--- zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
Look what the cat dug up: [[User:NSM88]]
I'm getting bored with this dirty pictures discussion. Take a look at the above user page, also at [[User talk:Teresa knott]], for something new to talk about.
Zero.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
So why would he be unblocked?
Sarah
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:10:18 -0800 (PST), zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
--- zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
Look what the cat dug up: [[User:NSM88]]
I'm getting bored with this dirty pictures discussion. Take a look at the above user page, also at [[User talk:Teresa knott]], for something new to talk about.
Zero.
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:19:06 -0700, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
So why would he be unblocked?
What did he actually do that was blockable?
Theresa
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 13:35, Theresa Knott wrote:
What did he actually do that was blockable?
He displayed Nazi symbols on his userpage. He must be blocked. Please don't let Wikipedia to become Nazipedia.
He called the Holocaust the "alleged Holocaust." No one denies there was a Holocaust, even if they dispute the numbers and the intention of the Nazis, so that edit amounted to vandalism, as did changing the "wars against Jews" on [[Jew]] to the "wars caused by Jews." Admins are empowered to block new users who make disruptive edits, which Zero did, so I'm wondering why Silsor unblocked him. It's one thing for a person with these views to become an editor, but it's a different matter when he comes as Sgt. Whatever of the political party he's with, posting a picture of himself in his "uniform," which I believe you deleted; thank you for that if you did.
Sarah
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:13:42 +0200, NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 13:35, Theresa Knott wrote:
What did he actually do that was blockable?
He displayed Nazi symbols on his userpage. He must be blocked. Please don't let Wikipedia to become Nazipedia.
-- NSK http://portal.wikinerds.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 14:26, slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
the Nazis, so that edit amounted to vandalism, as did changing the "wars against Jews" on [[Jew]] to the "wars caused by Jews." Admins
This is typical trolling-vandalism behaviour. I am sure all experienced wikipedians can recognise this behaviour and I hope we all agree that this is a banable offence.
NSK (nsk2@wikinerds.org) [050215 23:34]:
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 14:26, slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
the Nazis, so that edit amounted to vandalism, as did changing the "wars against Jews" on [[Jew]] to the "wars caused by Jews." Admins
This is typical trolling-vandalism behaviour. I am sure all experienced wikipedians can recognise this behaviour and I hope we all agree that this is a banable offence.
I've just blocked it "trolling account, no good edits".
- d.
Actually looking at this users editing behaviour it is pretty clear that this is not a new user at all. This is a sockpuppet account created to troll.
Theresa
Is this a photograph of the same person? http://www.nsm88.com/commandersdesk/commander.html
If it is, the name is supposedly Jeff Schoep. I don't recall the photo he posted well enough to judge whether it's the same guy. I was just thinking this could be a known user with a sockpuppet, pretending to be a Sgt. Walter, using a photo from this website to cause trouble. Just speculation though.
Sarah
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:28:25 +0000, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
Actually looking at this users editing behaviour it is pretty clear that this is not a new user at all. This is a sockpuppet account created to troll.
Theresa _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How is that different from the hammer and sickle?
Fred
From: NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org Organization: Wikinerds Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:13:42 +0200 To: Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 13:35, Theresa Knott wrote:
What did he actually do that was blockable?
He displayed Nazi symbols on his userpage. He must be blocked. Please don't let Wikipedia to become Nazipedia.
-- NSK http://portal.wikinerds.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You were, of course, right to block him.
Fred
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:40:19 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user
How is that different from the hammer and sickle?
Fred
From: NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org Organization: Wikinerds Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:13:42 +0200 To: Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 13:35, Theresa Knott wrote:
What did he actually do that was blockable?
He displayed Nazi symbols on his userpage. He must be blocked. Please don't let Wikipedia to become Nazipedia.
-- NSK http://portal.wikinerds.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Also, he claims to be from Tampa Bay, yet writes in British English. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu&diff...
Sarah
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:41:36 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
You were, of course, right to block him.
Fred
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:40:19 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user
How is that different from the hammer and sickle?
Fred
From: NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org Organization: Wikinerds Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:13:42 +0200 To: Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 13:35, Theresa Knott wrote:
What did he actually do that was blockable?
He displayed Nazi symbols on his userpage. He must be blocked. Please don't let Wikipedia to become Nazipedia.
-- NSK http://portal.wikinerds.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In fairness, I should say Commonwealth English. Could be a number of countries of origin.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:44:16 -0700, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Also, he claims to be from Tampa Bay, yet writes in British English. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu&diff...
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Also, he claims to be from Tampa Bay, yet writes in British English. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu&diff...
I was born, raised, and still live in southern Washington State and my writing style is a bastardized version of Commonwealth, American, and "are you completely nuts?" English. Someone's writing style is not exactly a foolproof method of determining their location.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:40:19 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
How is that different from the hammer and sickle?
Fred
I would imagine there are few who would directly equate the Nazi regime with Soviet Russia.
I would think the Hammer and Sickle is not as immediately abhorrant a symbol (although admittedly I am not in the US).
Zoney
You are probably not in Eastern Europe either.
Fred
From: Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com Reply-To: Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:26:17 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:40:19 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
How is that different from the hammer and sickle?
Fred
I would imagine there are few who would directly equate the Nazi regime with Soviet Russia.
I would think the Hammer and Sickle is not as immediately abhorrant a symbol (although admittedly I am not in the US).
Zoney
-- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder said:
You are probably not in Eastern Europe either.
