posted would need some supporting evidence to demonstrate the kinship of views of Amy Goodman, Arundahti Roy, Howard Zinn, et al regular contributors to the program. And this, as a longtime listener, I do not think would be difficult to demonstrate.

If they want to restrict immigration, they certainly are not "on the left".

Luís Henrique

No true scotsman fallacy.

Also, wow necropost

Nope. The working class is international. That is as central to the left as the unity/trinity of God is to Catholicism.



Indeed. I must stop doing searches and then confusing their results with the ordinary forum displays.

Luís Henrique

True, but you have to admit, this would be a good time to review G.W. Bush's foreign policy:

A. Saddam vindicated in the eyes of other nations (had no WMD)
B. N. Korea now testing nukes and test-firing missiles into the Sea of Japan
C. Iran's nuke program goin' strong

...and that's just the Axis of Evil. It'll probably take Obama the entire 8 years just to clean up the mess, and then some.

Whenever I want to debate immigration, I look for threads about IRC from 2007.

Me too!

However, in his defense, it should be noted that if Mr. Henrique was using the board's search function to look for such material, this would have been the only thread found for the search-string "restrict immigration."

I remember this thread very well, actually... it's a good example of how to really piss me off!