Dante Alighieri said
>For the record, if Axel hadn't unbanned him, I would
>have... and I support
>the banning of him in the first place. Here''s my
>reasoning:
>Banning/unbanning is largely irrelevant in this
>situation, RK certainly isn't coming back any time
soon.
Not sure of this. He seems to be a tough one. He can
cool down
>*Banning logged-in users is a temporary emergency
step >and the emergency has passed.
Very true
>*Unbanning him in no way says that his behavior is
>acceptable, it merely respects our process.
Ah ? Well, if you say so, I believe you
>We have no procedure to ban logged-in users for any
>specific length of
>time. The mandate is in an emergency to protect
>vandalism. Once the
>vandalism threat is over, there is no rationale to
>continue that form of
>ban.
Fair.
Though...I am curious...just how many loggued in users
are banned right now ? How long ago was it ?
>At this point, the weeks-long consensus that a ban
>should (or should
>not) occur takes place and then we have our
democratic >solution. Axel did
>not show disrespect to people who were insulted, he
>showed respect for the
>Wikipedia process that we all abide by.
Good, I am glad to hear that.
Democratic implies of course, that everybody has the
chance to weight in.
>I disagree with Axel that he never
>should have been banned in the first place, that was
>an appropriate step to
>undertake given the situation. That's just my two
>cents.
It certainly was a decision not everybody could agree
on.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Axel said
>I don't think we should invent new bannable offenses,
we >should not invent those bannable offenses *after*
the >offenses have occurred, and we should not
initiate >punishment *before* the acts have occurred.
>I have ended the temporary ban on RK.
------
That is what I would call a community decision indeed.
I suppose the opinion of all those insulted is totally
irrelevant in this decision.
Anthere
-----
Ed Poor said
>In light of comments from Erik (aka Eloquence),
>Axelboldt, Vicki R.,
>Gutza, Abe, and I hope I haven't left anyone out...
>Our next question is:
>* Shall we set a date for ending the temporary ban?
Or,
>* Shall we ask Jimbo to endorse a permanent ban?
>Ed Poor
I would have thought I had said something above, by
maybe I have just been dreaming what I wrote. Probably
so.
Anyway, Ed, you question is irrelevant. Axel has
decided the banning was bad and that is all about it.
Well; that won't do it.
-------
Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.
After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began
harassing
me and vandalizing my home page. You lied about him
and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?
Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?
Then you harassed me on my own home page, and then
BANNED
me when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?
Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.
Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.
Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is. I am gone. But from
now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.
You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.
Goodbye.
Robert RK
-----
Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.
After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began
harassing
me and vandalizing my home page. You lied about him
and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?
Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?
Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then
BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?
Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.
Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.
Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is. I am gone. But from
now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.
You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.
Goodbye.
Robert RK
-----
Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.
After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began
harassing
me and vandalizing my home page. You lied about him
and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?
Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?
Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then
BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?
Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.
Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.
Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is. I am gone. But from
now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.
You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.
Goodbye.
Robert RK
-----
Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.
After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began
harassing
me and vandalizing my home page. You lied about him
and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?
Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?
Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then
BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?
Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.
Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.
Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is. I am gone. But from
now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.
You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.
Goodbye.
Robert RK
-----
Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.
After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began
harassing
me and vandalizing my home page. You lied about him
and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?
Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?
Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then
BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?
Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.
Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.
Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is. I am gone. But from
now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.
You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.
Goodbye.
Robert RK
-----
Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.
After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began
harassing
me and vandalizing my home page. You lied about him
and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?
Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?
Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then
BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?
Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.
Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.
Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is. I am gone. But from
now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.
You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.
Goodbye.
Robert RK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
An ex-Wikipedian wrote:
> [snip inappropriate content]
> Goodbye.
Goodbye.
----
RK has voluntarily decided to excercise his "right to leave", and there's really no
need to discuss the issue any further than that.
The only real unresolved issue is Eloquence's temporary block, and Axel's later
unblock. As a developer, Eloquence currently has the authority to ban logged in
users for vandalism, subject to later endorsement by Jimbo. So, under our current
system, we need only wait to see what Jimbo says on the matter.
