User talk:Loomis51: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:09, 13 December 2006

Welcome!

Hello Loomis51, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! bd2412 T 03:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

Hi, are you archiving the McGill University Talk page? Tawker 22:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually relatively new to wikipedia, so I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. All I really did was correct a small error in the article on McGill's Faculty of Law. The article originally stated that the trans-systemic programme began in 1998, when in fact it began in 1999.Loomis51 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi-Iraqi neutral zone

I am not sure if you are familiar with the subject, but if you are, fix it. I added the {{expert}} template anyway. -- Eagle^a^mⁿ 22:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust

Given your ongoing discussion, I thought it worth clarifying that all of the Nazi extermination camps were in Poland, not in Germany proper. The concentration camps in Germany did not generally use gassing to kill Jews, those in Poland did. Dachau did have a gas chamber, but the question of whether it was used more than experimentally is unclear. To quote the Nizkor Project: "The question of whether the gas chamber can be proved to have been used has not been definitively answered. Some historians say that there is no question: it was never used. Some say that the question is still open. It comes down to two testimonies: that of a British officer named Payne-Best who says he heard Dr. Rascher speak of gassings, and that of Dr. Franz Blaha, who testified under oath to experimental gassings. For more information, see Kogon et al., op. cit., pp. 202-204, and Blaha's testimony in Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1947, vol. V, pp. 167-199. Dr. Charles Larson, a forensics expert, also examined gassing victims at the camp, saying "only relatively few of the inmates I personally examined at Dachau were murdered in this manner." I hope this helps. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non English speaker

Hello Friend. This is more of a personal matter, so I post it on your talk page instead of talk:plo. You are right; English is not my first language. But I put a lot of attention into making my writings understandable, including grammar and syntactic checks, and synonyms selection. I wonder if you can copy to my talk page some erroneous statements of any kind (not in the content, but in the form!), so I can improve my writings in the future. That is, of course, if you have the time. Thanks. FedericoEcon 15:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the English corrections! I'm from Argentina, so Chile was a close guess (lol). I don't want to mention it in the discussions because I think is better if we treat each other as members of the same global community, regardless nationality, religion, gender, sexuality, skin, etc. FedericoEcon 16:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and share your anger about the Holocaust denial. I also understand that some of the anger affects other discussions. As I already said, I descend from Jews (as well as Christians) but I am an atheist myself. I am far from anti-Semitism and in the perspective of most anti-Semitics, I am as Jew as you. Of course, we do not have to define ourselves following the vision of the people who hate us. But my views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not motivated by hatred to Israel, but by the support to the self-determination cause. I think this particular conflict is the result of European historical intervention more than a natural hate between Jews and Muslims. Although that hate always existed at some extent, coexistence and collaboration was not only possible but actually beneficial in the past. And in some occasions, Muslims and Jews were object of the same persecutions, as in Spaniard Inquisition, for example. Some of the great achievements of mankind during the Medieval Ages were consequence of that collaboration.

I think we agree on witch should be the final result of the conflict, but differ on its causes and probable solutions. But I hope we agree that anti-Judaism is not a genetic feature through the Islamic world and that it can be reverted. Germany in particular and Europe in general, are a good example that the eradication of racism is possible, but it takes time. We should not act like the Holocaust was the only thing that ever happened, but we must NEVER forget that it actually happened. It is our job to prevent something like this happen again in the future. Sadly, I think we are failing in this job. FedericoEcon 13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme

I did an alignment example at the page User:Commander_Keane/Test. Check the edit window there to see how to do it. Wikipedia:Userboxes aslo has information. That's all the help I will be able to provide with userboxes.--Commander Keane 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Hi there. There are several methods to create your own userboxes. Wikipedia:Userboxes shows a few. Another good solution would be to open an existing template, copy and paste the code and then edit it to sya what you want. For example, I created the folllowing userbox by editing the existing Template:User Jew:

This user is a Zionist.

The code for it was:

{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #fafaff;"

| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #e9e9ff; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt; color: black;" | '''[[Image:Star of David.svg|35px]]'''

| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: black;" | This user is a '''[[Zionist]]'''.<br>

|}</div>

I hope that helps. - Akamad 22:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry about the late reply, but I've been kind of busy. I had a go with formatting your userpage userboxes, I hope you that's what you wanted. Have a look at the code to see what I did. Basically I used the {{boxboxtop||left}} tag. You can put a heading for the box by putting in an argument for the middle parameter: {{boxboxtop|heading of sorts|left}}.

I also changed the image for the Montreal Canadiens. I hope you like it. Akamad 22:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Hi there! I had another go at fixing up your userpage. Hopefully it's what you wanted. And to answer your query, I enjoy helping others, so don't hesitate to ask me any questions, I am more than willing to help out. - Akamad 05:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. - Akamad 03:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ande says hello

Hi Loomis51, I sent you an email answer a few days ago from my hotmail account but don't know if you got it. Don't feel obligated to respond to it, it's just that I got 4 messages returned due to server problems and don't know which ones actually made it to their destinations! Let me know if you would like me to resend it. Otherwise, take care & best wishes. Ande B 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User boxes

The user boxes are jokes that were placed by pranksters on April 1st -- I decided to leave them. Sorry, didn't mean to offend. As to politics and the Afd, my politics are irrelevant -- you're voting on whether the page should be kept or not. Thanks. Morton devonshire 17:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...

Hii...

Thanks a lot for the grace note... :-D ... and even though i love to travel a lot i just haven't got the oppurtunity to travel to my hearts content... and i am just depressed because i am under a lot of pressure from my parents and everyone to get into a good college somewhere..... you might have noticed on my user page that i said that my parents dont know i am in a band...and if i tell them..i'll probably be grounded for a while....so....thats the problem right now...i have to do everything without my parents knowing about it...they dont even know about wikipedia.... i guess i am in one of those periods of life and i very confused about my future.....hopefully it will pass....thanks a lot for your concern again!! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 08:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our New Song..

Hii..

We recorded a new song.... You can download the song from here..sorry,i haven't put it up for streaming yet... i'll put that in a little while.. Hope you like it! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 06:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk/Science

Notwithstanding WP:NLT, I think I must give notice of my intent to sue you. Having read your response to the question apropos of the apparent brightness of a first magnitude star as against that of a 60-watt light bulb, I stuck a 60-watt light bulb into my left eye in order properly to adjudge the accuracy of your response. As a result, I am now unable to see out of my left eye; my doctor, whom I have coached in order that he might appear as a witness, thinks that my vision will be forever affected but that your tendering me a check for $10,000 (US, of course), would go far toward the amelioration of the problem. If you would be so kind as to let me know when I might expect to receive my check, I'd be much appreciative. Cordially, Joe 04:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic Letters

Hi there Loomis51. I'm here to encourage you not to give up. I had trouble for a long time with Cyrillic letters too, until it was explained to me what t do (and I have a degree in Mathematics and Russian so I don't consider myself a dummy, but like you, I sometimes get phased by IT technology).

You were so close, as it turns out. Seems you interpreted my suggestion just a tad too literally. When I said "press the Insert button for each character" , I meant "press the Insert button for each character you wish to type, not each character that appears in the window".

Click on Insert > Symbol once again. On the right hand side of the window is a vertical scroll bar. Use that to scroll down to find all the special characters. There are hundreds of them – Russian, Greek, Serbian, Arabic etc, plus all kinds of non-language symbols and characters. If you want to type Пушкин, for example:

find the character П, put your cursor on it, then press Insert (or the Enter key on your keyboard will do the same job)
then find у, put your cursor on it, then press Insert.
then find ш ..... (I’m sure you’re getting the idea now.)

Please get in touch if any of this doesn’t get you closer to your goal. До свидания. JackofOz 10:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

greetings

I'm new here so I thought I'd introduce myself to some of the people here--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 13:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT! Your vote needed

Come vote here please to decide this important matter! i trust that you'll make the right decision--Rictonilpog 17:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk

Didn't get a chance to respond to your last post but wanted to thank you for your responses regarding my Visa loan/investing schemes! -Snpoj 23:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Hii,

Just wanted to say Hows everything going? And wanted to tell you that I am finally gonna go out of my country and travel abroad. I am going to Kuwait this Saturday to meet my dad over there and its almost like a vacation. (Yeah, I know, strange place for a vacation.) The temparature over there is touching 50 degrees centigrade.!!! :( .. But anyways I get to leave my country for the first time. And i am gonna stay in Kuwait for about a month so my activity on wikipedia might lessen a bit. Not that I am such a profilic (?) editor or something, but I wont be as active as I am now. And I might also get my very first electric guitar over there which is a great boost for my band.

K then, I gotta pack now ;-D. I'll be seeing you around. Cheers!! and keep good health!

Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 12:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your comments on dicephalus "twins"

Thank you for your comments. I will be very happy to discuss this matter further with you, although it will have to wait awhile, since I am at present very busy with other research. Best wishes. Chaim

Hi from Jack

Hi Lewis

Thank you for your kind words about me.

No, I certainly wasn't offended by your remark. But I was quite curious as to why you would choose the particular analogy of a gay man coming out of the closet, to describe how it feels to tell the world about your respect for GWB.

On re-reading your post more closely, I see that you feel this way “any time” you’re brave enough to admit respect for GWB. This suggests you know that coming out is not just something you get over and done with in an afternoon, but can be a long and repetitive process. When you come out, by definition you need to tell some people, and each occasion takes as much balls as the last occasion. There is a core list of people that is defined by your inner sense that if you withheld this information from any of them, you couldn’t really look yourself in the eye and say “I’m out”. It’s not whether these people absolutely have to know (they don’t) – it’s about whether you’re being serious about coming out. Then there are other people who would find out on the grapevine sooner or later anyway, and you would prefer to have it come from the horse’s mouth so it’d be a good idea to let them know too, but not crucial. Then there are all the other people you know or have known, about whom you couldn’t really care less whether they knew or not. In my experience, there came a point where I’d told everybody on my core list, and quite a few from my secondary list, and from then on there was just the occasional tweaking required as new people came into my life (eg. I acquired a new boss and it was appropriate he knew that my partner at that time was a person named James, not a person named Mary or Sharon). This is not to suggest that coming out is simply the act of telling people you’re gay (it might not even be that form of words at all). There’s still the process of rediscovering yourself and coming to terms with the new person, which along with the process of finding out who you are as a human being, is a lifelong one.

Anyway, I’m probably way off track here. There's nothing on your user page or any of your posts that I've read to indicate you are gay. But equally, there’s nothing to indicate you’re straight, or bi, or anything at all about your private life. And why should there be? Just because some people put detailed personal info on their profiles, doesn’t mean others have to. I respect and understand the need for privacy. But I sometimes still get it confused with secretiveness. I was a secretive person all my life, about things I had no need to be secretive about. I now know it was all a smoke screen to hide the biggie, my sexuality. I hope I’m not just transferring my thought processes onto you, but my immediate hunch when I read your post was that you were saying something about yourself. (It never occurred to me till just now that maybe you have already come out and are speaking from experience.) But hunches can sometimes be dead wrong, so that’s why I gave you the right to tell me to shut up and go away.

That’s where I was coming from. It had nothing whatsoever to do with anti- or pro-semitism.

Shalom

Jack

Regarding comments made in the helpdesk

...against another user earlier today. I'd like to remind you about Wikipedia's policy of No Personal Attacks. Please keep in mind that when you're editing, even if it's regarding a sensitive or personal issue, attacking other editors is off limits. Remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. The helpdesk is not a place to use as a soapbox, even if you feel strongly on a subject- remember to keep a cool head. Thank you for your contributions, however, and happy editing to you. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following passage is the one I referred to, for reference.

Actually, one of my brothers is a pot addict stuck on benefits. Another died in a car crash while driving stoned. I suppose you can say it pretty much destroyed my family life. But hey, what do you care...the criminalization of pot is all just a right-wing conspiracy meant to manipulate and control the minds of the masses right? Go on...keep believing it's harmless. Keep toking. I just hope for your family's sake that it won't have to go through the same pain and anguish as mine. But what do you care...it's harmless right? So what if it's causing your family misery, it's your body, and it's your right to do with it what you please, right? Go ahead, be a selfish ass and keep toking. Loomis51 01:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, when I see that kind of thing, whether it was meant personally to the user you were talking to or not, I feel obligated to become involved and ensure that cool heads prevail. I sympathize with what happened, but remember that we are here to help foster an encyclopedia first and foremost, so please try not to let that tinge your actions within Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Loomis. Allow me first to thank you for your insightful and well-reasoned response. I'll have to address your questions in sections, point by point, as this is going to be no small amount of typing. To begin, instead of specifically addressing your specific question, I'd like to talk about what I see as the underlying issues that give rise to those kind of questions. It is a natural response for a normal, healthy person to be revolted by many of the things documented on Wikipedia. Tremendous hate crimes, the Holocaust, serial killers, and so forth are par for the course in an encyclopedia- that is to say, things which are notable for their terribleness. Even thinking of these kinds of things is often enough to incite the ire of an average person. The important thing is to remember to keep your submissions encyclopedic. I recall a specific example pertinent to this very subject at hand. A Wikipedian was once asked about how to neutrally address the subject of Hitler. Note that the Hitler article doesn't cast moral judgement- the judgement is left to the mind of the reader. And to achieve that end, all that need be done is to coldly and factually recount what it was that happened at his hands. Millions of minorities, jews, etc. dead, and a nation under his control attempting to create a single, genetically homogenous empire. By pointing out the crimes in this dispassionate fashion, the wronged dead are kept in the minds of the readers, and that damns the criminal a thousand times more than just declaring him a bad person. In cases like these, being factual can sometimes be more effective than simply decrying the wrongs of the perpetrator.