The swastika is illegal in Germany and some German politicians have called for a Europe-wide ban on use of that symbol. The BBC reported that senior Christian Democrats and Social Democrats were taking this suggestion seriously. A group of politicians from Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic asked for a matching ban on the red star and the hammer and sickle. I think it's unlikely that either ban would gain widespread enough support to pass, but if forced to choose I'd say the German ban had far more chance of passing.
Zoney wrote
I would imagine there are few who would directly equate the Nazi regime with Soviet Russia.
You could be wrong about that.
I would think the Hammer and Sickle is not as immediately abhorrant a symbol (although admittedly I am not in the US).
I think that's a reasonable opinion. Perhaps it should be phrased that the intentions of those displaying symbols of the USSR are typically rather different.
Charles
I would imagine there are few who would directly equate the Nazi regime with Soviet Russia.
I have to agree with Zoney here: few would consider them equivalent. Soviet Russia was directly responsible for an order of magnitude more deaths than the Nazis, and indirectly responsible for two orders of magnitude more.
I would think the Hammer and Sickle is not as immediately abhorrant a symbol (although admittedly I am not in the US).
I have to disagree with Zoney here. Despite the best efforts of [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt|Uncle Frank]] to rehabilitate the image of his buddy [[Joseph Stalin|Uncle Joe]] here in the United States, I, at least, find the Soviets far more abhorrent than the Nazis.
Zoney
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:34:16 -0800, the Epopt of Boskone sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I would imagine there are few who would directly equate the Nazi regime with Soviet Russia.
I have to agree with Zoney here: few would consider them equivalent. Soviet Russia was directly responsible for an order of magnitude more deaths than the Nazis, and indirectly responsible for two orders of magnitude more.
I do not doubt that assertion, but it's more to do with the specific circumstances involved. Eastern Europe was mentioned. Well, the USSR sure wanted to control those countries, but the complete eradication of their peoples was not attempted (even if less "total" activities were going on). I don't doubt many in Eastern Europe would not like to see a hammer and sickle, but I don't think it's remotely comparable to what the Swastika stands for to Jews.
And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
Zoney
Zoney wrote:
I do not doubt that assertion, but it's more to do with the specific circumstances involved. Eastern Europe was mentioned. Well, the USSR sure wanted to control those countries, but the complete eradication of their peoples was not attempted (even if less "total" activities were going on). I don't doubt many in Eastern Europe would not like to see a hammer and sickle, but I don't think it's remotely comparable to what the Swastika stands for to Jews.
I'm not sure how the supposed reasons for murder are relevant to the repugnance of symbols associated with those murders. The fact that they are murders and were committed under the auspices of that symbol seems to be the salient point. The fact that many more murders were committed under the auspices of the symbol you dismiss as being less abhorrent further raises confusion in my mind about your system of measurement of the worth of a life and the crime of taking it.
Apparently, to you, killing someone for being a Jew is more wrong than killing someone for speaking out of turn. To me, it's equivalent in either case, because in both cases it is murder.
Completely aside from that, the swastika has been used for other purposes for hundreds of years before World War II, including as a Christian symbol, while the hammer and sickle went from obscurity to symbol of an oppressive, mass-murdering regime in a relative blink of an eye.
And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
Let's not start with the circumstantial ad hominem comparisons. It would be nice if you'd retract that statement.
-- Chad
Chad Perrin said:
The swastika has been used for other purposes for hundreds of years before World War II, including as a Christian symbol, while the hammer and sickle went from obscurity to symbol of an oppressive, mass-murdering regime in a relative blink of an eye.
The hammer and sickle has much wider acceptance. It's still the symbol of Aeroflot, it's a popular design on t-shirts and the like, and variants incorporating the hammer and sickle or other work-related symbols (spade, torch and hoe in the case of the British Labour Party's old symbol) have enjoyed considerable popularity and virtually no controversy. The regime was murderous but the ideals it traded on were not.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Chad Perrin said:
The swastika has been used for other purposes for hundreds of years before World War II, including as a Christian symbol, while the hammer and sickle went from obscurity to symbol of an oppressive, mass-murdering regime in a relative blink of an eye.
The hammer and sickle has much wider acceptance. It's still the symbol of Aeroflot, it's a popular design on t-shirts and the like, and variants incorporating the hammer and sickle or other work-related symbols (spade, torch and hoe in the case of the British Labour Party's old symbol) have enjoyed considerable popularity and virtually no controversy. The regime was murderous but the ideals it traded on were not.
If you think the ideals on which the Nazi Party traded were overtly murderous, you are mistaken.
Essentially, what you're saying appears to be: "The hammer and sickle is okay because it has been sensationalized differently." That roughly equates to saying "It's no big deal: it's just a symbol."
If it's just a symbol, the same is true of the swastika. If the swastika is "a symbol of a murderous regime," though, then the hammer and sickle is as well. Please, either ascribe abhorrence to both or to neither. I'll respect either decision. Just don't try to pretend that one is okay and the other is not.
-- Chad
Chad Perrin said:
Essentially, what you're saying appears to be: "The hammer and sickle is okay because it has been sensationalized differently." That roughly equates to saying "It's no big deal: it's just a symbol."
Absolutely. I also don't think it's good to get worked up about the crucifix, which has been used as a symbol of hatred from time to time. Or, for that matter, the swastika.>
If it's just a symbol, the same is true of the swastika.