Of course, our entire ban/block system is somewhat anachronistic and needs
improvement, which is why I made the proposal for a slightly modified deletion
notice and transgression procedure at [[wikipedia:bans and blocks]]. The feedback
I've got has been very positive so far, but I'm still interested to hear what people
think. If there aren't any objections over the next few days, I'll probably call it official.
WikiLove,
Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
I can't discuss this on Wikipedia. I didn't want Martin and
Angela to keep harassing me...and they refused to stop
doing so. Yet when I did to them what they did to me, I was
banned, and they were allowed to do whatever they wanted.
That' fair...if you are mentally unbalanced. Or if you
just hate Jews.
WHO IS ANTI-SEMITIC?
>From the Encyclopedia Judaica.
Few in post-war America have ventured anti-Semitic remarks
in public. Generalizations, however, can be made on the
basis of certain factors: educational level, income, age,
race, religion, place of birth, and geographical location.
Those holding anti-Semitic beliefs tend to hold other
prejudiced, intolerant, or undemocratic views in general.
They are most widespread among the uneducated and poorer
members of American society.
Education is a key variable. The least educated score
highest in anti-Semitic attitudes, except for blacks.
Decline in negative images of Jews, as well as in general
intolerance, can be correlated in the last two decades with
the higher level of education of the community. More
knowledge of minorities, possession of cognitive skills to
think rationally, and understanding of the virtues of
tolerance and civil rights have meant less negative images
of Jews. Anti-Semitism is highest in the working class and
lowest among professionals and the middle class.
Anti-Semitism is higher among Protestants than among
Catholics. About 80% of Southern Baptists and 70% of
Missouri Synod Lutherans agree that Jews remain unforgiven
for the death of Christ. Religion has been a powerful
reinforcement of anti-Semitic views; 45% of all American
anti-Semites get their anti-Semitic ideas from religious
indoctrination or from some religious influence. The number
of prejudiced among fundamentalists is some 7% greater than
among non-fundamentalists.
Older people tend to be more anti-Semitic than younger
individuals. This might be explained by lower educational
level, by the fact that anti-Semitism was more prevalent
when the older people were themselves young, and by the
possibility that the aging process might have led to
greater feelings of insecurity and intolerance.
Foreign-born Americans in general, partly because they tend
to be older and less well educated than the average, hold
stronger anti-Semitic views than the native born. Rural
residents, especially in the South and Midwest, tend to be
more anti-Semitic than urban residents. There appears to be
little difference in beliefs between the sexes.
The greater degree of anti-Semitism among blacks than among
the white population is disenchanting for those with
memories of Jewish sympathy for the plight of blacks, and
of actions, even at cost of life, to remedy that plight.
Jews have always been more concerned about the state of
blacks than have members of other religions, and given
disproportionate support and financial aid to civil rights
organizations.
Black prejudice, often inherited from the Christian
fundamentalism imbibed in youth, essentially stemmed from
disparaging economic stereotypes of Jews as money-grubbers,
callous storekeepers and landlords, uncaring employers of
black domestics, and as individuals who would use their
economic power to degrade blacks.
Moderate black leaders, such as Martin Luther King, Jr.,
praised "the contribution that Jewish people have made
toward the Negro's struggle for freedom." They acknowledged
the Jewish help and alliance in black organizations and in
the campaigns in the South with their freedom riders and
voter registration teams.
However, from the 1960s on, the alliance had become
strained. The Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee
(SNCC), formed in 1960 with Jewish help, within a decade,
under the leadership of Stokely Carmichael, began attacking
"the Rothschilds" as well as "Zionist Jewish terrorists."
Malcolm X denounced Jews as part of the white exploitative
majority and wrote, "I don't care what a Jew is
professionally, doctor, merchant, housewife, student or
whatever�first, he or she thinks Jew," and talked of "Jews
who sapped the very lifeblood of blacks."
The extremist Black Panthers, the Black Muslims, believing
in a Jewish conspiracy to control the world, and some black
intellectuals were vocal in anti-Jewish sentiment.
All recent polls and surveys, as well as other empirical
evidence, show that black anti-Semitism is considerably
higher than that of whites at every educational level.
Two-fifths of blacks, compared with one out of five whites,
can be characterized as having high or moderate
anti-Semitic beliefs.
