[Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki

[Ray Saintonge]

Christopher Larberg wrote:

>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 21:37:30 +0100, Jens Ropers <ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>1. I think Fallujah's survivors of siege warfare and radioactive and
>>chemical weapons have more pressing needs right now than logging on to
>>the Internet and editing some website.
>>    
>>
>Just out of curiosity, when was Fallujah nuked and sprayed down? I
>must have missed it, between eating my double-Supersized Big Mac and
>filling up my 2-mile-per-gallon SUV.
>
Jens' statement may have been stated a little too dramatically.  I 
support the tone of his comments even though I haven't heard of chemical 
weapons being used in that incident.  Siege warfare certainly took 
place.  Radioactivity does not mean that someone was nuked.  
Metallurgically, uranium metal is well suited for making armour piercing 
weapons.  It incidentally happens to be radioactive, and these 
radioactive shell shards will remain in the environment for centuries.  
Mere excusable collateral damage.

>>3. Adding to that, well, what do you think -- if a foreign army lays
>>siege to, and napalm-bombs someone's hometown, would it be unreasonable
>>to assume that the person so affected might rather be WAY past
>>contributing friendly edits to a joint encyclopedia? (Which is why I
>>reckon that the US has guaranteed itself one or two sequels, al Qaeda
>>branded or otherwise. But then, that's just my hunch and I could be
>>wrong.)
>>    
>>
>The U.S. military destroyed the last of its napalm a few years ago, if
>memory serves me right. I could be mistaken, though.
>
How does one distinguish between an ethical and an unethical weapon?

>This will probably do nothing except ignite an off-topic flame war,
>but I'm curious about these claims.
>
Not to worry!  The American military is just receiving the same 
genrously warm reception that it would give to similar Iraqi visitors in 
Nebraska. :-)

Ec