Quite. But it is the case (and I don't condone this) that the symbol is banned in Germany and seen as extremely insensitive in most of Europe. Thugs don't generally daub the hammer and sickle on people's gravestones. If my son went out wearing a hammer and sickle t-shirt his friends might think, at most, that it was either rather stylish or a bit old school; if he went out wearing a swastika they probably wouldn't even talk to him. I'm simply describing a situation that pertains in my country and in most European countries. I didn't invent it.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Quite. But it is the case (and I don't condone this) that the symbol is banned in Germany and seen as extremely insensitive in most of Europe. Thugs don't generally daub the hammer and sickle on people's gravestones. If my son went out wearing a hammer and sickle t-shirt his friends might think, at most, that it was either rather stylish or a bit old school; if he went out wearing a swastika they probably wouldn't even talk to him. I'm simply describing a situation that pertains in my country and in most European countries. I didn't invent it.
I'm not saying you (or anyone else on this list) did. I'm just saying that there's a bit of logical self-contradiction to personally object to the swastika and not to the hammer and sickle. I don't personally think there's anything wrong with using either for historical or satirical purposes (for instance), and though I do think there's something wrong with using it to push a political agenda that involves murderous intent I do not begrudge others the right to express themselves in that fashion.
-- Chad
Chad Perrin wrote:
If you think the ideals on which the Nazi Party traded were overtly murderous, you are mistaken.
Essentially, what you're saying appears to be: "The hammer and sickle is okay because it has been sensationalized differently." That roughly equates to saying "It's no big deal: it's just a symbol."
If it's just a symbol, the same is true of the swastika. If the swastika is "a symbol of a murderous regime," though, then the hammer and sickle is as well. Please, either ascribe abhorrence to both or to neither. I'll respect either decision. Just don't try to pretend that one is okay and the other is not.
Are we talking about the symbol, or what associations have been made to it? In your option I would prefer to ascribe abhorrence to neither. The symbols alone just sit there and do nothing. It's what people do with them that makes the difference.
In the same way money is intrinsically worthless. A dollar bill has value when you roll it up and use it to snort coke.
Ec
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:24:49 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
If you think the ideals on which the Nazi Party traded were overtly murderous, you are mistaken.
Essentially, what you're saying appears to be: "The hammer and sickle is okay because it has been sensationalized differently." That roughly equates to saying "It's no big deal: it's just a symbol."
If it's just a symbol, the same is true of the swastika. If the swastika is "a symbol of a murderous regime," though, then the hammer and sickle is as well. Please, either ascribe abhorrence to both or to neither. I'll respect either decision. Just don't try to pretend that one is okay and the other is not.
Are we talking about the symbol, or what associations have been made to it? In your option I would prefer to ascribe abhorrence to neither. The symbols alone just sit there and do nothing. It's what people do with them that makes the difference.
In the same way money is intrinsically worthless. A dollar bill has value when you roll it up and use it to snort coke.
Any chance of you'all taking this to private email? You are no longer discussing a wikipedia related issue.
Theresa
Theresa Knott wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:24:49 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
If you think the ideals on which the Nazi Party traded were overtly murderous, you are mistaken.
Essentially, what you're saying appears to be: "The hammer and sickle is okay because it has been sensationalized differently." That roughly equates to saying "It's no big deal: it's just a symbol."
If it's just a symbol, the same is true of the swastika. If the swastika is "a symbol of a murderous regime," though, then the hammer and sickle is as well. Please, either ascribe abhorrence to both or to neither. I'll respect either decision. Just don't try to pretend that one is okay and the other is not.
Are we talking about the symbol, or what associations have been made to it? In your option I would prefer to ascribe abhorrence to neither. The symbols alone just sit there and do nothing. It's what people do with them that makes the difference.
In the same way money is intrinsically worthless. A dollar bill has value when you roll it up and use it to snort coke.
Any chance of you'all taking this to private email? You are no longer discussing a wikipedia related issue.
Actually, I think we just reached an at least two-person consensus on the principle behind a wikipedia-related issue. In any case, I have no problems taking it off-list if any more discussion is needed, and I'll shut up now (barring further wikipedia-related discussion to which I wish to respond).
-- Chad
Wouldn't it be better to top-post, so that we won't be required to downscroll pages of text just to read a paragraph? (alternatively, wouldn't it be better to quote just a line or two?)
Anyone knows how to make KMail display my signature properly in topposting?
-- NSK http://portal.wikinerds.org
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 22:53, Chad Perrin wrote:
Theresa Knott wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:24:49 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote: [snip]
Wouldn't it be better to top-post...?
+-------------+ | Do Not Feed | | the Troll | +-------------+ || _||_
Nicholas Knight (nknight@runawaynet.com) [050216 11:58]:
the Epopt of Boskone wrote:
+-------------+ | Do Not Feed | | the Troll | +-------------+ || _||_
Who is this guy, and can someone please block him?
[[user:The Epopt]], and no.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Nicholas Knight (nknight@runawaynet.com) [050216 11:58]:
the Epopt of Boskone wrote:
+-------------+ | Do Not Feed | | the Troll | +-------------+ || _||_
Who is this guy, and can someone please block him?
[[user:The Epopt]], and no.
And of the list's policy on personal attacks?
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 00:38, the Epopt of Boskone wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to top-post...?
+-------------+
| Do Not Feed | | the Troll |
+-------------+
I hope that all list participants see that I asked a simple question and I received a very damaging accusation from this user.
"NSK" == NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org writes:
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 00:38, the Epopt of Boskone wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to top-post...?
+-------------+
| Do Not Feed | | the Troll |
+-------------+
I hope that all list participants see that I asked a simple question and I received a very damaging accusation from this user.