Looking at the surveys of black anti-Semitism, five
features seem significant. The first is that it has
increased relative to that of whites. Secondly, black
anti-Semitism is higher in the urban North than in the more
rural South. Thirdly, it is manifested more on economic
than on other issues. Those blacks who had economic
dealings with or who perceived economic mistreatment by
Jews record a higher level of anti-Semitism than those who
do not. Blacks remain more opposed than do whites to
political anti-Semitism and to social discrimination, but
negative beliefs on some noneconomic matters, especially on
Israel, have also increased. Fourthly, blacks who have
personal contact with Jews, mostly in a subordinate role,
are likely to be more anti-Semitic than those who do not,
the reverse of the relationship between adult whites and
Jews.
Most significant, it is younger blacks and the better
educated who exhibit the strongest negative attitudes. This
may be the consequence of the competition with or envy of
Jews by aspiring black professionals. The anti-Semitic
level of elite black leaders is about double that of blacks
as a whole. Assertions of black consciousness and power
from the 1960s, greater racial pride and solidarity, meant
rejection of white, primarily Jewish, control of black
organizations. For many black leaders, the politics of
integration changed to the politics of confrontation.
That confrontation has taken the form of disputes over
political goals and the exercise of power. But also the
dismissal in 1979 of Andrew Young as American ambassador to
the United Nations for meeting with a PLO official, the
abusiveness of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's
remarks about Judaism as a "gutter religion" and his
declared admiration for Hitler, the references to New York
City as "Hymietown" by presidential candidate Jesse Jackson
in 1984, the injection of Black-Jewish animosity into the
1988 Democratic party primary in New York, have all
inflamed passions on both sides. Blacks hold about 10% less
favorable attitudes to Israel than do whites. Jews and
blacks have strongly differed on questions of open
enrollment in New York City colleges and, above all, on the
issues of quotas for employment. Yet, the old black-Jewish
liberal coalition, with its mutual support for electoral
office and for policies favoring integrated schools, civil
rights, and vitality of urban areas on the one hand, and
issues significant to Jews, especially the security of
Israel on the other, has not broken down.
Besides a few radical left groups, most contemporary
vitriolic anti-Semitism stems from a wide diversity of
extremist right-wing hate groups, small in size,
essentially anti-democratic and estranged from political
and social reality, Identity Church groups and neo-Nazi
organizations, living with the memories of Adolf Hitler,
and limited to between 400 and 450 members, and the
various, small Ku Klux Klan bodies. Some of these groups
have engaged not only in hate rhetoric against minorities
and racist ideology, but also in crimes, from synagogue
bombings to armed robbery and murder, and fanciful
conspiracies to overthrow the U.S. government.
These groups, whose members are often disaffected and
frustrated, share overlapping beliefs: hostility to
government which is seen as illegitimate; enmity toward
Jews and non-whites; attacks on Jewish interests supposedly
controlling government, finance, and the media; and
purported Christian concepts by which white Protestants are
seen as the "chosen people."
The better known of the hate groups are the Aryan Nations,
the Christian Defense League, the Posse Commitatus, the
Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, and the
Christian-Patriots Defense League.
Probably the most aggressive of the non-religious hate
groups are the "skinheads," gangs of shaven-headed youths
who glorify violence, and have been responsible for an
increasing number of assaults as well as anti-Semitic
bigotry.
The Liberty Lobby, the most active and the best financed
anti-Semitic organization in the country, describes itself
as "a pressure group for patriotism," and maintains close
connections with a number of members of Congress. Its
weekly newspaper, The Spotlight, started in 1975 and now,
with a circulation of about a quarter of a million, is the
most widely read right-wing extremist paper in the country.
Among its favorite targets are Zionism, and people defined
euphemistically as "dual loyalists" or "international
bankers."
The Institute for Historical Review was created in 1979.
Its chief concern has been to deny or minimize the reality
of the Holocaust and explore Jewish "atrocity propaganda"
through a number of books and materials with anti-Semitic
themes and by annual conventions.
Extreme groups in the U.S. have remained small and outside
the political mainstream. In recent years their membership
appears to have declined even further. American politics
embodies and public opinion coheres around a consensus of
political moderation in which anti-Semitic beliefs are not
respectable.