In the case of historic disagreements, there's another important point to be made. It may be easy to think that a neutral point of view is near-impossible to achieve because of the nature of human disagreements. Human disagreements tend to be very divisive problems, and don't lend themselves to a middle ground. However, to think of it like this is to misconstrue the meaning of neutral point of view. To take a step back, what seems impossible becomes very easy if the article regarding a serious disagreement is not forced to take one side or the other, but to instead frame the debate as a whole, lending concordant weight to the sides and arguments involved. Alternately, if one side is in the minority (take your question about the KKK, for example), then merely ensure that the sections devoted to explaining that position is representative of how widely accepted that position is in reality.

Lastly, it bears stating that Wikipedian community activities (such as the help desk) are a horse of a different color, but nonetheless have to be approached with a kind of civility. In the example that you left on my talk page, I agree with you entirely. I could not in good conscience allow a child to be hurt and certainly could never facilitate the actions of someone who would want to do something like that. In cases like that, the advice that I would give would be to bring the incident to the notice of the Administrators and they will be able to handle something like that accordingly. If there are any parts of your question that I haven't addressed or that you would like me to speak further on, please let me know on my talk page. After all of that serious subject matter, it's hard to remember how fun being a Wikipedian can be. :\ Thank you, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way. I'm not an official, I just like to make sure everyone keeps calm as they edit. Heaven knows that the Monicasdude RFAr was a spectacle- I was compelled to try to intervene and help MD chill, but to no avail. It's really all (as an editor) being of a certain characteristic that lets you get along harmoniously with WP's policies and other editors. I noticed you haven't made many edits since I last posted the above thing, I hope I haven't discouraged you from contributing in anyway. Anyway, keep up the good work! :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Loomis, it's good to hear from you once more. I suppose I'll address the last thing first today, and that's your question about my userpage. To give you a little background, I'm a graphic artist/designer in life. Ordinarily I'd have no trouble at all putting this up on my userpage, except for two little issues. First, earlier this year there was a tremendous conflict about userboxes, and it was really very divisive to the Wikipedia community, and called into question a lot of what should or shouldn't be in the Template namespace of Wikipedia. Most of it has calmed down, but I myself found the whole debacle to have so efficiently goaded people into getting angry, that I've avoided them entirely. I've been editing Wikipedia since December of 2005, and I've taken to the processes and ideas like a fish to water. The second reason there isn't more info about me on my userpage is alternately because I'm kind of a userpage minimalist, and also because a lot of what I do at Wikipedia is to do with fighting vandalism. When dealing with vandals, the more that you make available to them about yourself, the more it humanizes you to them, which in turn encourages them to go on making a ruckus. As such, presenting them with an impersonal face is more effective in stopping them from vandalizing, and encourages them to contribute constructively. Or, that is at least how the theory goes.

Now, to some of the other issues you mentioned. The drug issues that you mentioned are sensitive with many people, so it's understandable that with your background, you'd have issues with people who take a libertarian stance on drug laws. The key point in the issue, however, is to remember that you're absolutely free to attack the other editor's ideas. By all means, if you've got the wit to do so (as you seem to have), tear the arguments to shreds. In doing so, however, be careful that you tear the ideas to shreds and not the editor. Since you're a lawyer, according to your userpage, I imagine you have no small amount of experience with subtle distinctions. To decry libertarian drug policies as immoral is a world away from decrying such a policy's advocate. Calling the policy selfish and shortsighted is perfectly fine- in fact, I agree with you. The same might be true of the advocate, but that's an issue for the reader, and not the writer, to decide.

And the second issue, the one of the person who might potentially abuse a child, is indeed a special exception in dealing with editors on Wikipedia. Like I said above, in something where you have reason to believe someone could be hurt if you don't act, your best bet is to notify the administrators- they have access to all the records, etc. about the editor and they can notify the appropriate authorities. Now, what the other editors were saying about the pages Ignore All Rules (WP:IAR), Use Common Sense, etc., they're absolutely right. Not all of them apply to the situation at hand, but many do. What they were talking about were methods that people have come up with in the past to use when dealing with sticky or divisive issues. Mind you, they are opinions of a significant part of the community and not rules, but remember that it is only common sense to Use Common Sense. Keep that in mind and you'll be very well served by that kind of guideline. :)

I think that's most of your questions for this time. I enjoy correspondence like this, it allows me to help inform others and give some consideration myself to what I think about important issues like this. Please, if you have any more questions, feel free to chat me up on my talk page once more. Thank you, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 June 06, Ref Desk Quandary

Hello again, Loomis. Good to hear from you, and don't worry about being a pest, I delight in helping others. Let me preface this by coming out and saying that I think you did the right thing.

You assessed the moral question of the argument very neatly, and acted on your judgement- this is a good thing. Encouraging the subject to seek professional help is in this case not only in the best interest of society at large, but also for the rehabilitation of the subject. To discourage him from doing so by informing him that he might be the subject of intervention by authority, while factually true, is against his own interests and the interests of his intended target. So considering it that way, you did the right thing morally speaking.

Keep in mind that while there are still guidelines for conduct toward other editors that apply to the Wikipedia namespace (which the refdesk is part of), the gray areas are far larger. An editor has a lot more leeway to address and speak to things as he/she sees fit. Which in turn means, considering it from a Wikipedia guidelines standpoint, you did the right thing.

Third, by doing what you did, you demonstrated that you were acting in good faith in both of the above senses. The only person who could possibly have a problem with what you did would be the editor that wanted to show off his legal knowledge, and I would say that an overwhelming majority of editors would agree with me here.

In total, what this means is don't feel guilty! In extenuating circumstances, such as this situation, it's perfectly appropriate to edit other users' submissions. Even in talk space, doing something like that, or editing comments to remove personal attacks is not only allowed, but expected of Wikipedians. As an aside, advising Wikipedia authorities might be appropriate for this case, but but your action nonetheless seems perfectly well considered and rational, so I there's no blame that comes from this kind of action. Indeed, I should congratulate you for overcoming an inhibition to do the right thing.

Later today I'll write some more regarding the Monicasdude incident, since you seem interested in it. By any means, I look forward to hearing from you again if you have any more questions! Until then, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also! One little note about a submission you made to the "rape rooms" question at the humanities help desk. You should try to be a little less confrontative when you address other users. They might seem to be asking a foolish question, and they might be using bad English (slang/vernacular), but that doesn't mean you should go to town on them. Using "peeps" back at him was bad enough, but italicizing it made you seem very grumpy. Remember, he did ask a legitimate question. You can poke a little fun at other users, but just try not to be so confrontative. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extraneous Ramblings from JackofOz

Hi Lewis. Continuing on from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Who wrote "Hypocracy is the lip service vice pays to virtue"?:

I did say that "to be great is to be misunderstood" – but the reverse does not hold true. Just being misunderstood doesn’t make you great, it just makes you a poor communicator. I am much, much more at home with written communication than with oral, and I think I do OK most of the time. I should, given the amount of polishing I do before I ever post anything. I work on my words so that they seem alive and spontaneous, which is so far from how they start out as to be laughable. But I’m far from perfect, and what we’re talking about now is a great example of that. I really hate being shown up as a bumbling amateur when it comes to one of the few things I feel I have any skill with – written communication. But I guess it’s all part of the richness of human life, eh.

Mood is something worth thinking about. I am a depressive and moody person. Whatever mood I'm in tends to govern and dictate my behaviour. I can be in 5 different moods at the same time about 5 different things - so I can be very chameleonic and patchwork-like. No wonder people don't know what they're getting. It all comes from early childhood training about trying to please everybody and never being the bringer of bad news. Not that I'm blaming my parents or anyone - it's just a factor that it would be pointless to deny. If I'm not in the right mood for something, chances are it just won't happen. Unless I absolutely have to do it, in which case it will happen with a degree of resentment. Since life includes many things that we have no choice about doing, it's not surprising that resentment/anger is a frequent factor in my life. The two poles that I tend to swing between are (a) doing necessary things with some resentment and usually a huge dose of procrastination beforehand and (b) neglecting necessary things to the point of taking enormous and stupid risks with such matters as my whole financial security. Or maybe they’re just different aspects of the same syndrome. Sometimes I am aware enough to step outside myself and witness myself objectively about this, and do something about it. Mostly, I'm not. Then somebody like you comes along and tells me what I really need to hear. Which causes me to sit down and write about myself (as I'm doing now) and discover some new realisations about the way I operate. Thanks for being a mirror, Lewis. I need them more than most, because I tend to only see myself through the eyes and perceptions of others. My self-concept is faulty at best, and virtually non-existent at worst.

I've felt trapped in this paradigm for as long as I can remember. Change is enormously fear-laden for me. Oh, it's not that I've never embraced change. "Coming out" was a huge challenge, but I did it anyway. But each next thing is just another Everest to climb, they never get any easier. A case in point: I have an enormous appetite for history, culture and languages other than my own, so I'd like to visit other countries and meet up with friends there, including various Wiki-buddies I’ve collected along the way. But I fear leaving the safety of "home". I imagine the worst possible scenarios happening to me overseas. It's utterly irrational, but there you are. It's almost a shameful thing these days, to be my age and never to have been outside my own country and not even to have any particular plans. But rather than working on that issue, I just avoid talking about it and let people assume whatever they want to assume about me, and I avoid doing anything about it. That’s my way of denying there’s a problem, so I never have to face "change". I don’t even like going on holidays at all, it forces me to have a different routine and do stuff I don’t really want to do. Healthy recreation (as opposed to just lolling around and being a couch potato) is a real challenge for me. Physical activity of most forms is somehow getting into dangerous uncharted waters for me, so I prefer the safety of the intellectual (and probably fantasy) world inside my head. It would come as no surprise that when I discovered Wikipedia, it felt like I’d found my "spiritual home".

You know more than most people about me now, Lewis. Consider yourself very privileged. (I know this is public and others will read it too. But I don't care. I'm beyond caring. I'm not in the mood for caring today.) Cheers, mon ami JackofOz 03:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Greaseballme.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Greaseballme.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hii.

Hii..

Just wanted to tell you that I know have Internet access from my house, (even though its only a dail-up connection, i have to make do with it). Anyways, I am still stuck in the desert and even as the temparatures are getting closer to 50 degrees centigrade, the people are telling me that the summer season has just started. It might be some more time by the time I'll be heading home. So, I'll be seeing you around then. Cheers Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 20:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Cool pictures on your user page!

Reference desk

Excuse me, but I am not sure what your problem is. I pointed out to the editor in a polite manner that their response seemed a little abrupt to me and suggested that they may wish to moderate their tone in future. I made no demands, I did not threaten them with sanctions if they failed to comply in future and I didn't place some form of warning message on their talk page. I just left a polite note. They are perfectly within their rights to ignore my comment and do whatever they want. So I still fail to see what I need to apologise for. If you can point out which policy or guideline I am in breach of, I will be very pleased to know so that I will avoid making a similar mistake in the future.

As a second point, I thought I would expand on something you mentioned in your message to me. You said "We're all grown-ups here", but regrettably that is not the case. The reference desks are often frequented by minors, usually asking for help with homework questions, so assuming that everyone is an adult can cause problems (and in reverse of that, assuming everyone is a child will also cause problems). In the particular example we are discussing, the editor who left the original question was an anonymous IP with no previous edits in their contribution record. This suggests that we should assume they are new to Wikipedia and not scare them off with an overly aggressive tone (see the Reference desk header notes for Be concise, not terse and Be polite).

As to your point about me being part of the self-righteous, self-appointed "wiki-police", I did not try to impose my will on the user, I simply requested that they reconsider their actions in future. That accusation though works both ways, as I could also say that you are acting as the self-righteous, self-appointed "wiki-police" by demanding I apologise for something that does not appear to break any rules. Finally, because you have singled me out for criticism and completely ignored the far less polite comment to the same editor by someone else, I must assume that you have a problem with me personally. If that is the case, we will just have to learn to learn to work together in as amicable way as possible. Road Wizard 00:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You appear to be under the mistaken impression that my main intention was to reprimand the individual. That was not my primary purpose (I generally act in a more discreet manner by leaving messages on individual talk pages to avoid a public display and to also avoid breaching WP:BITE). However, in this case my primary goal was to undo the damage done by that editor in potentially scaring off a new user. By leaving a very mild comment showing that the person's actions are not seen as entirely acceptable by some Wikipedians it would hopefully draw the sting from the tail for the new user.

If you can suggest a better way of handling such situations in future that do not involve just ignoring blatant breaches of WP:BITE and hoping the new user isn't scared away, then I will be glad to hear it.