All list participants also saw the trolling. Thus the "accusation" is entirely in place.
NSK wrote:
I hope that all list participants see that I asked a simple question and I received a very damaging accusation from this user.
Not to be too blunt, but . . . If that's the case, perhaps you should take his advice and not respond to him.
-- Chad
I hope that all list participants see that I asked a simple question and I received a very damaging accusation from this user.
Your simple question comes up on mailing lists regularly. It usually sparks a huge pointless debate about the relative merits of top verses bottom posting. Sometimes the debate gets ugly because outlook express top posts and there are implications that OE users are thick and therefore can be taken the piss out of or called rude. This usually upsets them and much merriment is had ;-|
It's clear now that you asked your question without knowing this. The Epopt was simply trying to stop the debate from occurring.
<mrs merton> Lets have a heated debate
macs - overpriced, chunk of rubbish made for idiots or stylish sleek machine that prefers working to crashing?
microsoft - are they really all that bad?
What's the best operating system and are all the rest a load of crap?
</mrsmerton>
Note to the Epopt: Can II have a better troll sign? The one you did for NSK was a bit crap. Also google uses a proportional font so can you do it in Helvetica?
Theresa Knott" wrote
<snip>
... outlook express top posts and there are implications that OE users are thick ...
Oi! Malign my intelligence all you like. I have OE and never once have I top-posted. We should all edit posts down to the part to which we are replying, and there's an end to it.
Charles
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 09:52, Theresa Knott wrote:
because outlook express top posts
Eh, I work on GNU/Linux and I use KMail. Obviously I don't want people to associate me with OE in any way.
I think, however, that the best solution is to post below the quoted message when the quote is a few lines, and when the quote is too long then it would be better to top-post, with a short a summary ("X said that... I disagree because...").
NSK said:
and when the quote is too long
If the quote is too long, it should be trimmed. Only quote enough to provide context for your statement; the earlier emails are all archived and can be consulted by those curious about the full content.
Nicholas Knight wrote:
NSK wrote:
Anyone knows how to make KMail display my signature properly in topposting?
No, and it probably doesn't support such, since top posting is Bad and Annoying and the KMail developers know what they're doing.
A: Yes.
Q: Are you sure?
A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
;-)
-a
I wish I could figure out why I have to top post on this Yahoo account, but not on another Yahoo account I have. I have compared all of the settings between the two accounts, but this is the only one that does this to me. My sister also has a Yahoo account that requires her to top post.
RickK
Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com wrote: NSK wrote:
Anyone knows how to make KMail display my signature properly in topposting?
No, and it probably doesn't support such, since top posting is Bad and Annoying and the KMail developers know what they're doing. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! � What will yours do?
Rick wrote:
I wish I could figure out why I have to top post on this Yahoo account, but not on another Yahoo account I have. I have compared all of the settings between the two accounts, but this is the only one that does this to me. My sister also has a Yahoo account that requires her to top post.
The one setting you might want to double check is under "General Preferences", "Composing E-mails", "Mode". If it's not set to "Compose messages as plain text", try setting it to that.
--- Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com wrote:
Rick wrote:
I wish I could figure out why I have to top post
on this Yahoo account, but not on another Yahoo account I have. I have compared all of the settings between the two accounts, but this is the only one that does this to me. My sister also has a Yahoo account that requires her to top post.
The one setting you might want to double check is under "General Preferences", "Composing E-mails", "Mode". If it's not set to "Compose messages as plain text", try setting it to that.
Woah! That worked! After all these years!
Thanks, Nicholas.
RickK
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Rick wrote:
I wish I could figure out why I have to top post on this Yahoo account, but not on another Yahoo account I have. I have compared all of the settings between the two accounts, but this is the only one that does this to me. My sister also has a Yahoo account that requires her to top post.
"Requires"? Can't you just scroll to the bottom and use the carriage return to add blank lines for bottom-posting?
-- Chad
--- Chad Perrin perrin@apotheon.com wrote:
Rick wrote:
I wish I could figure out why I have to top post
on this Yahoo account, but not on another Yahoo account I have. I have compared all of the settings between the two accounts, but this is the only one that does this to me. My sister also has a Yahoo account that requires her to top post.
"Requires"? Can't you just scroll to the bottom and use the carriage return to add blank lines for bottom-posting?
-- Chad
Well, until Nicholas showed me how to fix it, no, because my comments would be preceded by a greater than sign and blended in to the other person's comments, and there was no way to fix it.
RickK
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Rick wrote:
--- Chad Perrin perrin@apotheon.com wrote:
"Requires"? Can't you just scroll to the bottom and use the carriage return to add blank lines for bottom-posting?
Well, until Nicholas showed me how to fix it, no, because my comments would be preceded by a greater than sign and blended in to the other person's comments, and there was no way to fix it.
Wow. Things have changed since the last time I used a Yahoo account.
I'm glad you got it sorted out.
-- Chad
NSK wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to top-post, so that we won't be required to downscroll pages of text just to read a paragraph? (alternatively, wouldn't it be better to quote just a line or two?)
Anyone knows how to make KMail display my signature properly in topposting?
I (typically) bottom-post because top-posting is counterintuitive for purposes of following the thread of a conversation. I cut out quoted text that is unlikely to be necessary for recalling context of a statement. I tend to err on the conservative side for cutting quoted text, however. Scrolling down while reading strikes me as less problematic than reading, then scrolling down if context is needed, then scrolling back up again while reading, sometimes with scrolling down if one of the intermediary posts is longer than a single screen in length.