The country, with certain qualifications, exhibits a lower
level of overt prejudice and bigotry than ever before in
racial and religious matters. Jews as a group are no longer
blamed, except by a zany fringe element, for the nation's
problems or condemned for not being truly American. Indeed,
in the working of the American political system today, Jews
both as political activists and participants, and as
elected and appointed officials have played a prominent
role.
Yet, the portrait of anti-Semitism is a composite of
conflicting traits. If most churches no longer insist on
Jewish responsibility for the Crucifixion, those of an
orthodox or particularist persuasion are inclined to do so.
An appreciable minority, between one-fifth and one-quarter,
still believe Jews have too much power. Some remain
obsessed by Jewish domination of the media and banking.
Two other major problems remain. Black anti-Semitism,
stemming from religious teachings and economic stereotypes,
exacerbated by the politics of confrontation and, to a
lesser degree, a rise in adherence to Islam, is a troubling
issue. The issue of Israel, support for its policies, aid
for its security, and Jewish relations with the state has
not yet led to an increase in anti-Semitism. But about a
quarter of non-Jews are highly unfavorable to Israel, and
young people are more likely to be so than are older
people.
Appropriate anxiety should be shown for the rhetoric and
the potential for violence of those extreme groups which
have anti-Semitism high on their agenda, though their
membership is small and declining. But that anxiety should
not be excessive. Even admitting a significant minority of
the population can be regarded as having anti-Semitic
attitudes, Jews have not been made scapegoats for economic
or social problems. What is finally important is that the
existing anti-Semitic beliefs have not led to an organized
movement with any serious support for violence against
Jews. [M.Curt.]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Stan wrote in response to letter arguing that RK is a necessary evil:
"There are people who have some detailed knowledge of the
Israeli Palestinian conflict, a generally neutral point of view, and a
commitment to scholarly investigation, myself for instance, but I've
generally avoided those articles because Wikipedia is not paying me enough
to put up with constant abuse and name-calling by RK."
Although I agree in principle with Stan, who points out that RK's just a petty
partisan, who ought to quit haunting the Israeli-Palestinian articles in
favor of users with real expertise and a grasp of NPOV, there's no
chance in hell of this far-fetched fantasy working out. Passions run so
high on both sides in real life that it's inevitable that a new User:RK or
User:Palestine liberator could discover Wikipedia any day, launch an
ideological campaign under the guise of NPOV, and in turn attract a new
set of rival partisans. We'd certainly like to see better, but there's no
way Wikipedia, and all the freedom it affords, can act against users
determined to use Wikipedia as a battlefield to play out their frustrations.
Moreover, RK's not the only partisan. Banning RK would just throw
off the balance existing right now between the partisans. Why don't
we just accept the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian articles are the
most conflict-prone of all on Wiki, given the real-world political realities?
Rather than getting rid of this necessary evil, let's continue to referee
the RK-types? All his disputes end with NPOV by stalemate - and
that's what Wiki needs above all else. It doesn't matter how you get
there.
In addition, his response noted that not banning RK would generate
more bad behavior. However, reread my arguments. I argued that
there's a peculiar long-run benefit derived from his bad behavior.
He's a necessary evil, when neutralized by his enemies.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Abe Solokov wrote:
> The dynamics of the disputes on Wikipedia that arise over the
> Israeli-Palestinian issue mean that neutrality is only going to be
> attained when both sides are finished terrorizing and brutalizing each
> other, after a zero-sum battle has ended in a stalemate. If RK weren’t
> here, that would mean that the other side would consistently win.
> RK’s role as the lose cannon on the Israel-related articles - always
> suspicious, prickly, and aggressive – bolsters the influence of his side
> of the issues. You cannot deny that RK has steered dozens of articles
> toward an orientation further from that of his antagonists. He often
> starts off adding grotesquely POV content, but that’s toned down after a
> fierce battle with his ever-observant opponents. Although his opponents
> are more subtle in slanting articles, there are more of them, and other
> users usually have no sympathy for RK. Whereas RK can inject hysterical
> propaganda in a few articles, many other users can inject subtle biase s
> in many articles. However, fear of RK’s tyranny is a check on them; and
> when RK mobilizes his energies into a hysterical fit, balance results
> from the ensuing struggle.
