Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:22, 8 June 2005

George W. Bush and Hatfield's allegations

Someone has restored the section you have repeatedly removed, so I've edited it to clarify the source of the allegations. Hatfield said he confirmed the cocaine bust story with unnamed sources close to the Bush family. Not having the sources, and without any records to support the story, we cannot say whether Hatfield's allegations are true or false. They're plausible, however, and not something that should just be kicked under the carpet.

Rather than a partisan approach, Misplaced Pages adopts a neutral point of view (NPOV). The essence of this can be expressed as follows: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves". The founder, Jimmy Wales. has described the neutral point of view principle on Misplaced Pages as "non-negotiable". It's a rule we must all follow as contributors.

If as appears to me you are fairly new to Misplaced Pages, you may find this a little difficult to get used to, but I urge you to watch how talk pages are used to iron out differences of opinion so that a form of words that conforms to NPOV can be found. If you have problems with the current form of words--for instance, you seem to be concerned that allegations are being treated as facts rather than opinions--please join the discussion on Talk:George W. Bush. We should be able to work something out without engaging in edit wars. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plausible doesn't cut it

I disagree in regards to the George Bush article. J.H. Hatfield's book has no proven facts, only assertions and inuendo. Therefore, in an effort to be NPOV I still continue to state that the reference to this book and the allegations of cocaine use by President George Bush are not what I can say are good examples of NPOV. They are instead placed in the article purely from the standpoint of POV and that POV is an effort to slander, not an effort to educate. With that much said, and in light of the fact that I obviously have a serious difference in perspective with the major contributors to the George Bush article, I would like to clearly state that I feel that this one point is only a minute part of the problem with that article. I feel that the entire article is rubbish and beyond any hope of repair because the major contributors are those that have a POV of dislike of George Bush to an extreme and it is impossible for them to adopt a NPOV. --MONGO|Talk

I've already laid out the essence of NPOV for you. It's "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." So in my edit to the restored paragraph about Hatfield's allegations I gave more background detail (the circulated email discussed in Salon, the three people close to the Bush family that Hatfield claimed acknowledged the story of the alleged coke bust and coverup). The section also contains information about the revelations about Hatfield's felony conviction, which effectively killed his credibility and probably led to his suicide. I do this because it constituted a significant investigation of moderately serious allegations about George W. Bush's early adult life; to leave it out would be a serious omission.

If you think I've got the balance of facts, or facts about opinions, wrong, feel free to obtain more facts, or facts about opinions, and add them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discrediting Hatfield

Jeez... are we writing an article about George Bush here or someone else? I don't care to further discredit Hatfield, he did that for himself, and wrote the book just to make a buck...would anyone buy it if he didn't have slander to sell? The article isn't worthy of any credit as far as being a worthwhile enterprise of research...it is just too leftist, angry and well, the main contributors are biased beyond hope. --MONGO|Talk

Could you explain which parts of the article you think are leftist and which parts appear to be angry? I have to admit that the article seems to my tastes to be, if anything, a little dry, but is refreshingly free of the hectoring tones of left and right partisan propaganda. But if you could give an example perhaps we could discuss it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Leftist redundancy

Tony...let's explain so you understand...I think this entire GEORGE BUSH article reeks of leftist redundancy and I am not going to detail it for you. I can say that I would NEVER recommend this source as a point of reference for anyone doing legitimate research on George Bush. I stated that there are published articles, books and related material that portray Adolph Hitler as a different man than the one we know to be true and that these articles are so ridiculous that we would never even mention them on any Wiki page about that man. We accept Hitler as the one of the biggest mistakes of evolution and as a matter of providing a factual based accord of his misdeeds, these published books which cast him in a completely different light and are without basis in fact, are OMITTED. But this rule doesn't apply for the major contributors to the George Bush article. Repeatedly, ad nauseum, references are made that attempt to show that George Bush is a cocaine user or at least was, that he is still a drunk and these references are all from questionable sources. My opponents in this seem to think that the allegations are admissible based on the fact that someone said them...and therefore follow WIKI rules...I say, they are to be OMITTED because they are of a questionable source that has no PROOF and unless it can be shown to be TRUE, they have no place here. I say that they are in the article because the major contributors are leftist and are anti Bush and therefore there is no hope they can be swayed. --MONGO 13:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea for writing an encyclopedia--omit all opinions that are not provable--but would be rather difficult to implement. We wouldn't be able to report Adolf Hitler's belief that the Jews were an inferior race because that cannot be proven. We wouldn't be able to report on any politicians' opinions at all except perhaps very old ones and then only that portion of their beliefs that had been proven true by events. The allegations of criminal conduct by President Clinton and Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater scandal? Special Prosecutor Ray reported to Congress: "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct." The Whitewater allegations could not stand in a court of law, so we could not report them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