It reverses the conventional order of reading. How is it confusing? It's confusing to read. Why is it a bad idea to top-post?
-- Chad
(PS: I think KMail automatically sticks the signature at the top if you have preferences set for top posting -- if I recall correctly, KMail allows that sort of preference tweaking. To post your signature at the bottom while top posting, I think you'll have to set preferences for bottom posting, then scroll back to the top to type your reply.)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:29:39 +0200, NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to top-post, so that we won't be required to downscroll pages of text just to read a paragraph? (alternatively, wouldn't it be better to quote just a line or two?)
Anyone knows how to make KMail display my signature properly in topposting?
-- NSK http://portal.wikinerds.org
I find gmail very useful for the large amounts of thread-based email conservations that an email list gets. It keeps messages in their own threads (by and large), displays all messages in the thread when you call it up (but already read messages are collapsed by default, one click expands them). Any messages in a thread can be expanded/collapsed. Quoted text is by default hidden (a click expands it). Generally it's just nicely designed - better than Thunderbird (which I use for personal/work mail) for long thread-based conversations.
Although you can bottom post or top post - the nicest thing is that it doesn't matter so much whether someone top/bottom posts to you, and it doesn't even matter if they quote the WHOLE conversation!
I wouldn't use gmail for other stuff though, as all mail is scanned (in theory just for ad placement). Ads are not distracting, as they are just text, and in a long conversation, usually only at the end rather than the side. Plus I like to possess my own mail where personal and work stuff is concerned. I can't imagine having all my personal mail stuck on a webmail account!!!
Oh, and with gmail, it's great for keeping/searching back through old threads. There's no adverse side-effects to keeping every message. I haven't particularly used it for this list, but one of my other mailing lists (Irish railway news in fact) is full of interesting and useful information that I might want to find later.
Zoney
P.S. Disclaimers: No I don't work for Google, I don't think they are great just because I like gmail, I'm not necessarily in favour of their advertising methods (though it's a good way to make money), and so on.
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 12:57, Zoney wrote:
Oh, and with gmail, it's great for keeping/searching back through old
Unfortunately, I have tried gmail and it is not compatible with my browser.
Theresa Knott wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:24:49 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
If you think the ideals on which the Nazi Party traded were overtly murderous, you are mistaken.
Essentially, what you're saying appears to be: "The hammer and sickle is okay because it has been sensationalized differently." That roughly equates to saying "It's no big deal: it's just a symbol."
If it's just a symbol, the same is true of the swastika. If the swastika is "a symbol of a murderous regime," though, then the hammer and sickle is as well. Please, either ascribe abhorrence to both or to neither. I'll respect either decision. Just don't try to pretend that one is okay and the other is not.
Are we talking about the symbol, or what associations have been made to it? In your option I would prefer to ascribe abhorrence to neither. The symbols alone just sit there and do nothing. It's what people do with them that makes the difference.
In the same way money is intrinsically worthless. A dollar bill has value when you roll it up and use it to snort coke.
Any chance of you'all taking this to private email? You are no longer discussing a wikipedia related issue.
Theresa, have you already forgotten that you were the one who started this thread just because you didn't like someone having Nazi symbols on his user page.
Determining whether the Hitler, Stalin or Bush regimes were in fact murderous may indeed be outside the scope of this mailing list, but addressing how we handle symbols is very much on topic. It is certainly more on topic than an extensive thread about trivialities such as autofellatio.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
If you think the ideals on which the Nazi Party traded were overtly murderous, you are mistaken.
Essentially, what you're saying appears to be: "The hammer and sickle is okay because it has been sensationalized differently." That roughly equates to saying "It's no big deal: it's just a symbol."
If it's just a symbol, the same is true of the swastika. If the swastika is "a symbol of a murderous regime," though, then the hammer and sickle is as well. Please, either ascribe abhorrence to both or to neither. I'll respect either decision. Just don't try to pretend that one is okay and the other is not.
Are we talking about the symbol, or what associations have been made to it?
Yes.
In your option I would prefer to ascribe abhorrence to neither. The symbols alone just sit there and do nothing. It's what people do with them that makes the difference.
Great.
In the same way money is intrinsically worthless. A dollar bill has value when you roll it up and use it to snort coke.
. . . or make little bowtie shapes as party favors. Currency is only a means of keeping track of trade value: it is not the value itself. I agree with you 100% on that.
-- Chad
Chad Perrin wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Are we talking about the symbol, or what associations have been made to it?
Yes.
Some years ago, when I was working in the administration of pensions for a large insurance company someone answered the application question, "Are you single, married, widowed or divorced?" in exactly the same way. :-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Are we talking about the symbol, or what associations have been made to it?
Yes.
Some years ago, when I was working in the administration of pensions for a large insurance company someone answered the application question, "Are you single, married, widowed or divorced?" in exactly the same way. :-)
It's one of the hazards of being a code geek, a pun enthusiast, AND a logician.
I flatter myself by using the term "logician", of course.
-- Chad
The hammer and sickle has much wider acceptance. It's still the symbol of Aeroflot, it's a popular design on t-shirts and the like, and variants incorporating the hammer and sickle or other work-related symbols (spade, torch and hoe in the case of the British Labour Party's old symbol) have enjoyed considerable popularity and virtually no controversy. The regime was murderous but the ideals it traded on were not.
I'm sure you can find millions of kulaks who would politely disagree with you. No, wait, you won't -- they all starved to death.