>
> In short, if Wikipedia is to present both sides, it’s contingent on
> letting RK be RK. He generates chaos and a lot of ill-will. He’s often
> obnoxious (but he can magnanimously admit that he was wrong – I believe
> that he took my advice to stop calling a very well-respected user an
> anti-Semite). He even alienates his own supporters, and often attacks
> potential allies with great bitterness. But due to the nature of users
> who are attracted to the Israeli/Palestinian article, the only way to
> get balance is stalemate after stalemate after stalemated zero-sum
> conflict between equally powerful and committed groups of antagonists.
> Among the non-academic partisans who take the time to write about this
> dispute, the fanatical camps on both sides make it impossible for the
> two sides to put aside their differences and agree on what a neutral
> article is. It’s too idealistic to expect them to have the dexterity to
> cooperate and quit wasting time by sniping at each other. RK’s intrans
> igence, and often flat out bizarre behavior, but it’s an indispensable
> part of a confluence of opposing forces required for Israeli-Palestinian
> neutrality.
I won't lie, I'm QUITE HAPPY that RK is banned now. Sure he added a lot
of important information to religious topic and so on, but please! He
has called everyone that has ever been in a dispute with him an
anti-semite. Not only those contributors who debate with him in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict as I firsth thought, even contributors who
has praised his work and/or are Jews themselves have gotten the stamp
"anti-semite". It is no fun for one who has spent a lot of time and
effort fighting racisim to be called that again and again and again.
Now I know that practically everyone who has been the target of RK's
diatribes have responded with a remarkable calmness and tolerance
(except for me who has written insulting comments back at him), noone
other has responded with insulting and degrading comments. I salute you
for that, Ed Poor, Stevertigo, JTDRL, Anthere, MyRedDice and many
others... Stevertigo even nominated RK to a sysop, his motive for that I
can only guess. My guess is that he thought that if RK became a sysop he
would understand that noone was "out to get him" and that WP wasn't
"infected by anti-semites" and maybe stop calling everyone an
anti-semite. But it didn't work, a month after receiving a sysop
nomination from Stevertigo, the name-calling is back and this time RK
has "outed" Stevertigo as a nazi or someting.
Stevertigo still probably think RK should not be banned (im
speculating). He doesn't get offended, many others doesn't get offended
by RK. But I get offended by RK, a countless number of anons get
offended by RK and many contributors have left WP because of RK's
antics. It's impossible to edit articles in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict because if you do, RK will be there reverting and calling you
an anti-Semite. It is not fun and is one of the reasons why I don't
spend as much time on WP anymore.
And it isn't like he hasn't been warned. He has been varned many many
times, he got countless more chances than for example EofT did but he
has never listened, not changed the slightest. He has gotten his chances
and he has burnt them all. It is time to say goodbye.
BL
I found my ability to edit Wikipedia pages blocked a few
minutes ago. Apparently Eloquence thought I was RK.
> Your user name or IP address has been blocked by
> Eloquence. The reason given is this:
> Autoblocked because you share an IP address with "RK".
> Reason "Repeated vandalism. Calm down, drink some tea,
> learn the difference between user and talk pages."
I un-banned myself; no harm done.
Ed Poor
I think a few days is enough time for him to cool down. I propose he is
unbanned on 5th October.
Theresa
-----Original Message-----
From: Poor, Edmund W [mailto:Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com]
Sent: 02 October 2003 16:35
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK temp-banned
In light of comments from Erik (aka Eloquence), Axelboldt, Vicki R.,
Gutza, Abe, and I hope I haven't left anyone out...
Our next question is:
* Shall we set a date for ending the temporary ban? Or,
* Shall we ask Jimbo to endorse a permanent ban?
Ed Poor
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thank you, Mr. Starling, for helping to lower my "stress quotient"!
(And please note that I did not really call anyone a liar, but instead
gave the choice between that and someone who really has not taken the
time to check out the facts of the case.)
(I also would like to point out the fact that Mr. Poor misquoted me by
snipping my "buffer" phrase "I hate to say this, but".)