Also, I am glad that you do not have a particular problem with me. However, I would ask that if you do have a problem in future you try to resolve it with me directly rather than try to make some obscure point. I am always willing to accept a friendly word of advice, but I do not respond well to aggressively toned comments. I too hope that we can put this behind us. Happy editing. :) Road Wizard 01:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Hii... I finally got my electric guitar! Its an Ibanez RG370 DX. Anyways, the weather is getting worse over here and my Dad's showing no signs of letting me go home. The guitar makes up for some of the boredom i guess. But i dont know how long it'll keep me busy. So, I am doing my best to edit on wikipedia on my dial-up line. (Though my definition of "Forever" has been changed to "the time it takes to load the Reference Desk on a dial-up access). I'll write a mail to you soon. See ya and Happy editing! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs

Hey, bout the ref desk

When I replied to your post about the crazy zionist terrorist thingy, I thought your post was in response to my post, which contained a question. But now I think maybe it was in respone to the original question, so if the latter, apologies if my harsh reply was difficult to decipher, as I was on a completely different topic! hope this clears things up a bit! Philc _T^E_C^I 01:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is this anything to do with you? Philc _T^E_C^I 01:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, yeh I'm sorry to, glad it's chilled now. I don't know who it is, you just looked like someone I know, so clicked your picture to make it bigger, and I saw it was used in an article that is nothing to do with you. Google has no hits for Matthew Creese powerlifter [1], so vandalism maybe? Philc _T^E_C^I 12:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humanities ref desk

Thanks for your comments on the increasingly long "How do they get away with it" post on the reference desk. It's nice to have someone who can talk about God sensibly. :) BenC7 01:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cheers, mate

Hi Lewis. I've not forgotten your previous message and I do intend to answer it, but it's worthy of a considered response and at the moment my time is very limited. I was going to contact you today to tell you just that, but your latest message beat me to the punch. I've not been around on Wiki very much lately because I have a new priority in my life, in the form of a fantastic, wonderful new partner. He lives out of town so I'm spending a huge proportion of my internet connect time at nights chatting to him. And weekends are pretty much totally taken up with being together, so that takes care of those 2 days as well. We're very much planning a long term future, so there's a lot to talk about. But don't worry, I do still have a life of my own, I do still have my own interests, I have not departed the wiki-scene and I certainly have no plans to do so. I do check out the ref desk most days, but for the moment I am limiting myself to topics I have a special interest in. I am missing the usual goings on with our regulars, but some priorities are just in a different class altogether and all else becomes secondary. Once the rose-tinted glasses phase is over - and I must say it shows no signs of ever doing so - life may assume some semblance of normality. Except that some people touch your life and your heart so deeply that nothing is ever the same again. So, in a nutshell, that's what's going on with me at the moment. Life really is wonderful. I'll be in touch soon. Cheers JackofOz 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. This is not a hurry-up, just an enquiry. I sent you an email last week and haven't heard back from you yet, so this being the first blind email I've ever sent to a fellow WPedian, where you don't get any record of the date, time or contents, I'm just wondering if it came through ok. Cheers. JackofOz 01:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom

Shalom, I do not want to escalate this into some sort of argument. But I do not appriciate your suggestion that I cannot be a Jew and at the same time ashamed of Israel. Suppose it were 65 years ago, friend, could I be a proud German and be ashamed of the German government? State-sactioned terrorism does not take away my right to be proud of my heritage. - Abscissa 04:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clear up misunderstanding

Shalom, and thank you for responding to my message. I think I must have been a bit unclear so it is important that I help you understand my position. Of course, I am not trying to convince you of anything, and I respect your decision to be a Zionist in defense of Israel, but I hope you will respect my position that I can be an [ethnic] Jew opposed to Israel. (And of course, were we to meet in the street, that we would be able to meet in peace.)

Personally, I have come to feel that all Jews are characterised by the actions of Israel. I feel this is inappropriate, as it creates hatred for us because many people are not able to think beyond ISRAEL=JEWS=ISRAEL.

To make matters worse, Israel is inextricably tied to the United States, which I feel is guilty of horrific international war crimes. There is only one regime in the history of the world with which I would less rather be associated.

As a bit of a tangent, I must say that I always find the merchant of venice (the play) funny because those who read into it will find it is virulently anti-christian. Some christian went about posting messages about forgiveness and love will solve our problems blah blah blah, as if Jews lack these qualities....!

In any event I read many religious texts and try to study all religions, I truly believe they have a generally consistent message (except Scientology(tm)). And I try to reach out and have an open dialogue with people of all religions, muslims included, and Zionists also, and my original point seems to have been missed, which was that we will get nowhere if time after time, it is "MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS" and "JEWS ARE NAZIS" etc. because (having studied philosophy, I'm sure) you know that the world is not black and white and neither statement is true. In fact, I found reading the Koran very helpful in understanding muslim attitudes toward us; it makes infinite more sense to me than the christian bible, but that is another discussion.

Shalom, - Abscissa 05:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jack

Hi Lewis

Sorry about the past few days. Because my partner lives out of town, weekends are the only times we can be together until we make more permanent living arrangements towards the end of the year. So my weekends are spent 24/7 with him. We do check our emails, but the only replies we send are things that just can't wait for a few days.

Exchanging views about other Wikipedians is something I find myself not wanting to get into. I have an idea of what certain Wikipedians are like, but I know it's not the truth. We get to see only a tiny slice of people here, not the whole person. To be judged on only a tiny slice is unfair. I would hate it if people came to the wrong idea about me based on my writings here. So I do unto others .....

(Fwiw, I continue that thinking in the outside world. I choose to spend time with people whose company I enjoy. But I try hard not to label them as "good" or "nice". Nor do I label the people I dislike or disagree with as "bad" or "arseholes". I know whose company I prefer, that's all. We never know enough of even ourselves to be able to say we truly know ourselves. How much less do we know of other people.)

Cheers and shalom

Yes, I do think you tend to take some things a mite too seriously. Lighten up, you'll feel better for it. Leaving Wikipedia is a rather radical move, and I would caution you against taking that thought too far. Besides, we'd all miss you too much.

Since you've appointed me your Personal Wikimentor, it behoves me to start menting. You talk about having feelings about other people (eg. the name you mentioned above). I believe these feelings are not about this person - since I'm sure you've never met him - but about the words he has has used and your response to those words. They're only words and they can't hurt you. That said, words definitely have power, but it's the reader who has to agree to them having that power. If you choose to just shrug off some inane or offensive comment, you deprive those words of their power, and the writer has got nowhere. This kind of forum is especially tricky because we're deprived of all the usual facial cues, voice tones, eye gestures and other bits of body language that give communication about 90% of its meaning. All we have is the remaining 10%, yet we have to somehow use that to make 100% of the meaning. It's a tough call, for the reader, and the writer too. I've previously got myself into hot water with other users by making jokes and failing to include a smiley. My humour is fairly blunt and ostensibly confrontational, but in the real world I can usually get away with it because I have a smile on my face and my voice tone gives the game away. Here, unless I add something like a smiley, I run the risk of being offensive. Never intentionally, but that's how it can come across, and hence the meaning of my communication is something other than what I intended it to be. I think I'm rambling now so I'll try to get back to the point. It's one thing to not allow mistruths (or what you regard as mistruths) to go unchallenged, particularly about subjects dear to your heart (eg. Israel and its foreign policy) - but it's quite another thing to categorise the writer of those words as any particular thing (eg. "arsehole"). Your truth is that you disagree with what he says, and you then present your version. Stick to that. Getting into the area of forming (particularly negative) opinions of the writer can only get you nowhere. If there's somebody who tends to get under your skin on a regular basis, practise avoiding any dealings with them, at least for a while. It's amazing what a little distance and time can do. That may be easier said than done, particularly where your favourite subject is the topic of debate. But remember, our little debates here, while no doubt read by a lot of people (both Wikipedians and others), represent the smallest fraction of the world's debates about these subjects. You cannot hope to correct every mis-statement published in every newspaper and magazine and website in the world, so you know that the impact your or anybody's contributions to the Ref Desk are small in the overall scheme of things. That's not to say they are not worth making - everybody makes a difference every day of their lives - but they are not worth losing sleep over, getting neurotic about, or feeling bad about. So don't think too hard - just keep on turning up, enjoy the site for what it is, make your valuable contributions to whatever articles you have on your watchlist, engage in debate on the Ref Desk, state your opinions, but keep your cool. And enjoy. If it isn't enjoyable, it isn't working for you. That's the real test, not whether something or other is right or wrong. So do whatever you need to to do to make it an enjoyable experience, and Wikilife will seem a whole lot better. Because it will be a whole lot better. And everybody will benefit, not just you. The ripple effect really does work.

Cheers/Jack

PS. In my experience, when a person has a very strong opinion about somebody else, it often turns out to be something inside themselves that's it's really all about. If someone's words regularly irritate you, but they don't irritate me, then it's something about you that's playing a part. What might that be, do you think? You said you're finding it hard to "assume good faith" with him. Before you take that too much further, reflect on what you're saying. "Assume good faith" is one of the central pillars of Wikipedia. If you really can't find it in your heart to do that about him, then you're in a sense "breaking the rules" and it won't work for you. But you have options. If you have evidence that he has failed to abide by the rules and conventions we have here, it's open to you to take action against him. If it's not that, then again it comes back to you and how you're allowing yourself to be triggered off by him. Just become aware of when that happens, and take a pause and just sit with it for a little while before doing or saying anything in return. Then, when you do write something (if that's what you decide to do), just state your truth quietly and without fanfare. Let your words do their work, and leave the ego out of it. JackofOz 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again

Hi once again, Loomis, good to hear from you again. I have to say though, trouble seems to follow you around at the reference desk. :) I agree that his opinions as expressed in the question on Israel/Lebanon are mostly socially unacceptable, and similarly that wishing death on an editor at Wikipedia not only flies in the face of WP:CIVIL, but borders on (while not being in every sense of the word a threat. That being said, it's not uncommon for users to leave in a huff when another editor criticizes their opinions. However, and this applies to both sides (you and him)- the civility guidelines are not optional for any editor. I agree entirely that wishing death on other Wikipedians is right out and should not be tolerated. However, at the same time, it's toeing the line of civility to step up and say that he should leave- I think that perhaps some less incisive words of protest at what he said was in order, at least for the sake of keeping the environment of the reference desk a civil one and conducive to the project as a whole.

These last couple of days I've been working in a debate over how appropriate it is for Wikipedia to have articles regarding schools of all sizes. I have come down firmly on the side of the debate that favors stronger requirements for articles in order to keep the nature of the Wikipedia project encyclopedic, and believe me when I say that this same issue of civility has been a big deal there, too. Too often it is the first thing thrown to the wind when there's an intense debate that both sides feel strongly about, and for that reason I find myself again and again striving to keep both sides from lashing out, because the only thing that lashing out achieves is to make the other side feel that they are in the right, and that their opponents are in the wrong. For that reason, I think that the most appropriate thing for you to have done in that situation is reminded him (probably on his talk page; people get touchy about these things in public space) that wishing for death for other editors is ten steps beyond the threshold of incivility, and that Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox for him to decry others, even in a laid-back place like the reference desk.

So, I hope that answers any questions you had on my opinion of the issue. As always, feel free to shoot any more questions to my talk page. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

I've been away for a while and wondered if you'd seen my reply to the "everybody hates america" thread, just so you know, I dont have a warped sense of history, when I used the phrase "Hitler's people", I wasn;t referring to German citizens, but supporters of the National Socialists (Nazis), as I dont realy see the German Jews (or for that matter, blacks, gypsies, convicts, bolsheviks, or communists) as Hitler's people, as he did very little to endeer himself to them, to say the least. I had no intention of offending you, or any other people, and was trying to make a point about the structure of countrys at points in their development, and although I was avoiding the topic of what hitler and the others did, it was purely to keep the discussion focused on my initial point as I did not want to get drawn into a straw man argument. I was no why sympathising with any of those people. Cheers. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hé toé !

Salut !

Moé itou is inded moi aussi. How'd I learn joual? When I was a teenager, other Americans and I used to play a MUD-like game based in Laval in the late 1990's. Coincidentally, I was learning French (de Paris, bien sûr !) and was lost because all the Québécois kids would type in weird, incomrepehnsible French. I mean, it took me a while to learn that toe and moe were toi and moi. I eventually looked for books on Québec French to not only ~~communicate with them~~ spy on them (what were they saying about us Yanks? hehe) but also to fuel my fascination. I even began watching Denys Arcand movies and started listening to news from Radio-Canada on the internet just to get used to the accent. Since them I've been exposing myself to it whenever I can.

While the game is long gone, my interest for Québec French is still there; I still make an effort to watch a Québec sitcom shown here at 4PM on TV5. I have yet to visit Québec, which I've been longing to do. I'll make it up there some day. I do speak French in a Québec accent (as Québec as possible, at least) which I prefer to the European French accent.

I live in the south Puget Sound area of Washington State. Where in Québec do you live? My great-grandmother's younger sister (she passed away last year) immigrated there from the Philippines in the 1960's. Her children and grandchildren live in Montréal and in southwestern parts of the Island (Beaconsfield being one of them, I think). Sorry about the long comment. But pleased to meet you! :-) --Chris S. 04:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

I've tried to apologise a couple of times, in a way. I left a remark on the original thread offering an apology, unfortunately he took a following comment that was intended to be light hearted, and leave it open for him to say something along the lines of "yeh sorry mate its cool, I know the discussion got a bit out of hand, everythings ok now" or atleast something somewhat comforting that signified the end of the argument, and start again on freindly terms, instead he seized the opportunity to accuse me of further incivility, whilst very much speaking down to me. Then on his talk page I left a message asking if he'd agree to put the whole thing behind us now (or words to that effect) and he just remarked "I'm fine with calling it quits, but please don't swear at me or insult me in the future." which just to me seemed like the most cynical, and cold thing he could have possibly said, without restarting the argument, its the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from someone in a much higher position of authority when you are grovelling for forgiveness, not when I've gone out of my way, and offered myself up to try and end what has undoubtably been a pathetic dispute by both parties... So to be honest I feel hurt by the way he has been unwilling to accept any wrong doing on his part (despite the fact I did more wrong, and I will admit that) and unwillingness to properly accept my apology, remaining cold and somewhat harsh to me. If he had simply said "It's ok its behind us" or something, I would of apologized for every harsh, offensive or inflammatory response I gave. But at the moment I feel worried about apologiving full out, because of the inferior nature he treats me with (he clearly has a relatively low opinion of me) I feel my apology would be far from well recieved and that wouldn't be nice for me, having gone out of the way to do it.

Sturat to me has come off much like a teacher I had at school, anything nice he does or says seems to come from a hard learned respect for politness, rules and regulations, and not out of respect for other people, which is the complete oppisite of me. Loomis, you I have a lot of respect for because of the cool, nature in which you deal with these things, the way in which you've gone out of your way to resolve a dispute you were barely involved in, and the kind, receptive nature you have taken my apologies in the past. Thanks. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your reply ;) Philc _T^E_C^I 20:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An extra question of mine in the Humanities Reference Desk about UN Partition Plan

Hello,

in that topic in the Humanities Reference Desk about the UN Partition Plan I asked an extra question. Actually, we've discussed this some time ago as well. [2] is the link.

I wrote it after your explanation.

Maybe you saw the question, and didn't feel like responding, that's all okay too of course..I just thought it might be possible it never caught your attention.

(Please don't see this as Wikistalking!:( )

The question is sharp and critical but objective.

As you can probably see I am not a Zionist, I am very critical but I think it is important to get all the facts.(I'm a bit too young to decide on that issue for the rest of my life...)

