Misplaced Pages

Talk:LaRouche movement: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:39, 2 August 2008 editWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits "premature" archive to foster peace← Previous edit Revision as of 22:08, 2 August 2008 edit undoPolly Hedra (talk | contribs)142 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:


*] *]

It looks like there has been some monkey business here. I don't know what "premature archiving" is, but I would like to respond to the statement by Will Beback that Dennis King's book "is undoubtedly a reliable source and a valuable resource to readers interested in this topic." Dennis King's book isn't even a real book in the normal sense. Normally, an author approaches a publisher and says, "Would you like to publish this book? It's well written and informative." In this case, Doubleday was approached by some spooky foundations and told, "Here's some money. Publish the book." As I understand it, almost no copies of the book were actually sold in bookstores. Instead, it was purchased in bulk by the foundation sponsors and distributed for free to libraries and organizations. The whole thing was an exercise in propaganda. --] (]) 22:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:08, 2 August 2008

Mediation, arbitration,
requests for clarification, and
other discussions about the
LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement,
AN/I, 2005-8
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:

It looks like there has been some monkey business here. I don't know what "premature archiving" is, but I would like to respond to the statement by Will Beback that Dennis King's book "is undoubtedly a reliable source and a valuable resource to readers interested in this topic." Dennis King's book isn't even a real book in the normal sense. Normally, an author approaches a publisher and says, "Would you like to publish this book? It's well written and informative." In this case, Doubleday was approached by some spooky foundations and told, "Here's some money. Publish the book." As I understand it, almost no copies of the book were actually sold in bookstores. Instead, it was purchased in bulk by the foundation sponsors and distributed for free to libraries and organizations. The whole thing was an exercise in propaganda. --Polly Hedra (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)