Haven't you heard of Hitler's book Mein Kamph? Perhaps it wasn't spoken that Hitler was anti semtic, but it certainly was spoken that he believed the "Aryan" peoples to be superior to all others. The whitewater scandal is like comparing a mountain to an anthill to the alleged cocaine use by George Bush. Sure, it was proven that there was reasonable doubt that the Clintons had nothing to do with the allegations yet it is reported because it is of a different magnitude. Grand jury investigations, millions and millions of your tax dollars, special prosecutors sure do sound to me to be a little bit more serious than the writings of a convicted felon whose book was pulled from shelfs and a known leftist enterprise such as Salon which has operated on a narrow margin, needs money or attention and has an axe to grind. --MONGO 10:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it...at all. This article is a worthless rag and the only place it is acceptable is here. I'm not going to discuss it any further and you can say whatever you wish as my opinion is different which means that since it is in opposition to yours, we are at an impasse. It is unfortunate that preposterous rubbish like this can be used in what is to be considered a point of reference and is, along with a considerable more unsubstantiated baloney, included in this article.--MONGO 21:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Newspapers and books use confidential sources all the time. That's usually the only way to get the dirt -- otherwise nobody would talk. It's an accepted, legitimate practice in journalism. By all means, discredit it (in NPOV language of course), but it was a big enough controversy that it needs to be included. Timbo ( t a l k ) 19:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should not surprise me (although it does) that you can characterize Salon as any kind of leftist enterprise. Goodness, if you ever found a copy of New Statesman, you'd run out of words to describe it. As for The Morning Star, you'd be absolutely speechless. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I find CBS news to be leftist. I consider all of Hollywood to be leftist. I consider Micheal Moore to be a scary leftist. I do not fear these people, but in fact, I think they are extremists. If you read my user page, and fail to see that I set it up to be preposterous, then you miss my point. Folks that call the George Bush article good editing or sound research, folks like Michael Moore and loud mouthed Hollywood types that need to stick to acting, make people like me become MORE conservative. On a political spectrum, our country is far more liberal than it was even 20 years ago. Kennedy would have definitely been to the right of Clinton. Truman would have been to the right of Kennedy, Wilson would have been to the right of Truman. That modern day hollywood types and leftist rags can refer to Bush as an ultra conservative is absurd. He is only so in light of modern politics and would have been a liberal if he held the same perspectives even 50 years ago. He is, however far right of anyone since Reagan, though probably not more so. --MONGO 07:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. I've got a clearer picture of your point of view now. However from an external perspective things look very different It seems clear to most outsiders that US politics has become extremely right wing in the past thirty years or so. The public demands ever more savage prison sentences, welfare provision is attacked, moves to a comprehensive health service are widely regarded as political suicide, senior politicians openly contemplate a federal amendment banning gay marriage, political parties favor an interventionist foreign policy characteristic of the extreme right rather than the moderate right (which is usually isolationist or at least in favor of actions in favor of a narrowly defined national interest), the word "liberal" acquires the status of a swearword, frequent challenges are made to the rights of the individual (for instance, attempt to introduce a flag burning amendment, somewhat successful attempts by the Executive to imprison citizens without trial and without full access to legal representation). Although I'm aware that these changes are not monolithic and are the product of distinct and sometimes antagonistic social movements, to outsiders these changes make the USA appear to be galloping quickly rightwards.

• It is my belief that this difference in perception on where the political center lies may be coloring your view of the Bush article. On whether it really is socialist propaganda I don't know. I'm pretty sure that anybody who likes to can edit that article, but it's possible that socialists feel more motivated to edit it than those of the center or right. And they may be more successful in driving an anti-Bush agenda and getting it accepted. It looks okay to me, but then again my politics are considerably further to the left than one person whom you have described as a "scary leftist", so my perceptions may be colored by my politics.