Greetings and thanks, Evilbu 23:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it would be cleaner if I wrote my reaction to [3] here as well.

My age is not really a secret : 21.

Evilbu is in fact an intentionally incorrect spelling of "Evil Buu", who in turn is a character in the Japanese anime Dragonball Z. I started using the name on anime related forums but in order to make it easier to remember my usernames it spread to other forums... maybe I should have picked a username that was a little more serious.. Even though I realize DBZ was childish and cheesy at times, some plot elements still make it interesting, so I'm of one of those nostalgic (adult) fans. It doesn't have anything to do with Dutch.

Hmm, maybe I didn't express myself that well, I meant I'm not all prozionist but that I'm not fiercely anti either...

In theory, Flemish, Dutch and the language in Suriname are completely the same. However many Flemish speak some sort of "semidialect" which uses "ge" for the second person singular instead of "je" en "da" instead of "dat" (="that"). And then there are the real dialects like West-Flemish and "Antwerps". I'd consider myself and my parents to be speakers of that Flemish semidialect, while my father still speaks West-Flemish with his family. Even though the Netherlands have some ugly dialects too, they do speak more "as it should" and I am bit jealous of them for that and I always try to write correct Dutch on the Internet.

It is true that the Walloons say "septante" and "nonante" instead of "soixante-dix" and "quatre-vingt-dix". But please be aware of the language problems in Belgium. When you speak of "their French"... watch out with that... I do hope you did not speak French to Flemings, because unless they are old or not real Flemings, they'd probably have preferred to speak English and they would have found it easier for them as well... My userbox says "Belgian" but I'd consider myself "Fleming" first. I consider it my duty to explain that situation over and over. I once heard two foreign students in a university cafetaria discussing (in English) the "just so stupid troubles between Flemings and Walloons" and I had a hard time stopping myself from barging on that conversation... We have been given the burden of speaking a "mediocre language" while a minority (yes, WE are the absolute majority) speaks a language that "had to become" the international language. But we are no longer illiterate, starving and peasants... we are hard working, tri-(or even 3.5-)lingual people donating 5 billion (I mean USA billions :

10^{9}

) Euros each year to them. What we get in return is an almost "usurping entity" threatening to take more and more land, either assimilating or expelling the Flemings. The only solution to save what's still left is to split as soon as possible.(That is also one of the reasons for me to be interested in Czechoslovakia,Montenegro,Israel(although the latter is quite different) That would leave one multilingual prosperous nation... and a monolingual small country, probably the poorest in all of Western-Europe. Oh well, look at the length of what I've already written... but it's not just "stupid troubles" and the situation isn't symmetric either, not symmetric at all...

Greetings,Evilbu 15:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't resist getting back at that Canada remark :(. I am well aware of the language situation in Quebec... I only visited Torontothough. The situation is still somewhat different : English and French are spoken( nonnative speakers included) by about 500 and 170 million people respectively, they are both huge, while Dutch only has a mere 22 million native speakers....

Many people say politicans bicker too much about it though, but in fact our Flemish politicans should even be a lot tougher on the language issue... I live in a Flemish town : I want to be able to get all services (education, medical care, administrative stuff) in Dutch.

As I said the Flemish region is much more prosperous, while Wallonia is in the tight grip of the Parti Socialiste, which is infested by corruption (up to the point they even killed one of their own : Andre Cools). Just like Germany is doing with the former DDR, we are trying to pump money into it. It's counterproductive : it discourages real reform, and they're not learning Dutch any harder... One Walloon poltician Jean-Marie Happart signed a devastating contract with Ecclestone that would cost the region 211 MILLION Euros, his excuse : that part was in English.....

So many Frenchspeaking Belgians go North to seek prosperity. They are EU citizens so they can live everywhere in the EU, and they can vote federal and Flemish as soon as they live in a Flemish region. They refuse to learn Dutch...because they know every Fleming learns French (and every Fleming has to learn French for this reason,you see the selfsustaining nature of this asymmetric situation?). The Flemish government does not need to provide them with schools in French, but they send their kids to other nearby towns where there are such schools. After a while they are so numerous they start considering themselves an "neglected ethnic minority" while they sought all of it themselves and are immigrants, not a minority...

How does it go the other way around? Fleming goes to live in Wallonia? He improves his French, maybe marries a Walloon, sends his kids to Frenchspeaking schools and the Flemish character is soon eradicated. The Flemish government needs to provide French schools in certain border towns,the Walloon government needs to do that too but they don't, in fact they only agreed to have a Dutch school in Komen, if the Flemish government paid for it instead and gave them a highway to connect them to that enclave.

The problem with this separatism is that there is this stain of antisemitism, collaboration, neo-nazism and anti-immigrant ideas around it. The Germans favoured us due to more linguistic similarities and promised some autonomy, and some Flemish collaborators even volunteered to fight the Russians for them, but there were many Flemish resistance members too..

I hope you don't mind me elaborating on it, I feel that if I don't add this, you might get a wrong idea of the situation. I like French, wanna improve it and do something with it, but I like to be asked to speak it, and not forced instead when I'm in my own region. That is why a simple road sign in my town in French would make me boil inside. Because I know it doesn't stop there.

As a funny appendix : check out [4], this is what a newspaper did to create the impression that there was a huge crowd interested in the royal visit to the Flemish town of Brakel, note the queen not in one of the three circles, but ALL of them :).Evilbu 14:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are busy, enjoy your New Year. Evilbu 14:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe

Hey Lewis

You may notice that my barnstars are pretty typical of how you may have noticed I tend to act, both are for fucking up, but sorting things out so overall there was a (minor) net gain! Its really down to the sporadic way in which they're handed out, somehow you have to draw attention to yourself whilst maintaining the justification to have one, and it seems that fucking up (i.e. adding a chunk of (c) content when I was a new user) and fixing it (re-writing the whole thing, then the whole article, to A-Class) got me one, but really I have no doubt had I not screwed up initally my efforts would have gone unnoticed, as yours seem to, maybe you just run too smoothly hehe.

I'm infact slightly younger than youd thought, given away by the few things that are on my talk page, my category teenage wikipedians. I do wish sturat thought better of me than he seems to, and that I'd never insulted him, and that he'd interpreted some things I'd said in slightly different way.

I'm glad you see some good in me. It feels nice to have some feedback. Especially when its positive. You have a fair point about the insecurity, its reflected in everything really, those who are most willing to stoop above and below thier comfort zone are the most secure, as they are the ones who feel most sure that they will return to their comfort zone, whilst the insecure constantly worry about losing their position. If you know what I'm on about, which you may well not, I've never been to great at conveying ideas through text.

Your discussion with Flamarande is quite long, and I'm not so sure what is going on, but I'll take your word for it, as you did write half of it in response to reading the other half, so you no doubt know whats going on there.

I'll no doubt apologise to Sturat soon enough, I'm just trying to think of a way of saying it in such a way that I wouldnt return to find an undesirable remark posted after it, though I have tried this before and failed... I will try to be more like the Brit that I am on here now, and avoid making any obtuse remarks. I too am willing to accept that on the grand scale of things I know almost nothing, but I also notice there are a lot of people out there who fail to notice that they too now almost nothing. I dont know... I'm feeling a bit tired and confused by things including a few real life issues at the moment. So maybe I'll have some more comprehensive and comprehendable to say soon. Thanks for your efforts. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I hadnt left Sturat out of my post on purpose, its just he hadnt really responded to the question at hand as such, he had challenged the basis of the question, and the motivation for asking it, but as such had left the actual topic untouched, in retrospect maybe I should have nentioned him while I was mentioning everyone else, but yeh, my post as such wasnt in response to anything he had said, while it was to you and the other guy. I wasnt ommiting him on purpose, I guess it's just unlucky that it was him that said it, because now it seems that way. But I dont hold anything against sturat, I dont dislike him or think hes out to cause any malice or anything, just that his mannerisms, or attitude to other people, aren't bad as such, but they do conflict badly with mine. So yeh I'll offer him an apology etc soon, but I must dash right now bye! Sorry if this seems incomplete, it may well be!! Philc _T^E_C^I 13:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your post on the village pump... Thought you may aswell know it's yer ol' buddy whos doing it. The conversations grown quite confusing since I last saw it, so basically yeh, it's stu. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about the childish pride, but to be honest, I didnt want that (thats why I tried a sort of freindly approach, but it may have just come out even more cynical), I just thought since I knew you knew stu, maybe you'd want to think about it, so I thought I should tell you. I chose to tell you on your discussion page, because its more private, and I didnt want to humiliate either of you. To tell you the good honest to god truth, the only problem I have with Stu, is that I worry he has a problem with me after the argument. But yeh, all seems calm on the ref desk front at the moment, but should the matter ever become relevant again, I will apologise to Stu, but it seems like theres no need at the moment, I think all it would serve to do is drag something to the surface again that we all would rather be past. So yeh... I dunno... Philc _T^E_C^I 17:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I interpreted your message as a prompt to me apologising, is because I know I should have.

Yeh, I not dwelling on the stu thing, it just keeps coming to the surface though... So yeh, we'll just forget about it now... I doubt that dude is cheating, in the UK "past papers" or, exam papers of your course from previous sittings are regularly used in preperation for your exams. Teachers hand them out and everything, so I doubt theres anything sinister behind it all. Hehe. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Québec bashing

Salut ! Peut-être que ça t'intéressera. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quebec bashing. --Chris S. 06:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misomophile

Please see WP's policy concerning neologisms and protologisms. While the word created seems useful, it is not entered the common vernacular and thus has no real notability. Cheers. -- Merope ^Talk 02:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UN

"Some would go so far as to charge Kofi Anan as a war criminal for his deliberate inaction, if only the political sensibilities of the powers-that-be were any different."

And every single one of them would be an idiot. Have you read the UN Charter, in particular Chapter Seven? It's impossible to intervene in a country without the unanimous consent of the Security Council (the permanent members of which are America, France, Britain, Russia and China). Talking about the UN as a failed organisation demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding of the rules under which it operates. It is essentially the plaything of the five permanent members of the Security Council: the role of the Secretary General is both administrative and to promote the various aims of the organisation. And Annan wasn't even Secretary-General back then - he was the head of its peackeeping forces. The UN has no armed forces of it own, and no capacity to act independently in regards to intervention. There is absolutely no conceivable way in which Kofi Annan or the organisation as a whole could be held criminally accountable for anything in regards to Rwanda. The blame lies entirely with the Security Council, who did not unanimously consent to intervene speedily enough and with enough troops. The UN is a club of nations - it is not an independent, sovereign organisation. How exactly did you imagine that it operated? Talking about the failure of the UN as an organisation in anything except an administrative capacity is woefully off-target - the failure of the UN is the failure of the UN Security Council. JF Mephisto 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I'd like to say that I enjoy robust intellectual debate, and as such I thank you for your counter-argument. I insist on keeping my debates as friendly and civil as possible, so please, whatever I may argue below, please take it as an intellectual argument ONLY, and in no way as any sort of personal attack. :)

I completely understand how the UN operates. And if its "Charter", for which you seem to have such inexplicable reverence for, is written in such a way so as to prohibit the UN or any member state from taking any action to prevent a genocide, then I say the "UN Charter" isn't worth the paper it's written on and should be flushed down the toilett. I simply have no respect for immoral laws, or in this case, laws that prohibit moral actions to be taken.

From the article on the Rwandan Genocide:

"UNAMIR's Force Commander Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire became aware of plans for the genocide in January of 1994. He sent a cable to the then head of UN peacekeeping, Kofi Annan, for authority to defend Rwandan civilians - many of whom had taken refuge in UN compounds under implicit and sometimes explicit promises of protection. Throughout January, February and March, he pleaded for reinforcements and logistical support. The UN Security Council repeatedly refused his pleas. Annan's faxed response had ordered Dallaire to defend only the UN's image of impartiality, forbidding him to protect desperate civilians waiting to die. Next, it detailed the withdrawal of UN troops, even while blood flowed and the assassins reigned, leaving 800,000 Rwandans to their fate".

I never claimed to be any great fan of the UN at all. I suppose you're right, though, that it's the Security Council that is ultimately to blame for the failure, and that Anan was just following orders. Nontheless, it would seem that he had the opportunity on countless occasions to do the right thing and disobey those orders, and, in the result, save the lives of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. But he chose to do his "duty" instead, and follow his orders. Romeo Dallaire, on the other hand, a true man of conscience, later suffered a complete nervous breakdown over the whole thing and was so distraught and filled with guilt that he even attempted suicide several times. Anan, on the other hand, doesn't seem the least bit troubled by it. Had Dallaire had the necessary forces he was so desperately pleading for, yet still been denied permission to intervene, I honestly believe that this good man of conscience would surely have done the right thing, and disobeyed any contrary orders from his superiours in order to prevent a genocide from occuring.

Nonetheless, you seem to have missed the entire subtext of my post, which was its main point. It wasn't just about Anan and the UN, but rather an attempt to expose the double standard that Israel is so constantly subjected to. I was implicitly referring to Ariel Sharon's indictment for war crimes by that kangaroo court in Belgium. His "alleged war crimes", involving a tragic situation, and facts that are, to say the least, so much more disputable and so much more unclear to anyone, a situation that was so much more complex, and, not that even one death is not a tragedy of immense proportions, involving so much less loss of life (I believe that some of the most liberal estimates are at about 2,000 killed,) than the Rwandan Genocide, that there's simply no comparison. In Rwanda, a good part of a million innocent lives were lost. Yet while it draws such an immense amount of sympathy, nobody seems have any interest in holding anyone accountable for it. All this to say that the double standard that Israel is constantly subjected to is glaringly obvious.

In any case, I wish you a very Happy New Year and a Good-YomTov. Am Israel Chai! :)

All the best, JF.