Chad Perrin wrote
Apparently, to you, killing someone for being a Jew is more wrong than killing someone for speaking out of turn. To me, it's equivalent in either case, because in both cases it is murder.
There is a policy on this list about personal attacks.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote
Apparently, to you, killing someone for being a Jew is more wrong than killing someone for speaking out of turn. To me, it's equivalent in either case, because in both cases it is murder.
There is a policy on this list about personal attacks.
It's not a personal attack. It's a statement of my analysis of your apparent views on the matter. I didn't say "Apparently, to you, killing someone for speaking out of turn isn't wrong." What I said was that you apparently think it's MORE wrong to murder someone for ethnic reasons than politically oppressive reasons. If that is not the case, you might want to think about the logical contradiction in your earlier statements.
To claim I'm making a personal attack is to misrepresent my words and my intentions. I don't think you're doing so intentionally, but that opinion will change if you continue to do so after I've explained it for you.
-- Chad
Chad Perrin
It's not a personal attack. It's a statement of my analysis of your apparent views on the matter. I didn't say "Apparently, to you, killing someone for speaking out of turn isn't wrong." What I said was that you apparently think it's MORE wrong to murder someone for ethnic reasons than politically oppressive reasons. If that is not the case, you might want to think about the logical contradiction in your earlier statements.
To claim I'm making a personal attack is to misrepresent my words and my intentions. I don't think you're doing so intentionally, but that opinion will change if you continue to do so after I've explained it for you.
Slow down. I haven't been in dialogue with you. I didn't say anything other than that there is a policy on personal attacks.
Since you apparently are getting me confused with Zoney, I suggest you are posting hastily, and without regard to the purpose of the list. Just back off, will you?
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Slow down. I haven't been in dialogue with you. I didn't say anything other than that there is a policy on personal attacks.
Since you apparently are getting me confused with Zoney, I suggest you are posting hastily, and without regard to the purpose of the list. Just back off, will you?
1. I don't tend to save old emails, so yes, I may have confused the two of you. For that, I apologize.
2. You're still misrepresenting my words and intentions with that crap about a policy on personal attacks. You didn't inform me of it for the sole purpose of being randomly informative: you did so with the intent of pointing out some imagined personal attack I made. Of this, I'm convinced. In that regard, you are mistaken.
-- Chad
Chad Perrin wrote
- You're still misrepresenting my words and intentions with that crap
about a policy on personal attacks. You didn't inform me of it for the sole purpose of being randomly informative: you did so with the intent of pointing out some imagined personal attack I made. Of this, I'm convinced. In that regard, you are mistaken.
You have been asked, politely if firmly, not to drag this list down with flames.
You have no idea about my intentions, so leave it out.
I note that you posted 14 times to this list yesterday. On one thread, which I was not reading. That strikes me as quite enough traffic.
If you can't take a reasonable prompt that this is not UseNet, then that would be your problem. The fact that you typed a two-paragraph reply to my mail, and hit return, all within three minutes, strikes me as good evidence that you are a hasty, combative poster.
Now, if you have anything to post about improving the English Wikipedia, please do so.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
You have no idea about my intentions, so leave it out.
Ditto. Does that make my point clear enough for you?
I note that you posted 14 times to this list yesterday. On one thread, which I was not reading. That strikes me as quite enough traffic.
Many of my posts have been for the purpose of defusing possible flare-ups. On the other hand, I wasn't aware there was a post quota as well as a "no flames" policy.
If you can't take a reasonable prompt that this is not UseNet, then that would be your problem. The fact that you typed a two-paragraph reply to my mail, and hit return, all within three minutes, strikes me as good evidence that you are a hasty, combative poster.
Actually, I just type quickly (typically close to 100wpm), and my computer beeps when new email arrives. It kinda comes with the necessities of one of my jobs. Claims that you understand my intentions based on how quickly I offer responses are spurious at best.
Now, if you have anything to post about improving the English Wikipedia, please do so.
Yes, I have: Don't try to demonize me. You can make veiled threats about shutting me up all you like, but the fact remains that you've made inaccurate statements about my actions and intentions, and you don't seem to care that I tried to correct those innacuracies. I even apologized for my misstep, but (again) you don't seem to care.
I've made my point to my own satisfaction. If you insist on continuing to berate me for something I haven't done, you can do so without my help.
-- Chad
Chad Perrin wrote:
Apparently, to you, killing someone for being a Jew is more wrong than killing someone for speaking out of turn. To me, it's equivalent in either case, because in both cases it is murder.
The idea of "hate crimes" is a fairly recent one. This would mete out punishment according to the intentions of the person doing the killing. If a "hate crime" deserves harsher punishment, then a "love crime" such as euthanasia clearly deserves more lenient treatment.
Completely aside from that, the swastika has been used for other purposes for hundreds of years before World War II, including as a Christian symbol, while the hammer and sickle went from obscurity to symbol of an oppressive, mass-murdering regime in a relative blink of an eye.
That's why the swastika was such an effective symbol.
And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
Let's not start with the circumstantial ad hominem comparisons. It would be nice if you'd retract that statement.
I see nothing "ad hominem" in that general statement. No specific individual is being attacked.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
Apparently, to you, killing someone for being a Jew is more wrong than killing someone for speaking out of turn. To me, it's equivalent in either case, because in both cases it is murder.
The idea of "hate crimes" is a fairly recent one. This would mete out punishment according to the intentions of the person doing the killing. If a "hate crime" deserves harsher punishment, then a "love crime" such as euthanasia clearly deserves more lenient treatment.