• All I can do is encourage you to continue contributing your critiques on the article, and your edits, which I assure you I and others will take seriously provided they are not accompanied by personal slurs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem like there are more and more loonies everyday? The aggregate center of political opinion is so far left of the aggregate center of political opinion, that soon we will be overrun by extremists left-wing loony conspiracy-theorists! Personally, I think it's a conspiracy by the media, which is 90% bias to the left. Kevin Baas 21:29, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Slanders

It wasn't that big a controversy....the fact that the slanders were ever published were the controversy or did you sleep through that part when the "big story broke". --MONGO 21:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend you visit Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette and Misplaced Pages:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. You're not going to convince other people that you're right by being patronizing and rude. I hope you can separate yourself from your political persuasion and actually contribute constructively. Timbo ( t a l k ) 21:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, let's see, I didn't think I was hot or rude, quite the contrary. I feel that the warnings and etc. I have gotten such as this from you are rude as I don't remember going into your talk page and handing out advice on courtesy. I fail to see how the slander that constitutes the George Bush article is anything other than the political persuasion of the far left and fail to see how the incorporation of so much inuendo and heresay makes for good reporting. Perhaps it is the likes of your political persuasion that won't allow you to edit the article with a NPOV, not mine. As I mentioned, I consider this an impossible impasse.--MONGO 10:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Unless you assume good faith, there's no way you'll be able to work with others. You might be surprised to hear this, but you can't rewrite the article to suit your own POV. This is a community. Timbo ( t a l k ) 17:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can rewrite the article to fit my POV because I choose to eliminate National Enquirer type of reporting which is not quantifable and not pertainent except to those that wish to see Bush slandered. It is you and the leftist that seem to think that only their misconceptions are valid. I encourage you to switch your battle to the main discussion pages of the article on George Bush rather than continue to make private personal attacks here in my user page.--MONGO 20:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is your user talk page. An item written here is a way of communicating with you on a one-to-one basis, and is commonly used for dealing with interpersonal stuff such as reminding a user of Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette.

This article can be edited by anyone, they don't even have to be a logged in user, and yet you claim that it shows what you call an extreme leftist bias. How does that work? Is everybody who works on this article, or even the majority, a "leftist"? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, this has become a tit for tat and as I have said before, it is an impossible impasse. I'm sure you won't change your mind because of anything I say, and I know nothing you have to say will change mine. In my eyes, the article is written with a bias and that bais is left wing. I can't make it any more simple than that. I don't know if the majority of those that work on the article are leftist. I do know that the folks that seem to be protecting the existing document, based on what their user pages state, and on their commentary are not centrist and they sure aren't conservative. Being liberal isn't a bad thing, I am the last person to truly condemn it. But I am in disagreement with that perspective because I think it to be short sighted and unrealistic. --MONGO 06:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The price of freedom

My qualms about the vitroil on your user page, and about having vitroil on one's user page in the first place aside, I agree with you on one thing: freedom is expensive. The manner in which it is paid for, however, I differ in opinion on: I agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Kevin Baas 08:06, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

My family has fought in every war the USA has been in including the revolution. I myself have two siblings that have gone to both Afghanistan and Iraq in the past 3 years as part of their service to this country. I was so fortunate to not have been eligible to be in harms way due to having been born with only one kidney. Not a day or sometimes an hour goes by that I won't hope they are well, and that their compatriots in arms are as well. I cannot think of what it must feel like to be the parent or spouse or child of those killed in action. We owe a debt to all of them we can never repay. My siblings are educated and not prone to believing propaganda and they both feel that we did the right thing when it comes to Iraq, regardless of the presence of WMD. This world is becoming smaller everyday...how much room is there for governments that pose a threat to their neighbors? Beyond any shadow of doubt in my mind, the USA and it's allies and the entire world were incredibly patient with Saddam Hussein, but the time had come to do something and I do not believe that we could afford to continue with diplomacy. As worded in UN resolution 1441 that meant SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. We had already done everything else we could do...what was left but to go to war? Some have argued that there never were any WMD, that Saddam behaved the way he did because it gave him strength with his people because they admired his defiance. However, WMD's are not something to take an action of wait and see. A leader must lead, regardless of the consequences, and must accept his political fate based on the outcome. It is my hope that democracy will be born in Iraq so that those persons there can begin to enjoy in freedoms the rights most of us in the western world take as normal.--MONGO 11:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevancy of that ramble. It is clear that you have strong emotions on what you are talking about. But your strong emotions are besides the point. The point is what is the gravest threat to freedom, and what, therefore, is the first and most neccessary defense? For example, if one looks at it like a war, as you seem to like doing, then one has only to consult the first page of the first book on war, "Sun Tzu: The Art of War", and read the first line: "War is all about deception." It goes on to talk about assesments and calculations, gathering information, and misinforming and disinforming the enemy. There are no heroic pictures of violent battles in it, but it does go along way into stressing how everything in war hinges on knowledge of the "battlefield". Kevin Baas 19:08, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