Lewis

Loomis 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Loomis,

I still think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the role of the UN and how its institutions work. First, I don't hold "inexplicable reverence" for the UN Charter, but I am more than willing to defend it when things are being asked of the UN which it simply does not provide for. You can lecture from your high horse as much as you want about flushing the Charter down the toilet, but the fact of the matter is that the Charter does not prevent action against genocide, and accusing Kofi Annan or the General Secretariat over the Rwanda Genocide is simply incorrect. In fact, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted in 1948, compels member states to prevent and punish genocide. However, that's dependent on the member states actually taking action through the UN Security Council - which, I repeat, is not Kofi Annan but America, Britain, China, Russia and France (the permanent veto-wielding members). Please properly read the quote from the Rwandan Genocide:

UNAMIR's Force Commander Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire became aware of plans for the genocide in January of 1994. He sent a cable to the then head of UN peacekeeping, Kofi Annan, for authority to defend Rwandan civilians - many of whom had taken refuge in UN compounds under implicit and sometimes explicit promises of protection. Throughout January, February and March, he pleaded for reinforcements and logistical support. The UN Security Council repeatedly refused his pleas. Annan's faxed response had ordered Dallaire to defend only the UN's image of impartiality, forbidding him to protect desperate civilians waiting to die. Next, it detailed the withdrawal of UN troops, even while blood flowed and the assassins reigned, leaving 800,000 Rwandans to their fate.

The UN Security Council did NOT authorise reinforcements and logistical support! To accuse Annan of just following orders is utterly bizarre. First, it is the role of the Security Council to provide for those things. There is no part of the UN Charter that would allow the General Secretary to send in troops unilaterally, without the consent of member states, and can you imagine any of the major countries allowing such powers? Even if he could, where on earth do you think the troops are going to come from? The UN operates on less staff than Saatchi & Saatchi! All troops belong to member states, and for them to be sent into a conflict zone requires a resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. It's really that simple. If you need to apportion blame for the Rwanda Genocide, look to the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia. It was their responsibility to come to agreement on a plan of action to stop the genocide, and to implement it with troop commitments. They simply didn't, until it was too late. The only burden that can be shouldered by the Secretary General (or the head of the peacekeeping forces, as Kofi Annan was at this point) is that perhaps not enough diplomatic shuttle work was done to promote agreement between the permanent UNSC members. Still, the responsibility for that action lay with the permanent members and nobody else. Annan had no power to change Romeo Dallaire's mandate any more than Dallaire himself or Bob the Hotdog Vendor from Timbuktu - if he'd changed the specifications of the mission to preventing genocide, he'd have been breaking international law. Besides which, Dallaire only had 2,500 troops - not enough to stop the genocide even if he'd desired it (and he undoubtedly did). Extra troops would have needed to be authorised by the UNSC. The only way the genocide would have been stopped is if the permanent members of the UN Security Council came to a consensus on preventing it. Now a quote of yours:

Had Dallaire had the necessary forces he was so desperately pleading for, yet still been denied permission to intervene, I honestly believe that this good man of conscience would surely have done the right thing, and disobeyed any contrary orders from his superiors in order to prevent a genocide from occurring.

First, he didn't have the forces. He had 2,500 troops. Any more troops would have to be authorised by the UNSC. There is no where else for the troops to come from. Do you have some sort of impression that the UN has a private army? Second, Kofi Annan was ordering Dallaire to respect the decision (or lack thereof) of the UN Security Council. It had not decided to alter the mandate of UNAMIR (Dalllaire's mission) to allow it to prevent genocide, nor provided it with the troops to do so. This is not a matter of opinion or argument - you're simply factually wrong when you imply that Annan or Dallaire could have unilaterally prevented the genocide: not only would it be against international law, but it was simply not physically possible without troop and logistical reinforcements from the UNSC. There is a dramatic chasm between your perceptions and what the UN actually is. It is not an independent sovereign nation with its own army: it is a club of nations which requires the agreement of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council for action. It's that simple. When people talk about the failure of the UN, they mean (or should mean) "the group of nations which form the United Nations" - not some sort of powerful supranational organisation headed by Kofi Annan with powers to act outside its agreed mandate. Even the Wikipedia article on the United Nations points out the blame of the UNSC for failure to prevent the Rwanda Genocide. Anyway, I feel like I'm getting to the point where I'm simply repeating myself now, so I'll simply end with the suggestion that you read the UN Charter and understand how it operates. Your idea of how the UN operates and can operate is a million miles from the reality of the situation - you need a better grasp of the fine details.

Finally, I don't disagree that Israel has often had a raw deal from the United Nations, from 1948 onwards. I am myself Jewish. But you have to understand the difference between Security Council resolutions and General Assembly resolutions. The first are the powerful ones, and the ones over which the five permanent members hold vetoes. The second are conducted on a simple majoritarian basis by the entirety of the General Assembly. And frankly, if you're holding out for a majority of countries on the planet to be willing to vote down resolutions against Israel, I think we're going to be waiting for a long time. There are many more Arab and Muslim countries than pro-Israeli Western ones - and that's not even counting those who are willing to support anti-Israeli resolutions for political reasons. But it doesn't matter. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, and simply express the will and feelings of the General Assembly, not mandate nations within the UN to action. In almost all matters of real power, it's the UN Security Council that is in charge.

I believe in the UN. It is far from a perfect organisation, but there are ways to improve it (most of them geared around making it much easier to have consensus in the UN Security Council - probably by restricting veto powers. Not to mention the various administrative faults it has suffered, amongst them the oil-for-food scandal. The latter is going to be resolved to a great degree by upcoming reforms at the hands of Ban Ki-Moon). And you have to remember that we're only talking in terms of prevention of genocide and ensuring peace and stability. We haven't even touched on the massive humanitarian role that the UN plays in disaster zones; in providing education and sanitation; in protecting the rights of women, minorities and the disabled; in promoting global causes like action on global warming, deforestation, and so on, and so on. It is simply inconceivable that we could cope without it, or without it being replaced by a more powerful organisation that fulfills and expands its current roles. That's why I cringe when I see people like yourself glibly dismissing the entire organisation or condemning it for faults that lie not with its ethos or the organisation itself, but in the same old political problems of (dis)agreements between nation states (in this case the UN Security Council). I believe that our best hope for the future in terms of nuclear proliferation, global peace and stability, humanitarian aid, third world development and environmental protection and regeneration lies with the UN. In its improvement and increased strength. I believe we’d live in a much more dangerous and less hopeful world if the UN disappeared. The resulting instability would be unimaginable, not least for Britain (my country), Canada (yours) and Israel (ours). I really hope you’ll consider that in future.

Regards,

JF Mephisto 11:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JF,

1) I disagree with many of your assertions and can offer ample evidence to refute them;

2) I don't like being self-congratulatory, but I'm far more educated in the law in general, and the UN in particular than you apparently believe;

3) Please take this as advice to you to be more effective in getting your point across to others: You desperately need to tone down your rhetoric, and most importantly, avoid at all costs any personal remarks, as I did in my previous reply. Otherwise your arguments will come across as insulting, (as is the case here,) and no one will have any interest in taking them seriously (as is again the case here);

4) As such, as I mentioned in my previous reply, I have no interest in engaging UNCIVIL debate.

Loomis 13:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Please go ahead and offer that ample evidence. I'd be very interested to see how you can refute the very text of the UN Charter. It might be more effective to actually deal with my assertions than simply say you can.

2) If you don't like being self-congratulatory, then don't. I find it hard to believe that you have a greater understanding of the issues than I said given your fantastic assertion that Kofi Annan could be tried for war crimes regarding Rwanda. I shall wait with baited breath for the time when you replace the assertion of your greater knowledge with an actual demonstration.

3) I don't accept that I was insulting towards you. For one, I didn't call you any names or call your intentions into question. Second, if I didn't think your knowledge was lacking in certain areas, I'd have no reason to dispute what you were saying in the first place. Would you prefer that I pretended the chasm between your view and mine was a matter of opinion rather than you simply being factually wrong? We aren't discussing the relative merits of abortion - we're discussing whether or not the UN organisation in general and Kofi Annan in particular are to blame for the Rwandan Genocide, as opposed to the inaction of the UN Security Council. Only one of us is right, and I'm pretty sure it isn't you. Though if you do want to talk about insults, I'd suggest that responding to a two-page, comprehensive and detailed response to your post with a paragraph of claims that you're correct - without bothering to actually argue why - might give me more excuse for grievance. I disagree with you, think your opinions are factually incorrect, and (for reasons I'm pretty sure I adequately explained) consider your knowledge in the relevant area to be lacking. Telling you that, while refraining from namecalling, is more or less the point of argument.

4) Perhaps your aversion isn't so much to my manner of debating (which I don't accept has been uncivil in the least), but to actually finding some way to defend your assertions instead of merely claiming you can? Can you tell me in what way I'm incorrect in saying that you were wrong to suggest Kofi Annan or Romeo Dallaire could be held accountable for not stopping the Rwanda Genocide, given that it was the role of the Security Council to prevent it and that both Annan and Dallaire were legally and practically incapable of doing so? I'm sorry, but claiming that you can prove something is not the same as actually doing so.

Regards,

JF Mephisto 14:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JF,

I'm simply at a loss as to why you keep quoting the "UN Charter", chapter and verse, over and over and over again, ad nauseum. You seem to live in some lofty place, far above the rest of us, where there exist such fantastic notions such as the almost divine infallability of "international law" and the "the UN Charter". I'm not sure if you're familiar with Swift's Gulliver's Travels, but you appear to be the very embodiment of a Houyhnhnm. Yet, I still retain more faith in your humanity to actually conclude that much yet.

Maybe that's the problem here. I live down here on Earth. Down here with the Yahoos. And this planet I live on can be a nasty place. And I believe that sometimes, just sometimes, blind obedience to "international law" and blind faith in the UN can actually be more of an impediment to world peace than an aid to it. In fact, many political philosophers argue that the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, did more harm in preventing WWII (and with it the Holocaust) than good. It's my belief that these organizations lead many to a false sense of security. And a false sense of security can be a very dangerous thing.

You speak (rather rudely I'd say,) of me "lecturing from my high horse". You then go on to lecture me quite condescendingly: "[Y]ou have to understand the difference between Security Council resolutions and General Assembly resolutions. The first are the powerful ones, and the ones over which the five permanent members hold vetoes. The second are conducted on a simple majoritarian basis by the entirety of the General Assembly. And frankly, if you're holding out for a majority of countries on the planet to be willing to vote down resolutions against Israel, I think we're going to be waiting for a long time. There are many more Arab and Muslim countries than pro-Israeli Western ones - and that's not even counting those who are willing to support anti-Israeli resolutions for political reasons. But it doesn't matter. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, and simply express the will and feelings of the General Assembly, not mandate nations within the UN to action. In almost all matters of real power, it's the UN Security Council that is in charge".

Why would you so condescendingly assume that I don't know the difference between the UNGA and the UNSC? I never mentioned the General Assembly. Perhaps, instead of burying your head in each minute detail of the "UN Charter", and naively living in some utopia where "international law" = "absolute justice", it might be more fruitful for you to take a look at the history of the UN Security Council resolutions concerning Israel. You know...the ones that count...the ones that involve matters of "real power"...the ones that "mandate nations with the UN to take action." Check out the List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel. Skip over the UNGA resolutions, you know, the ones that don't count, and skip over to the 100 UNSC council resolutions concerning Israel. Do you agree with every one of them? Do you believe that Israel should abide by every one of them?

A personal favourite of mine is UNSC 487. That's the one where all 15 members "condemned" Israel for it's "violation of international law" in destroying Iraq's nuclear power plant at Osiraq in 1981. What a terrible thing Israel did! How nasty of those Israelis for violating the almighty "international law"! What's your take on that one? Was Israel wrong? If Iran develops nukes, and let's just imagine it would be just as easy for Israel to wipe those out too, whould you disapprove of that? If you have any respect for "international law" you'd better! There couldn't be a more "illegal" act than flying into a foreign country and bombing certain of its "civilian, peaceful, power generating installations"!

As for Annan and the Rwandan Genocide, just a little quote from an article on the man:

In his book Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, ex-General Roméo Dallaire who was force commander of the UNAMIR claims that Annan has been overly passive in his response to the 1994 Tutsi genocide in Rwanda. Gen. Dallaire explicitly stated that the then Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations held back UN troops from intervening to settle the conflict and from providing more logistic and material support. For example, he claimed that Annan failed to provide any responses to Dallaire's repeated faxes asking him for access to a weapons depository, something that could have helped defend the Tutsis. Dallaire concedes however that Annan was a man whom he found extremely "committed" to the founding principles of the United Nations.

You don't know me all that well, and so I suppose I can forgive your ignorance concerning my knowledge of the law and world affairs. Surely, though, you must concede that Dallaire has a pretty good grasp of how the UN works. Are you saying that he too should do his homework and reread the UN Charter, in order to finally raise himself to the level of understanding of the UN and its functions that you seem to have?

Dallaire apparently seems to be quite confident that Annan could have done a great deal more. Do you disagree with Dallaire? In terms of additional "forces", it doesn't appear that Dallaire was even asking for any. All it would appear he was asking for was "logistic and material support", such support that he apparently believed Annan himself could provide. We're not talking about committing thousands of additional troops from various nations as you imply. Just some "logistic and material support". And why did Annan fail to reply to the faxes asking him for access to a weapons depository? Of course, Dallaire then concedes that Annan was a man whom he found extremely "committed" to the founding principles of the United Nations". Of course he was! Kofi Annan was a good soldier! And as a good soldier, he turned a blind eye to what was going on, and I have to say it again, just followed orders.

You can lecture me all you want about "the UN Charter" and quote whatever articles, sections, subsections, rules, regulations, whatever. When a genocide is about to happen, all that MUST be thrown out the window. If I were in Annan's position, first of all, I'd give Dallaire every ounce of support within my power. Even if "the UN Charter" explicitly prohibited me from doing it, at the pain of losing my job, I'd go ahead and approve the intervention of the UN forces that were already there, arrange for whatever "logistical and material support" Dallaire seemed to think that Annan himself could personally approve of, answer Dallaire's damned faxes, and then give him access to the weapons depository. I'd then go to the UNSC and each of its member states and implore them to reconsider their decision. Finally, should they still refuse, and should I have gotten to the point where I could no longer be of any use within the UN, I'd call a news conference at which I'd publicly resign my post in disgust, and do my best to expose to the world what was going on.