(I would also like to note that it seems odd to me that whereas the main
party [you] has actually apologized, I still got several strong reprimands
from "parties of the second part.")
(Finally, as far as this initial top-posting stuff goes, let me correct Mr.
Axel Boldt's assumption that I have a theory or theories by stating that
this
is untrue. My whole point was simply that critical facts have been left out
of the WIKI special relativity article, and I have proved my point.)
>From: "Tim Starling" <ts4294967296(a)hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: [roy_q_royce(a)hotmail.com: --A Request
>REaWIKIArticle--]
>Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:40:36 +1000
>
[snip]
> >
> > The fact that E=mc^2 does not support SR is not merely "my fact."
>
>I never said anything about that one, remember? I snipped it. I didn't want
>to get into a technical discussion on this mailing list, where most readers
>are not familiar with relativity. Save it for the talk page of the article.
>
Your many references to cranks in the context of my first post made it
necessary for me to try to defend myself, and it seemed to me that this
could best be done by showing that E=mc^2 is not a part of SR.
Regarding your "save it for the talk page" advice, you are actually at
a disadvantage because you did not know that I had already tried that,
and found that it did not work - so I tried taking my case to the "main
dude" himself, James Wales; however, since he assumed that he could not
handle the physics, he "tossed me to the 'wolves' of this list." (said
with a smile, Mr. Poor!)
I really wanted the chance to prove to Mr. Wales that there were indeed
critical scientific facts omitted from "his" WIKI SR article. And I firmly
believe that I can still do this, so I will post my new for-the-layman
proof for Mr. Wales.
>
[snip]
> > I challenge anyone here to find where I lost any argument to anyone
> > in the Newsgroups.
>
>Who said anything about losing arguments? I've never known a crackpot to
>lose an argument, by their own concession.
>
Actually, it is easy to tell who has won an argument in the Newsgroups if
one cares to find out. The main two ways are [1] if no one replies to one's
final posting (re the main subject), or [2] if there are only ad hominem or
"you ain't right" or "you're just a troll and a crank" kinds of replies.
(I certainly would not dream of asking you to simply take my word that I
had won.)
> > I hate to say this, but Mr. Tim Starling is either a liar or an
> > easily-fooled person because I have never - by any stretch of anyone's
> > imagination - except Starling's - suggested "a direct test of some
> > aspect of relativity which is hugely expensive or perhaps even
> > technically impossible."
>
>Two very important questions:
>
>1. What would be my motivation to lie?
>2. Who am I being fooled by?
>
It would be of course the same motivation that led you to dismiss me
instantly as some sort of crackpot. I wish I knew what it was!
You could be fooled by various sources, one of which could be the
WIKI SR article which falsely states that SR is supported by E=mc^2.
You could also be fooled by those in the Newsgroups who have tried to
label anything that they're not familiar with as "BS from a crank."
> > And I have never ignored "the huge body of
> > slightly less direct tests of the same theory," and I have not then
> > "obliquely suggested some sort of conspiracy theory to explain why
> > no-one is spending millions of dollars on his simple test." And it
> > is complete balderdash to say of me that "Everywhere he goes, he
> > feels persecuted by co-conspiring mainstream physicists, who are
> > out to suppress the 'truth' he has discovered."
> >
> > Mr. Starling, I demand either an apology or some proof of the above
> > serious accusations.
>
>I apologise. I was making generalisations. As a matter of curiosity, what
>is
>your estimate for the cost of this experiment?
>
Thanks, but it seemed to me to be a direct attack on my credibility,
so I got pretty defensive (which I rarely do).
As for "the cost of this experiment," I am not sure to which experiment
you are referring, but I assume it is a two-clock measurement of light's
one-way speed. Since we are actually talking about theoretical physics
(note that my main topic is SR), the cost is practically zero because it is
all
done on paper.
For some reason, everyone assumes that I am either presenting a theory of
my own or calling for some exorbitant test of SR. Instead, I am simply
trying to clarify the meaning of SR.
[snip]
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer--
sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
My long explanation for the indepensibility of RK spilled over the margins. I cannot seem to fix this problem, so I'd really appreciate it if someone would copy and paste the contents of what I wrote in a new, readable message within the margins. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to do this.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search