If this was the proper venue and email thread for that discussion, I'd make some well-supported ethical arguments against separating "hate crime" from similarly malevolent crime. Since it's not, though, I'm just noting that I take issue with that division of crime types.
This doesn't in any way mean I think anyone should be more lenient on "hate crimes": only that non-"hate" crimes should not be held to a different standard.
And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
Let's not start with the circumstantial ad hominem comparisons. It would be nice if you'd retract that statement.
I see nothing "ad hominem" in that general statement. No specific individual is being attacked.
circumstantial ad hominem (as distinct from the more commonly recognized argumentum ad hominem): the logically fallacious use, as an argument, of unflattering comparisons between disreputable or otherwise disliked figures with other participants in a debate, often achieved by implication rather than explicit statements
All "ad hominem" means is "to the person", in essence. An "argumentum ad hominem" or "ad hominem argument" is an argument that references the person, rather than the opposing argument. A "circumstantial ad hominem" is an implication of the person circumstantially with some subject of discourse, in this case mass-murdering tyrannical regimes.
The reference to the US had no value in proving the repugnance of the swastika in relation to other symbols, though it was an effective implication of unflattering comparisons of American participants in the debate to certain widely-loathed 20th century tyrants and their governments.
-- Chad
Chad Perrin wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
Apparently, to you, killing someone for being a Jew is more wrong than killing someone for speaking out of turn. To me, it's equivalent in either case, because in both cases it is murder.
The idea of "hate crimes" is a fairly recent one. This would mete out punishment according to the intentions of the person doing the killing. If a "hate crime" deserves harsher punishment, then a "love crime" such as euthanasia clearly deserves more lenient treatment.
If this was the proper venue and email thread for that discussion, I'd make some well-supported ethical arguments against separating "hate crime" from similarly malevolent crime. Since it's not, though, I'm just noting that I take issue with that division of crime types.
This doesn't in any way mean I think anyone should be more lenient on "hate crimes": only that non-"hate" crimes should not be held to a different standard.
Ultimately we agree. A person killed in a hate crime is no more or less dead than one killed in the course of a bank robbery.
The lack of malevolence is a strong argument in favour of decriminalizing euthanasia.
And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
Let's not start with the circumstantial ad hominem comparisons. It would be nice if you'd retract that statement.
I see nothing "ad hominem" in that general statement. No specific individual is being attacked.
circumstantial ad hominem (as distinct from the more commonly recognized argumentum ad hominem): the logically fallacious use, as an argument, of unflattering comparisons between disreputable or otherwise disliked figures with other participants in a debate, often achieved by implication rather than explicit statements
All "ad hominem" means is "to the person", in essence. An "argumentum ad hominem" or "ad hominem argument" is an argument that references the person, rather than the opposing argument. A "circumstantial ad hominem" is an implication of the person circumstantially with some subject of discourse, in this case mass-murdering tyrannical regimes.
The reference to the US had no value in proving the repugnance of the swastika in relation to other symbols, though it was an effective implication of unflattering comparisons of American participants in the debate to certain widely-loathed 20th century tyrants and their governments.
While I can readily recognize that there is such a phenomenon as "circumstantial ad hominem", I still can't see how it applies to the present circumstances. While the disreputable figures may have been very well identified, it strains the imagination to attempt to identify which participants were being thus compared. Any participant who so imagines himself to be the subject of such comparisons by virtue of that simple statement could very well be the victim of his own paranoid imagination.
The reference to the US may reflect upon the leadership of the US, whose stars and stripes are viewed by some with equal repugnance. But to the best of my knowledge the members of that leadership are not participants in our debate, and none of us living outside of the United States has suggested that our American participants should be held responsible for the excesses of their government.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
Ultimately we agree. A person killed in a hate crime is no more or less dead than one killed in the course of a bank robbery.
The lack of malevolence is a strong argument in favour of decriminalizing euthanasia.
We agree there, too. It's not a violation of a person's right, as far as I'm concerned.
And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
Let's not start with the circumstantial ad hominem comparisons. It would be nice if you'd retract that statement.
I see nothing "ad hominem" in that general statement. No specific individual is being attacked.
circumstantial ad hominem (as distinct from the more commonly recognized argumentum ad hominem): the logically fallacious use, as an argument, of unflattering comparisons between disreputable or otherwise disliked figures with other participants in a debate, often achieved by implication rather than explicit statements
All "ad hominem" means is "to the person", in essence. An "argumentum ad hominem" or "ad hominem argument" is an argument that references the person, rather than the opposing argument. A "circumstantial ad hominem" is an implication of the person circumstantially with some subject of discourse, in this case mass-murdering tyrannical regimes.
The reference to the US had no value in proving the repugnance of the swastika in relation to other symbols, though it was an effective implication of unflattering comparisons of American participants in the debate to certain widely-loathed 20th century tyrants and their governments.
While I can readily recognize that there is such a phenomenon as "circumstantial ad hominem", I still can't see how it applies to the present circumstances. While the disreputable figures may have been very well identified, it strains the imagination to attempt to identify which participants were being thus compared. Any participant who so imagines himself to be the subject of such comparisons by virtue of that simple statement could very well be the victim of his own paranoid imagination.
On the other hand, I don't see why it's such a stretch to believe that the complete non-sequitur comparison of "the US" to the mass-murdering regimes of Stalin and other tyrannical dictators might be meant to cast aspersions on American participants in the discussion, particularly if they're known to be Americans (of which I'm not positive, admittedly).