Edmund Burke once put it so aptly: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." JF, I'm really dissappointed in you. You, of all people, a fellow Jew, a fellow member of a people who once suffered so terribly for very similar reasons, because another people were more devoted to "the law", "the rules", "the regulations", to "the governing authority" than to plain, simple, common decency. Because "good people did nothing". I'm sure you share with me the same dedication: "Never Again"!

Yet it's happened again. Why? Because international law says this, and the UN Charter says that, and the UNGA has this power, and the UNSC has that power, and so on and so on and so on.

Fuck it all! 800,000 died because some of us were too busy with rules and regulations do just take a step back and fucking do the right thing! The UN could have prevented this immense tragedy, and Kofi Annan could have done a whole lot more to help. But he didn't. For me that's a God-damned disgrace, and to me, the UN is a God-damned disgrace of an organization for letting it happen. And Annan is a God-damned disgrace, and a poor excuse for a human being at that.

I'll say it, because I mean it. I would just hope you'd join me in saying it:

NEVER AGAIN

Loomis 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loomis,

I'm simply at a loss as to why you keep quoting the "UN Charter", chapter and verse, over and over and over again, ad nauseum. You seem to live in some lofty place, far above the rest of us, where there exist such fantastic notions such as the almost divine infallability of "international law" and the "the UN Charter". I'm not sure if you're familiar with Swift's Gulliver's Travels, but you appear to be the very embodiment of a Houyhnhnm. Yet, I still retain more faith in your humanity to actually conclude that much yet

First, for whining about my supposed rudeness and then going on to be far ruder than I could have attempted, fuck you. It’s not a question of me worshipping the UN Charter; it’s a question of actually dealing with the issues at hand. You claimed that Kofi Annan could be tried as a war criminal over UN inaction regarding Rwanda. This was simply factually wrong, for the simple reason that the UN Charter, under which the organisation operates, makes it the job of the UNSC to take action over instances of Genocide, not the General Secretariat. It’s really that simple. If we were talking about American politics, I’d probably be talking about the American Constitution. Besides which, insulting me for over-reverence for the Charter isn’t going to change the fact that the Charter is the relevant document, and that it’s pretty clear in making you wrong. Perhaps you would care to remember that this entire conversation was started by your pea-brained assertion that Kofi Annan could be tried as a war criminal. Now, considering the relevant laws, and even common fucking sense, he simply could not. First, because he was legally unable to do anything about it. The General Secretary of the UN does not have the power to intervene in foreign countries. Interventions must be agreed upon by the UN Security Council. It’s ‘’that simple.’ Second, because even if he did have the power (which he doesn’t), the United Nations has no private army – the troops have to be provided by member states. What’s he supposed to do, grab a pistol and stop the genocide himself? Now, in what sort of retarded, upside-down universe could Kofi Annan be considered criminally responsible for the Rwanda Genocide? Perhaps instead of putting your hand to your forehead and proclaiming ‘never again’ (something on which we both obviously agree), it would be more appropriate to consider the facts at hand. You aren’t going to win the argument on Kofi Annan’s criminal responsibility by reminding me of the barbarity of the genocide, sorry. There are no points for melodrama.

Maybe that's the problem here. I live down here on Earth. Down here with the Yahoos. And this planet I live on can be a nasty place. And I believe that sometimes, just sometimes, blind obedience to "international law" and blind faith in the UN can actually be more of an impediment to world peace than an aid to it.

Really? Then perhaps you ought to have been pressing the Canadian government to break international law and send troops to stop the genocide? Or America, Britain, France, China and Russia. Any of them could have sent troops to stop the genocide, but didn’t. Instead, you’re going to place the blame on the one man in all of it who could not have sent troops – Kofi Annan, who was legally and practically incapable of doing so. It isn’t Annan you should be accusing of blind faith to law, it’s all the countries that were practically capable of stopping the Rwandan genocide but simply chose not to because of international law. If you go there, I’m willing to join you in that. After no agreement could be reached at the UNSC, the United States and Britain should have intervened unilaterally. It’s strange that you take the blame from where any rational person can see it should be apportioned and place it at the step of someone who simply could not have done anything about it.

You don't know me all that well, and so I suppose I can forgive your ignorance concerning my knowledge of the law and world affairs. Surely, though, you must concede that Dallaire has a pretty good grasp of how the UN works. Are you saying that he too should do his homework and reread the UN Charter, in order to finally raise himself to the level of understanding of the UN and its functions that you seem to have?

I would, if Dallaire had been saying the same thing as you – which he isn’t. Dallaire said that he wished Annan had allowed him access to a weapons depository so he could defend the Tutsis. Fair enough, but which Tutsis? It wasn’t the Tutsis in general, as you seem to be intimating. It was Tutsti refugees. You’re forgetting that there was no mandate for UNAMIR to stop the genocide. Its mandate was to help implement the Arusha Peace Agreement, by protecting Kigali, coordinate humanitarian assistance and help in clearing minefields. After the violence broke out, its mandate was changed to allow it protect refugees. At no point did the Security Council charge it with stopping the genocide. Perhaps allowing Dallaire access to the depository would have helped in the protection of refugees, but I hardly think I need point out that the ‘’genocide’’ was the rather more pressing problem, and the one we’re discussing. Don’t you think rather more blame for what happened lies with the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China for not agreeing to change UNAMIR’s mandate to preventing the genocide and providing it with the troops to do so? I have no doubt that Annan should have allowed Dallaire access to the depository, as it may have helped to bolster his defence of the refugees. I’m also sure that Annan regrets not doing so. You know what might have helped a lot more? The UNSC increasing the UNAMIR mandate from 2500 peacekeeping troops to a force able to prevent the genocide and not just protect a handful of refugee camps. Annan is not responsible for that, the UN Security Council is.

Edmund Burke once put it so aptly: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." JF, I'm really dissappointed in you. You, of all people, a fellow Jew, a fellow member of a people who once suffered so terribly for very similar reasons, because another people were more devoted to "the law", "the rules", "the regulations", to "the governing authority" than to plain, simple, common decency. Because "good people did nothing". I'm sure you share with me the same dedication: "Never Again"!

You have no fucking right to raise that issue with me. You have no right to compare the Rwandan genocide with the Shoah for the sake of winning a fucking debate on Wikipedia. It had nothing to do with people being devoted to “the rules” – the rules were changed with the consent of the German people. A people whose rulers, largely with their support, went on to commit the Holocaust. How the fuck is that remotely comparable to the United Nations not coming to agreement over preventing genocide in Rwanda? What the fuck does any of it have to do with obeying rules, as opposed to finding a consensus to take action? It’s not even remotely comparable to the situation at hand, and you should know better than to bring it up to win arguments. Any country on this planet with an armed forces and the ability to transport it carries more blame than Kofi Annan when it comes to devotion to “the law” – they were capable of breaking it and preventing the Rwandan genocide. Kofi Annan and the administration of the UN as a whole were not practically capable of anything. It’s you, as a fellow Jew, who should know better: you should know better than comparing the worst crime in human history with anything, let alone something completely different in the hopes of "winning" an internet debate. Shame.

Skip over the UNGA resolutions, you know, the ones that don't count, and skip over to the 100 UNSC council resolutions concerning Israel. Do you agree with every one of them? Do you believe that Israel should abide by every one of them? A personal favourite of mine is UNSC 487. That's the one where all 15 members "condemned" Israel for it's "violation of international law" in destroying Iraq's nuclear power plant at Osiraq in 1981. What a terrible thing Israel did! How nasty of those Israelis for violating the almighty "international law"! What's your take on that one? Was Israel wrong? If Iran develops nukes, and let's just imagine it would be just as easy for Israel to wipe those out too, whould you disapprove of that? If you have any respect for "international law" you'd better! There couldn't be a more "illegal" act than flying into a foreign country and bombing certain of its "civilian, peaceful, power generating installations"!

Do you agree with every law the Canadian Parliament or the Knesset have passed? I’d guess not. Do they therefore deserve to be considered irredeemably disgraced and abandoned? No! The vast majority of UNSC resolutions since 1950 concerning Israel are not condemnatory. Most are neutral (for example, Resolution-242, at the end of the Six-Day War), or in condemnation of attacks against Israel. Those few that remain are almost all on issues on which there is substantial disagreement amongst the Israeli public – for example, condemnation in Resolution-1544 adopted in 2004 of the demolition of homes in southern Gaza. It’s simply not true to make out that the UNSC, despite all its faults (not preventing the Rwandan genocide among them, as I’ve said) is in anyway biased against Israel. The United States and Britain are two of Israel’s biggest supporters (especially the former) and both wield vetoes on the council. Besides, we are talking about the (dis)agreements of the most powerful countries on the planet .That’s what the UNSC is – it isn’t an institution like the UN Development Fund for Women, it is America, France, Britain, Russia and China. Is the UN organisation or its intended purpose to be blamed for those disagreements? Do you think those disagreements would cease to exist if the UN disappeared? No, they would be intensified because there would be no where to work them out. I agree with you about Osiraq, but it still isn’t relevant. Israel had the practical capability to go ahead and bomb it in its own defence, even if it was technically illegal (pre-emptive as opposed to preventive action is not mentioned under the UN Charter, but with upcoming UN reforms the legality of it will probably be settled). Kofi Annan, even if he decided to break international law and step outside of his boundaries and order Dallaire to start preventing genocide, could not provide the troops to do so.This isn’t a question of blind devotion to international law, as I’ve already told you. It’s that legally and practically Kofi Annan was incapable of stopping the Rwandan genocide. You can scream about it until you turn blue in the face, but that doesn’t change the fact that charging Kofi Annan with criminal responsibility for the Rwandan genocide is completely and utterly bizarre. And what’s even more bizarre is that you use the phrase “just following orders”. Annan was given no orders. Orders didn’t even come into it. Annan took no active role in deciding what to do about the genocide. It was the responsibility of the UNSC to do something about the Rwandan genocide – they were the ones with the ability. You still have this woeful misperception about the UN; that somehow it has sovereign powers to intervene in countries as it wishes and that in the case of Rwanda its all-powerful leader decided to obey international law and not do anything. That is so far off the page it isn’t even funny. The UN is a collection of nation states, the most powerful collection of which has the ability to decide to intervene in countries, and then do it under the united name of the UN. The General Secretariat (or, in the case of Kofi Annan, the under secretariat for peacekeeping), is there to administrate and facilitate agreement. It is not there to tell the member states what to do, or to force them into anything. I don’t know how much longer I can accept that you don’t know this, as opposed to just being deliberately obtuse: Kofi Annan was legally and practically incapable of stopping the Rwandan genocide. That responsibility lay with the UN Security Council, which is composed of America, Britain, France, Russia and China. Please, just think that over several times until it sinks in.

Yet it's happened again. Why? Because international law says this, and the UN Charter says that, and the UNGA has this power, and the UNSC has that power, and so on and so on and so on.

I’m sorry, but that’s not how international politics works. You have an awfully simplistic and childlike view of the world: something bad is happening, so therefore it can immediately be stopped. It doesn’t work like that. What you’re asking for is an all-powerful international benevolent dictatorship. What we have – the only thing we can have – is international organisations which are driven by the need for consensus, and defined in terms of treaties, laws and conventions. In the case of genocide, the United Nations are compelled to act in preventing it and punishing it. That is done by way of a Chapter 7 intervention, agreed upon by the UN Security Council. It is not the role of Kofi Annan. It is not even the role of the world’s most powerful country, the United States, who would not be willing and should not be expected to intervene in every such situation given the difficulty of domestic politics (which in the case of Rwanda was a very embarrassing and politically damaging intervention in Somalia less than a year earlier). It is the role of the United Nations Security Council. And the UNSC failed. Not Kofi Annan, not the general secretariat or the under secretariat of peacekeeping, but the UNSC. Simple.

Fuck it all! 800,000 died because some of us were too busy with rules and regulations do just take a step back and fucking do the right thing! The UN could have prevented this immense tragedy, and Kofi Annan could have done a whole lot more to help. But he didn't. For me that's a God-damned disgrace, and to me, the UN is a God-damned disgrace of an organization for letting it happen. And Annan is a God-damned disgrace, and a poor excuse for a human being at that.

Thank you for the histrionics. If I ever need someone to play Erin Brockovich in a made-for-TV movie, I’ll be sure to give you a call. Back in the real world, the reason the Rwandan genocide took place was not because of people’s preoccupation with “rules and regulations.” It was because the UNSC simply failed to come to agreement on sending troops to prevent it. That’s it. And yes, the United Nations in the form of America, Britain, France, Russia and China are a disgrace for not coming to that agreement. And yes, Kofi Annan should have done more to facilitate that agreement (something he has said he regrets: please see here - his regret was that he didn't do more to rally international support and encourage action from the UNSC - hardly a war crime, and certainly much better than what the UNSC did). But that doesn’t mean the entire United Nations should be thrown into the bin, though it must be extremely pleasant to live in a world where it’s possible to have everything done right, and if it isn’t, sack everyone involved and damn the consequences. The UN needs reform: for example, it must be made much easier to achieve agreement on issues like the Rwandan genocide, and much harder to prevaricate or prevent action. There must be a mechanism for forcing immediate consultation when such things happen. There have to be penalties for countries that use the United Nations only as a forum to grandstand or try to get what they want, without doing anything to achieve its aims of global peace and stability. And all those things must, and will, be dealt with. But it’s easy to forget the situations where it has performed reasonably well - for example the Suez Crisis, East Timor and Sierra Leone. And to forget the potential it has to do much, much better given the correct reforms and the willpower. Not to mention its massive, unsung role in humanitarian and environmental efforts through its many institutions which are far too valuable to be thrown away because of its faults, none of which are insurmountable. And the last thing we can do, as Jews, is to make the past treatment of Israel from the General Assembly (and, very rarely, the Security Council), into some kind of litmus test for our support. The United Nations is about more than Israel or the Rwandan genocide or oil-for-food or any of the other fuck-ups. It’s about creating a future for the planet in which conflicts can be resolved peacefully, and action taken to prevent the most egregious offences against humanity; to promote peace, international development and to lift billions out of poverty and conflict into prosperity. It’s to achieve action on the massive threats of nuclear proliferation and global warming, deforestation and overpopulation, arms trafficking and international terrorism. There’s simply no hope without an organisation like the United Nations, and it’s incredibly short-sighted, not to mention unforgivably dangerous, to suggest that it should be abandoned in favour of a survival-of-the-fittest free-for-all with no care for what happens in a decade’s or a century’s time. And you’re the one who is the god-damned disgrace and a poor human being for suggesting otherwise. Grow the fuck up. And, by the way, feel free to make this into a general discussion on the United Nations if you want, but be man enough to admit you were completely and utterly incorrect to suggest that Kofi Annan could be charged with war crimes over Rwanda (and do me the favour of telling me who those "some" were who would "go so far as to suggest" it - I'd be interested to know who else is simultaneously competent enough to use a computer and incompetent enough to suggest something like that).