MY ramble, as you wish to put it, is relevent in light of the simple knowledge that our borders are pourous, and we have more difficulty here maintaining our freedoms, and are in essence less free, if we cannot insure freedom elsewhere. You assume that our leaders, in that our current administration is guided by a feeling of revenge, oil and simplistic things as such which are easy to point at, when the rational for invading Iraq are much more complex. My ramble was an attempt, successfully I feel, to elaborate on the theme that freedom isn't cheap...ie, my family is in active engagement there and in all liklihood I have more to lose than many others may. It was my answer as well to your assumption that we can be protected simply by maintaining vigilance. Vigilance is hard to maintain, and it's easy to get lazy. Sorry, I have no understanding about what you think by invoking the quote that war is all about deception. I doubt that this stage of war is obvious when the planes have already hit the WTC towers....seems at that point the deception is over and the reality should have become obvious. I assume from your quote, that due to his constantly dancing a jig around UN resolutions, that Saddam was being deceptive, and that since we invaded Iraq, we fell for his deception. Or that our current leaders have used deception to put us in this situation.....otherwise, your response is quite academic but lacking in simple realities.--MONGO 19:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The war is a war of ideas. The battlefield of freedom is the mind. I do not assume what you say I assume, rather, you are the one who are assuming: you are assuming my thoughts and motivations. This is an example of the battlefield.

I do not believe that the situation is simple, rather, I believe it is more complex than you have espoused.

I believe that Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush, are motivated by the reasons that they state: securing a geopolitical landscape unquestionably favorable to American principles and interests. I have a problem with this. A really, really, really big problem with this. And "I have more to lose than many others may," for I am an American.

It feels good to hear the word "freedom", but what does it mean? In the era of World War 2, there were two conflicting definitions of "freedom": Kruschev's and Kennedy's.

Kruschev's version was the spread of one ideology, thought to be manifestly superior, throughout the world. He thought it would bring peace, freedom, and prosperity to everyone. He saw it as the future, and believed, therefore, that he was manifestly right in spreading this kind of "freedom" throughout the world.

Kennedy defined freedom as political diversity and the flow of ideas. This meant not enforcing American policies on developing nations, but helping them grow through cooperation, and letting them determine their own path.

The distinction between these two forms of freedom is subtle, but important. What form of "freedom" do we believe in today, Kruschev's or Kennedy's?

I have much more to say in response to what have written, but for fear of spreading the discussion out to thin, I decided to focus on a theme. Kevin Baas 20:38, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Well, I get the impression that you allude to Bush's view of freedom as being more similar to Kruschev's than to Kennedy's. I mentioned before that the world in general has become a more liberal place. To wish to instill democracy in Iraq is a liberal hope in light of the fact that they most recently were ruled by a dictator. I can see how, to the outside world that Bush is viewed as a vengeful warmonger, yet I see little precedent for any neocolonialism aside from what happened in Japan in 1945 when MacArthur essentially wrote their constitution for them. I consider the events of 9/11 to be an attack on the western world so all of us have a lot to lose if we allow freedom to fail. It is a traditional train of thought that if you can defeat the big guy on the block, then it makes you the new big guy. I believe that if say France had the economic and military power of the U.S. and was as strong an ally of Israel as the U.S. is, then the target would have been in Paris, not N.Y. I understand that many might feel that Bush would wish to control and regulate other countries, espcially in the third world, yet there is little precedent for our intervention aside from when requested, when the action will improve stability, or when it is mandatory... All comments of Vietnam aside. It is possible that due to the ever expanding population, vast improvements in transportation, ever increasing technology and extremist groups that wish to return some areas of the world to a barbarious state, that intervention may be necessary to ensure world security....and that the net result may be the establishment of a government which is friendly to the U.S., which by the way, will most likely be friendly it's neighbors. If you suggest that Afghanistan and or Iraq are worse places now than they were before 9/11 then you are gravely mistaken. When asked by the press how Bush would respond if the Shite majority in Iraq won the election, he essentially said that if that is the way they vote then so be it....so long as it is done democratically. You can't always allow vigilance to be your only defense...there may not be enough time.--MONGO 08:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there is not enough time, it's because one could not see far enough ahead.

These are straw men you are talking about; not the actual people in the world or these nations, but manifestations of a social imagination. They do not desire a barbarious state. If anything, there are people who desire vindication, whether warranted or not, and there are people who are angry and/or uneducated, etc. These are aspects that every human being shares. There is no alien race on this planet. We are as likely to be the "aggressors" as anyone else, as aggression is not a person, but a human feeling. Things like this must be kept in perspective to understand things and be able to respond to them constructively.