I issue a conditional apology, here, though: If the statement was meant innocently, and a plausible explanation is offered for what it WAS meant to convey, I retract my statement. I should point out, thought, that I'm still not coming up with any alternative intended meanings.
The reference to the US may reflect upon the leadership of the US, whose stars and stripes are viewed by some with equal repugnance. But to the best of my knowledge the members of that leadership are not participants in our debate, and none of us living outside of the United States has suggested that our American participants should be held responsible for the excesses of their government.
No mention was made of leadership or symbolism: only to "the US". Whereas preceding discussion was confined to references to particular oppressive regimes, the statement about "the US" effectively encompasses all (roughly) 220 years of US history. Perhaps that was an oversight.
-- Chad
Zoney wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:34:16 -0800, the Epopt of Boskone sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I would imagine there are few who would directly equate the Nazi regime with Soviet Russia.
I have to agree with Zoney here: few would consider them equivalent. Soviet Russia was directly responsible for an order of magnitude more deaths than the Nazis, and indirectly responsible for two orders of magnitude more.
I do not doubt that assertion, but it's more to do with the specific circumstances involved. Eastern Europe was mentioned. Well, the USSR sure wanted to control those countries, but the complete eradication of their peoples was not attempted (even if less "total" activities were going on). I don't doubt many in Eastern Europe would not like to see a hammer and sickle, but I don't think it's remotely comparable to what the Swastika stands for to Jews.
And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
To say that it was the "USSR" that wanted to control those countries suggests that you have ignored all history prior to 1917. Russia had visions of pan-slavism long before that. The Soviet system became a means to an end; it permitted a level of industrialization that was previously inconceivable in Russia. It almost succeeded, leaving Yugoslavia as the only slavic country that was never under Russian control. The problem there was that Tito chose his own independent form of communism, and Russia could no longer take it over without putting itself in a contradiction.
The other thing that reading a little history will reveal is that anti-semitism in Russia did not suddenly spring up in 1917. Transferring that attitude to a symbol, and pretending it is brand new is a gross misrepresentation of history. Symbols can be a magnifying glass that focuses pre-existing tendencies in a society.
It is not unusual for politicians (in the broadest sense) to manipulate symbols for their own purposes. The symbols don't do anything by themselves. The swastika like its Christian ancestor in the Crusades promoted and still does promote militancy, and that is probably what makes it more hateful than the hammer and sickle which after all are more keen on promoting hard work in the factory and farm respectively. The neo-nazis don't want to relegate themselves into obscurity by promoting hard work. The hammer and sickle represented a movement (at least in theory) that would improve the life of the workers. The swastika primarily grew out of resentment for the onerous reparations imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. Berlin was one of the great sin cities of the 1920s; in that context the Nazi Party could promote itself and its Christian swastika as the defender of wholesome family values.
Many of the Soviet and US crimes during WW2 were absolved because they were both on the same winning side. The Dresden and Hiroshima massacres were no less odious than anything the Nazis did, but I wouldn't class them as "indirect", unless "indirect" includes dropping bombs on people that you can't see. "Indirect" might more appropriately include deaths of children from inadequate medical care occasioned by sanctions against any medical equipment that might even remotely be converted to military purposes.
The United States manipulates symbols when it requires schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In that, The Flag is foremost, and "the republic for which it stands" is only an afterthought. The entire US national anthem is about the flag in battle, and the single phrase "land of the free" doesn't show up until the last line. When you succeed in making people believe in a symbol it is very easy to transfer that belief into whatever you want that symbol to stand for.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The United States manipulates symbols when it requires schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Per multiple Supreme Court decisions, no one can be required to recide the Pledge of Allegiance. Whether or not peer pressure causes unwilling recitation is another matter.
Nicholas Knight wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The United States manipulates symbols when it requires schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Per multiple Supreme Court decisions, no one can be required to recide the Pledge of Allegiance. Whether or not peer pressure causes unwilling recitation is another matter.
I don't think that actually addresses the point brought up.
-- Chad
the Epopt of Boskone wrote:
I would imagine there are few who would directly equate the Nazi regime with Soviet Russia.
I have to agree with Zoney here: few would consider them equivalent. Soviet Russia was directly responsible for an order of magnitude more deaths than the Nazis, and indirectly responsible for two orders of magnitude more.
I would think the Hammer and Sickle is not as immediately abhorrant a symbol (although admittedly I am not in the US).
I have to disagree with Zoney here. Despite the best efforts of [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt|Uncle Frank]] to rehabilitate the image of his buddy [[Joseph Stalin|Uncle Joe]] here in the United States, I, at least, find the Soviets far more abhorrent than the Nazis.
Zoney
Excuse me from seeming ignorant here, but I was under the impression that the Nazi's committed as a willing and coordinated group, while Stalin was really the reason why millions died.
TBSDY
NSK wrote:
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 13:35, Theresa Knott wrote:
What did he actually do that was blockable?
He displayed Nazi symbols on his userpage. He must be blocked. Please don't let Wikipedia to become Nazipedia.
That's a bit much. (I say nothing of what he might have done elsewhere.) There should be a lot more latitude on a user page. A picture of oneself in Nazi regalia says a lot more than a page full of words. It immediately gives an impression about the person's credibility. Unless it was maliciously posted there by someone else I would leave everything there just the way he wanted.
Ec
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 20:19, Ray Saintonge wrote:
picture of oneself in Nazi regalia says a lot more than a page full of words.
...and a user ban says a lot more.