Regards,

JF.

This has got to be one of the most absurd "discussions" I've ever had. It all apparently began with your reaction to my post on the RefDesk. I'll reproduce it for convenience:

"Calling Rwanda a UN "failure" is one hell of an understatement, considering its magnitude (800,000 dead) and relative preventability of it, in comparison to certain other far less bloody, far more complex and far less clear-cut instances of the failure of a third-party to prevent a tragedy from occuring, where some of the figures involved were indeed charged by some to be war criminals. Some would go so far as to charge Kofi Anan as a war criminal for his deliberate inaction, if only the political sensibilities of the powers-that-be were any different."

The absurdity of it all is that I don't even think we disagree on my the real point I was trying to make. I tend to find rhetorical devices rather than literal English as a far more effective ways of conveying a point. Most readers are able to decipher these tongue-in-cheek remarks and understand my point. Unfortunately, it would appear that unlike most others at the RefDesk, the obvious subtext of my remark (which even included a hyperlink to the Sabra and Shatilla Massacre) seems to have gone completely over your head. And please, don't accuse me of "backtracking". In my very first response to your post, I tried to clarify the tongue-in-cheek nature of my post. I even tried to clarify it so you'd better understand what my real point was. So, without any insult towards you, I'll repeat my point in simple English:

My argument was NOT AT ALL about the UN, and ALL about world community's obvious anti-semitic, anti-Israel mentality that subjects Israel to double standards that it does not impose on others.

This mentality has branded Ariel Sharon as a war criminal for what was at the very worst a fuck-up in Lebanon leading to the deaths of some 2,000 Palestinians. He's even been indicted by that Belgian Kangaroo Court for war crimes due to this incident. Yet no one has ever come anywhere near as close to criticizing Annan for his fuck-up in Rwanda, which you yourself appear to agree was a fuck-up (you conceded yourself that he had his "regrets"). My comment about Annan being a war criminal was obvious hyperbole. I don't believe that Sharon or Annan are "war criminals". Have you noticed that throughout our entire discussion, I never once suggested that Annan should be indicted for war crimes? My tongue-in-cheek remark was meant to highlight the fact that had there not existed in the world community that obvious and apparent anti-semitic, anti-Israel bias, Annan would have suffered at least as much criticism as Sharon. Yet obviously he didn't. My point was, that if the world considers Ariel Sharon to be a "war criminal" (which I believe is a ridiculous notion), then, by the same standards, a fortiori, Kofi Annan should be considered all the moreso as a "war criminal" (which I also believe is ridiculous). The comment was obviously meant as a satirical jibe at the world's anti-semitic and anti-Israel bias. Unfortunately you missed it.

However, I would at the very least expect you to acknowledge that your interpretation of my remark was mistaken, however innocently.

I have to give you credit though. Somehow you managed to bait be into a whole big flame war over the UN, which I'll repeat, had nothing to do with my remark, and got me totally off track with regards to the point I was trying to make. We disagree about the UN. Fine. I'm ok with that, I'm ok with the fact that not everyone shares my views, and I'm able to "agree to disagree". Are you? Can we please "agree to disagree" on the whole UN thing, as, once again, the pros and cons of the UN had little to nothing to do with my remark.

You know, when I think about it, the way "flame wars" develop tend to serve as a great microcosmic analogy for how some REAL wars develop. They tend to begin with a relatively small offensive act (perceived or real), based on a difference of opinion or miscommunication, one which can easily be nipped in the bud if both parties are willing to sit down and defuse whatever tension has developed. Unfortunately in many cases this is not achieved, and the level of animosity tends to escalate into tragic violence, at which the process tends to take a life of its own, beyond the control of either party.

JF, let's please try to end this "flame war" which has developed between us. Let's please just "agree to disagree" on the UN thing.

I'll admit that at times my language can at times be rather mildly arrogant or condescending, but that's a far cry from referring to me as "Pea-brained" or "Retarded". If for whatever reason you feel compelled to continue with the same "Fuck you!", "Grow the fuck up" (and I'm only picking a select few) type language, please, and I'm serious here, I have absolutely no interest in hearing back from you. If you find it impossible to get your message across without further polluting my talk page with such vulger and abusive language, let me make this as clear as is humanly possible: PLEASE, DO NOT RESPOND. THIS DEBATE IS OVER.

On the other hand, having tossed you an olive branch, I hope you'll accept it. Should you wish to further discuss anything, as I said from the very beginning, I'm always open to civil, friendly "robust intellectual debate".

All the best,

Lewis

Loomis 18:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, time for my two cents:

I generally agree with JF on the facts, with one exception. 2500 troops were enough to make a substantial difference, if properly armed, and could have saved many lives, considering that those committing the genocide were generally only armed with machetes. And while there was no mandate to prevent genocide, that should be inherent in the UN Charter (but apparently is not). Something to the effect of "Wherever UN troops are stationed, they should consider it their duty to report, and, where possible, prevent genocide from occurring." The mandate they did have, to "protect refugees" could have been fudged a bit to allow for the prevention of genocide. Had I been Kofi Annan, that's exactly what I would have done. They could fire me if they wanted, as some things are far more important than a job. But Annan didn't do this, and followed the precise letter of the law (or UNSC resolutions), instead. I believe this was what Loomis was getting at with his "just following orders" comments.

As for the uncivil language, Loomis did appear to accuse JF of this before it actually happened. Nonetheless, JF then did then start the use the very language he had been earlier accused of using.

As for the uselessness of the UN, I agree with Loomis on this one. The reasons are many. They give too much power to some rather unimportant nations, like France. They give too much power to nations which are utterly unconcerned with preventing genocide, like China, which is actively working to block any action on the Darfur genocide (to protect their business interests there). They generally only condemn the actions of states, like Israel, while largely ignoring actions by non-state organizations, such as Hezbollah. Viewed in that context, they see the recent conflict as "Israel engaged in an unprovoked invasion of Lebanon". Of course, they were provoked by Hezbollah, but, the UN largely ignores Hezbollah, since they are not a state. I feel that an organization without evil nations (like China, which fully supports genocide when it serves their interests), is needed. Fortunately, we have such an organization, NATO. And, indeed, they have been far more successful in stopping genocide, as in the former Yugoslavia, than the UN has been. StuRat 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hii!!

Hi,

I decided to take some time off from my somewhat busy schedule to say How ya doin!? I joined college and doing the course of Computer Science and Engineering :-) .. Its pretty alright and the work is just about keeping me busy most of the time. My bands been almost completely disbanded. We are looking to get back together in the holidays sometime. How are things on your side? Hope everything is fine! Looking forward to a reply! :D ..Cheers! See ya around! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 15:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jayant. Sorry for my absence for the last while. My computer had to be repaired and I've just generally been really busy. But it's great to hear from you, and to hear that you're well. Hopefully we can get back in touch as soon as things settle down for me a bit.

Take Care,

Lewis

Loomis 18:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem!

Personally, I think it's a great word, and I hope it does enter the common parlance. I don't think you need to worry about how the article was received--it's clear that you're committed to Wikipedia and everyone makes mistakes or has areas of policy they're not quite familiar with. (Yes, even admins!) Happy editing! -- Merope ^Talk 18:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Song!

Hii!

I am back with another song..! Although this time it was only me and my brother. I played the guitar (everything including the rhythm and the solo :-P and my bro wrote the lyrics and also did the vocals. the songs called Out of Focus. Give it a listen if ya can and leave your thoughts on it. :-)

Heres the links for both streaming and direct downloading:

Stream it

Direct Download from Geocities

Thanks a lot!

Cheers!

P.S.: I didnt wanna clutter your talk page by pasting the lyrics even though they are a little hard to understand due to the quality of the recording. Gimme a shout if you want the lyrics or if you have any problems while listening. Thanks a lot again!

Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jebus

Hi, sorry if you misenterprated my point as blaming Jews for the death of christ, as I did not mean that, simply that those responsible were probably of jewish faith. Also it is harsh to associate the romans with modern Italians as that empire was well and truly quashed by Germanic tribes. The romans in Israel were probably predominantally recruited in Israel, though commanded by romans. But anyway, yeh I agree we cannot hold modern jews responsible for what happened, as they in no way whatesoever are responsible, and neither is their faith as a group. No one should feel at shame for what happened 2000 years ago. But im simply saying, that jews according to scriptures, and by probability (a majority of israelis were jews) a person or group of people of jewish faith were probably responsible, even if they didnt carry out the act, of the death of Jesus. Though I dont hold this as anything to do with thier faith, no more than I say middle eastern people killed christ, or northern hemispheric people killed christ, all of which I believe are equally true-er statements. Future pas and present jews should feel no connection to this act though, I agree, it has nothing to do with faith wether you were responsible for Jesus' death. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I to would agree that the jews should not be forgiven for jesus death as they are not responsible, and so forgiving them would in some way imply that the faith holds the resposibility for his death. I may have been wrong, but I was under the impression (pssibly falsley) that the romans crucified jesus by order of pontius pilot, who had asked an unruly mass of israelites whjo they'd prefer be executed, they demanded jesus. I assumed that Israelites (if that is the correct term) were predominantyally of jewish faith, and thereofre the crowd was most likely of predominantally jewish faith, and it was them that demanded his death. Of course, blaming jews for this is no more right than blaming christians for WW2, as it was indeed almost all christian countries that fought. So yeh, I dont know if I'm right or wrong, feel free to enlighten me, but the last thing I want to offend you, in any way. PS. Have been away for the week unexpectedly sorry for late reply. Philc _T^E_C^I 09:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I mention Congress

I believe that Congress has far more power than the President. You may very well disagree, but for the rest of this to make sense, just assume that they do.

Every day, you can pick up the newspaper or tune into to CNN and you will be told that Bush passed a new law or set some foreign policy. The truth is that Congress passes laws. The President just signs them. If the President gives a law a veto, Congress can still pass it without him. As far as foreign policy, the President can give a speech and say we are opposed to North Korea. Congress passes laws to limit trade with North Korea. Congress allocates the budget to send troops to North Korea if necessary. Congress allocates the budget to fund South Korea's military. So, the press tells us that the President is behind all of the decisions that control our country and how it works with the rest of the world. The truth is that Congress is hiding behind the President's apparent power.

So, we end up with a lot of people complaining about how we need to replace the President. Congress has continued on a steady path of making themselves more powerful for over 200 years. That is the goal - ultimate power. Many Presidents have come and gone and Congress hasn't faultered once. There has been times that is mistakenly let the public know it was too powerful (ie: the Red Scare). But, they are good at the game. A few Senators overstep their bounds, so Congress argues for 10 years and passes a law to limit the power of the President, FBI, and CIA (FISA).

I blame Congress for the state of our nation. I blame the press for allowing Congress to get away with it by claiming the President is responsible for every action that Congress does.

As for sniping remarks about simple governmental laws (such as the President being limited to 2 terms), my disgust of the press' reporting on government is far less than the bloggers who know nothing about government, yet claim that they have all the answers. In one blog, you will read that Bush is an evil genius who masterminded every bad thing in the world AND he is a complete idiot who couldn't figure out how to make a grilled cheese sandwich if his life depended on it. I don't like Bush, but I am forced to appear like a pro-Bush moron when I explain how idiotic those comments are. I've found that it is best to simply snipe the comments and repeat the mantra: "If we don't like our government, we must change Congress."

I know that immigrants are required to learn about government to get citizenship. Unfortunately, those born in the U.S. aren't even required to learn to read. So, I hope that it is true that immigration will overrun the natural citizens. Then, it will be harder for Congress to use the press to hide behind the President. I know - a lot of wishful thinking based on opinions that most people disagree with, but I'm lucky to live in a country where I'm allowed to have such stupid opinions. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a high-perhaps.

Thank you, Loomis (Lewis, if you prefer) for your high estimation of my contributions. In the words of John Wayne, 'Flattery will get you everywhere'. I don't really think we got off to a 'slightly rocky start', as you put it; we merely had a 'frank exchange of views', as the politicians say. I think that you are probably right, and I am on a roll at the moment; but it really depends on the kind of questions that are put forward, and if I feel I can make a useful and valid contribution. There are a great many where I simply choose to remain silent.

If you don't mind I prefer to remain anonymous; but I will stick around for the time being, and contribute where I can. Once again my thanks for your positive affirmation; and as far as intellect is concerned I think we walk hand in hand.

PS Thanks for the award! I will treasure it always.Clio the Muse 02:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clio-one of nine.

Hello, again, Loomis. You are right Clio is female; she is the Greek muse of history and poetry, one of the nine conceived by Zeus and Mnemosyne, the spirit of memory. That is not to say that I am female, of course. I'll just have to keep you guessing! You are right about Mae West, though I was using the John Wayne version from the movie Comancheros just to be a little less obvious. And on your final point all true wisdom begins with Socrates and humility, as you have obviously recognized on your user page. Very best wishes. Clio the Muse 22:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah

Chill hehe Philc _T^E_C^I

hehe sure, all in the past. Nah goin away was completely un wiki related, I ended up in Thailand for the week. Was good fun. Hehe, what your wrote was a perfectly good argument, but you really got stuck into the politacally volatile aspect of that discussion, someone else could easily make that nasty is all. Yer Buddys, hehe sounds so cheesy and north american to me, like out of a US sitcom. hehe. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flamarande - a honest discussion (I would like to continue it here please)

Ok Loomis, let's talk a little about politics, if you don't mind that is. I actually respect you and read your posts with a great care. I also apreciate a good and reasonable debate. So let me give you my honest opinion. On this planet we have the UN. The UN is completly powerless, it has no troops of its own and is completly dependent (in political, financial terms, etc) upon the Security council). Inside the Sec council the real power is in the hand of the big 5 with the Veto right. The UN doens't make any international laws or resolutions at will. Invidual countries propose them and the other countries agree with them or not. If the majority of the countries agree or not the resolution passes. If a single one of the big 5 vetoes the resolution it fails to pass. Real power is in the hands of the big 5.

The real purpose of the UN is not to impose peace at gunpoint or rule the world. It is largely a safe neutral meeting place where every country can speak its mind and defend its POV. In this aspect the UN is quite valuable. During the Cuban missile crisis Kennedy presented the famous photographs of the missile sites and the Soviet Union was hereby publicly humiliated (they didn't remove the missiles because of that but it certainly helped).

What I dislike is that the USA basicly ignores the UN when it wants and later complains that the UN is not doing enough. Let's just use the invasion of Iraq. First the USA and the UK complained that Iraq was hiding WOMD's. The UN inspectors (with some spies of the USA and UK amongst them), under the leadership of Hans Blix, investigated under difficult circunstances with heavy Iraqi interference but finished with negative results. Two liars choose to ignore everything and everybody including their own intelligence agencies and several reports were spiced, and to plain simply forged into presenting what the "dynamic duo" wanted to see. They invaded Iraq.

Loomis let's live in this world. Many countries have great problems with ethnicities and many of these ethnic groups are just slumbering ready to awake and reclaim their own countries under radical leaders (Milosevic being a perfect example). It is almost inevitable as the borders were drawn by senseless European politicians with no regard whatsoever towards history, ethnicity, language, religion, etc. A real national feeling and loyalty is growing in these countries but it takes a huge amount of time, several decades at least. Iraq is such a place; with several ethnic and religious groups who don't like each other. They were quiet while Sadam supressed them (with a huge amount of blood I won't deny it). Why do you think Bush senior didn't finish him of during the 1st Gulf War? Because the UN said: "Stop and make a cease-fire at 12:00 or else...?" If you believed in that one, I must ask you: "What would stop the USA from vetoing the UN cease-fire proposal? Public opinion?" Don't pretend with me that you belive in that one. The UN proclaimed the cease-fire because Bush Sr let it know (through unoffical channels) that he didn't want to finish the regime of Sadam off. Sadam's regime evil as it was kept the surrounding countries (like Iran) in line and it kept its own ethnicities in line. Somebody truly naive might say: "Let them revolt and fight for their own country." I am a realist and I know that revolting ethnicies will always (re)draw their own borders in blood. They will slaughter each other for all kind of reasons and excuses. It happened with the former Yugoslavia and Somalia, it was beginning to happen in Indonesia, and is very likely to happen with Iraq.

I certainly would like it that such countries gained a democracy and freedom. It would the world a bit safer. But democracy is only really worthy if it is stable (as Germany showed us = weak and feeble democracy great danger).

Too many Neo-Cons believe that they can somehow force Democracy to other nations down their throats through force, and tell us that since it worked so well with Japan and Germany it will also work with X. They are truly simple-minded and whoever believes in them is a fool.

1st) G and J might have tiny minorities inside but their nationality was/is founded in stable grounds unlike Afghanistan, Iraq etc.
2nd) the Germans and Japanese knew that they were the bad guys (having attacked first) even if they had a hard time in admitting it. They were quite gratefull that the allies didn't extract reprisals upon the population (exceptions nonewithstanding)
3) these ppls were/are largely lawfull and as whole unarmed; they didn't have a couple of Kalashnokovs at home like many of the Iraqui ppl have, and those who had were obliged to deliver them to the occupation forces.
4) and despite Nr3 there were more allied forces in Germany and Japan at the end of the war than today in Iraq and this is simple madness; you are ocupying a more rebellious armed country with fewer troops.
5)The Imperial Japanese and the German Nazi leadership was guilty as hell but they got a fair trial (in my huble opinion). Tell me if you really believe that Sadam's trial was truly fair (I am not disputing that he is guilty or challenging the Death penalty), but the dismissal of a judge because he was too nice ! to the accused and the murder of two defense laywers makes a mockery of the trial).

Another major point nobody likes to discuss: Many among the Iraqui (let's not even speak about the whole region) ppl don't like Americans, British, Australians and Westerners in general. To be blunt and honest and let's not mince words: they don't like Christians much and invading Christians even less. Any blunder like Abu Ghraib is more than enough reason for many Arabs to grab a gun and to fight against the "ungodly invaders". Colateral damage due simple incompetence or simple mistakes is used by radical preachers to preach Jihad. You knew it, I knew it, anyone with a good brain knew it before the invasion.

And for what? Non-existant WOMD's? False links between Sadam and Al-Quaeda? Sadam was hated by Al-Quaeda. He (as any tyrant) would never share power with them as he was afraid of them. His support is doubtfull (there is more Saudi support being Ussama than Sadam would ever give). Iraqui Freedom? What Freedom is that? Freedom to be blown to bits by a roadside bomb? Freedom to slaughtered by your neigbour? Freedom to go to the funerals of your relatives? Freedom to get blown to bits in your wedding because some American officer believed that it was a gathering of insurgents? The dish was served by somebody else (USA) and the cost is simply too high (Iraqui blood).

How about OIL for American Oil companies and reconstruction money for certain American companies like Stanley Burton? American blood for Oil and cash, what a deal.

There is still hope: IF somehow the country stays together, and IF somehow peace returns when the US troops leave. And IF noone (like Iran) attacks a feeble Iraq then someone might think that it was worth it all. But the Iraquis have paid a too high price allready. And even all this goes well (and chances are simply against it) they won't like the USA any better. Why? Because the Americans are Christians (and this is a major factor in that region) and if somehow the Iraqis proclaim they are gratefull towards them they will be considered traitours by other Arabs and noone wants to be called a traitour. At least that is my humble POV.

Loomis, all this was known before the invasion of Iraq. It was a foreseable clusterfuc* from the start: false reasons and predictable results. Call me a pesimist, I call it realism.Flamarande 22:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vigorous-not boring

Hi, Lewis. I may not always agree with you but I enjoy your direct and-occasionaly-passionate input. You advocate and defend a position with freshness and vigour. Unfortunately Dirk is beginning to come across, perhaps unintentionally on his part, with a plodding and not very imaginative schoolboy Marxism. I really do not want to take issue with his politics; but there are times when what he says is both innacurate and, more important, completely out of place. His recent intervention in the Music in China question is a case in point. However, it may be that I am simply beginning to reveal some of my own political prejudice. From Cuba to Cambodia I have seen the effects of Communism at close hand to be entirely neutral in the matter; and I find the defence of dictatorship and tyranny, whatever form it takes, to be disingenuous, if not malicious. Generally speaking I take a conservative and libertarian perspective on history, culture and politics; and though you and I may differ in style, we do not in substance. Clio the Muse 23:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, Lewis. That really is quite some combination of positions, commitments, attitudes and beliefs! I usually tend to play my cards very close to the chest. When asked about my political outlook I often prefer to quote the following exchange between Anthony Ashley Cooper, the first earl of Shaftesbury, and an unknown female. Madam, men of sense have but one religion'. 'What religion is that, my lord'? 'Why, madam, men of sense never say. Clio the Muse 04:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George? No, I don't think so-far too ordinary. Now, if you had suggested 'Baroness Dudevant' that would have been much more in keeping with my style!. Clio the Muse 23:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porn Insane

Lewis, just in case you miss this (it has now slipped into the archives) your addiction to "porn content and insane culture" has at last been detected. The point in question is to be found in the list for 19 November under 'Sexual impatience'. This reminds me of the French composer Ravel. When his Boléro was premiered in Paris in 1928 a woman in the audience apparently said "He's mad". On hearing of this, Ravel said "She has understood!" Anyway, if you ever write your autobiography what better title do you need than Porn Insane. I envy you! Clio the Muse 08:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lewis. I just thought it was a complete gas, and I did not want you to miss it. It's obvious that English is not the writer's first language; but what he has written is so overblown and pompous it merely invites ridicule, rather than sympathy. It is just so, so funny. Yes, I saw the comment on Mr. Rat, which I also found amusing. I have a feeling that that there was a deliberate attempt at provocation here. Clio the Muse 00:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

Template:AndonicO's version of Randfan's Happy Thanksgiving template

Sea Green Incorruptible

I enjoyed it too, Lewis! I always look forward to your contributions. It's interesting how quickly one gets to 'know people' in such a disembodied format. I already have a 'nose' for some of the time wasters and the losers. If I know who I like I also know who gets on my nerves, and there are two of those, not mentioning, for obvious reasons, any names. Oh, yes, before I forget, I think you are a lawyer, or work in the law in some capacity? I do not really think you resemble Robespierre in any way! All good fun. Best wishes. Clio the Muse 14:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elm! Spot on. No real surprise, I suppose. I think it would not be politic to mention the other by signature. I will say, though, that his 'contributions' and interventions are light-weight in the extreme and, I think, intentionally disruptive. Beyond that I will not go. Thank you for all of that interesting biographical background. I suppose I owe you a little, just a little, in return. Yes, I am female, which you might have been able to gather from some of the other reference pages, if you ever go there. And, yes, I am English, though my spelling should have given that away (Do Canadians spell the same way as Americans?)

Please do not worry about the tone I may take on the Reference Desk, which, in the main, is generally detached and coldly intellectual. However, I posted the above note by way of reassurance, just in case I had upset you in any way. The Sea Green Incorruptible is how Thomas Carlyle describes Robespierre in his book on the French Revolution-meaning he was as pure as the sea is green. Catch you later. Clio the Muse 00:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loomis

Hi, Loomis, I was answering a question over at the Humanities Ref. Desk and saw that you seemed quite upset with someone. Probably the Ref. Desk isn't the best place to go back and forth in a cross manner because there's a good deal of concern right now about the way editors handle themselves on the Ref Desk, mainly the Misc. Desk but people tend to wander back & forth around there. You might also consider contributing to the discussion on the Ref Desk talk page, or not. Enjoy your weekend. -THB 07:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remembering that someone told me not to talk about Ref Desk ON Ref Desk, I am moving to here my comment and request about a recent post of yours, which I reproduce here:

Clio, it's becoming more and more apparent, not just to me, but clearly to many others as well that your remarks are beginning to show a rather consistent pattern: Much very arrogant rhetoric, yet with little if any substance. You make many rather empty and rather insulting allegations, but you don't seem to care to bother to elaborate. (Obviously because they're baseless and you yourself are incapable of elaborating on them). "You might begin, then, by recognizing the contradictions in your own statement..." Huh? Contradictions in my own statement? What? Where? Who? How? I'd be infinitely pleased if you would PLEASE describe to me what contradiction you're talking about. You then suggest I "do more reading on the Cotton Gin". You're always suggesting I "do more reading on this" or "do more reading on that". What a total cop-out! I've done quite a bit of reading on the "Cotton Gin". So let me call your bluff: Had I done (yet more) reading on the "Cotton Gin", what exactly would you expect me to find that would force me to withdraw my argument? Seriously Clio, what is it that I missed in all my readings that renders my argument invalid? Oh, and I know how the pattern ends: with the ultimate cop-out, phrased as arrogantly as possible "I refuse to discuss the matter further. The rest is silence". Clio, I really have to hand it to you. You really had me going there for a while. I'm actually embarrassed at how long it took me to finally recognize you for the absolute fraud you are. Loomis 06:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And here I will step in to request that civility be practiced per WP:NPA, and that personal attacks be deleted by those who have posted them. Answer the question posed, and address the comments, not the character of the other editor. Edison 16:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, you're deliberately not giving Clio enough credit. You can't possibly feel so differently about someone in such a short period of time unless the feelings were quite strong to begin with.

You knew she had a valid objection to you applying 21st century spectacles to motivations of 18th century people even though the beliefs behind your statements are admirable. Her mild criticism of your strong expressions must have really been taken to your heart to provoke such a reaction from you, intentionally hurting her feelings with your comments. You certainly knew where to punch and didn't spare force. I hope that you take Edison's comments seriously. I can only imagine that everyone was quite surprised by all of this and would like to see it rectified. It's very much in contrast with the gushing you did on her talk page such a short time ago. -THB 17:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you left the statement on the RD, too. I am assuming that was an oversight and I'll hide it until you can delete it. If I'm wrong I apologize in advance. Shoot me. -THB 17:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loomis, I just saw the comment on the RD talk page. You should remove it because you don't mean it. -THB 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised on my opinion on Iraq ?

Hi Lewis,

What surprised you on my attitude toward Iraq ? StuRat 10:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for Ref Desk opinions ?

Would you care to comment on rules for Ref Desk opinions: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Next_item_for_consensus_discussion:_Opinion ? StuRat 17:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ?

Sorry to bother you again, but would you care to comment on: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Opinions_on_template_removal ? StuRat 21:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote on attempt to delete new Ref Desk rules

Vote here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. StuRat 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 714: / Line 714: @@
 Sorry to bother you again, but would you care to comment on: [[Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Opinions_on_template_removal]] ? [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
+== Please vote on attempt to delete new Ref Desk rules ==
+Vote here: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules]]. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)