As to the idea that we can wave a magic wand and end poverty; that we can plow through a country and transform a non-industrialized latent theocracy into an industralized democractic nation with sheer "boldness of will", that's a good dream, MONGO, but it's not reality, it's rape. It's equivocable to thinking that you can make a woman love you by simply expressing your desire in a reckless abandon of sex. It takes thinking, it takes patience, it takes understanding of what is possible and what is not, it takes acceptance, it takes restraint. You can't transform a nation in 10 years anymore than you can raise a child in 1. It's an illusion, a dangerous illusion. Kevin Baas 20:45, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Well, when a person is fairly young as it seems to me that you may be, time seems to be longer, not shorter. I think you fail to see far enough ahead...what kind of power vacuum do you think would have happened in a dictatorial state if Saddam had died while in power? It will take time for these countries to transform, but transform they must. I know that when I was born we had less than half the people on the planet than we do today. By the time I die, we will have more than 3 times maybe 4 times the number of people all sharing spaceship Earth. We don't have the time to wait for them to catch up in a social standards kind of way. If the Taliban wasn't barbarous, then you're deluding yourself. We waited 12 years for Saddam to be straight up with all his facts...it may take another 12 years to tranform Iraq into a better place for their citizens...it only took Japan half that long. I never said we could do it with sheer force, but what to do, sit around and play games? Meanwhile, tortures go on, human rights are snuffed, on and on we go. Why is it liberals are so quick to talk about rights and freedoms and liberties, yet fail to understand that not in all cases can these issues be resolved with diplomacy. Not especially when a dictator is in charge. The terrorist organizations in some cases don't want to be diplomatic, so should we still invite them to sit down and talk? They wish to turn the entire middle east, perhaps more, into a feudal society with archaic notions of human rights and have explicitly said so. If you wish to play Neville Chamberlain that's fine, I'll continue to play Winston Churchill. As far as Iraq and Afganistan go, they are already on the road to a better tomorrow and they didn't have to wait it out for decades more perhaps.--MONGO 10:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your patronization one bit. And I am frustrated with how confused you are on the facts. You really need to get your facts straight before you can discuss this coherently. I won't even start, it would be counter-productive; you'd be adversarial and resist the information. I can only ask you to bear in mind that convictions are worse enemies to truth than are lies, and encourage you to do some research on your own. Kevin Baas 22:52, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Kevin, you attempt to lecture with every entry...I feel that this is patronizing as well. I am not the least confused on my facts. The price of freedom...is never cheap. It cannot be attained in our world as it exists today purely by appeasement or diplomacy. Every now and then the ugly truth is that a war results. There was never any doubt who would win the war in Iraq militarily...there has always been doubt that we could win their hearts or souls. The best chance we have for the sacrifice is to establish a stable, democratic government based on universal sufferage, restore their ability to provide a decent way of life and then leave as quickly as possible so they can truly be independent. The hope is that if we can do this that just maybe, Islam will once again flourish as the peaceful intelligent religion it was founded to be, with a tremendous tolerance for non muslims as it once was. It may be a hope or illusion, but one must aspire to create a better world and as ugly as it may be, the price of that better world sometimes leads to war. The best chance Iraq ever has had in hundreds of years is now. Terrorism will wane and have fewer adherents when they can establish a tolerate democratic society. I suggest that you underestimate the ability of third world countries to change and adapt...that is a pessimistic view and I am glad I don't share it. I believe that it is possible and as I said about Japan, history has shown that it can. Utopian perhaps, but better than to remain as they were.--MONGO 13:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can say, at least, and without being arrogant, that I know one thing more than you, and it is perhaps the first and only thing that I know: I know that I know not. Read. That is all I have to say. Learn about Iraq, 9/11, Afghanistan (not to be confused with Iraq), the history of Islam, Muslims, the Bush administration, war, the founding fathers, comparative government, American foreign policy since WW2, psychology, political sociology, etc. Read about what interests you, regardless of me. I always encourage people to read. Kevin Baas 18:57, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

I have. I have a great value for books and I do understand. I have to tell you this and I mean so without being too rude. You have no idea how ignorant you are. Maybe in 10 years you'll be able to formulate an intelligent argument without all the philosophical hype. The real world is a different place and you have no idea how close we are to armafuckengeddon.--MONGO 20:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your shameless arrogance and vitriol astounds me. You have to acknowledge the fact that over half of the people in America and the vast majority of people in the world disagree with you. You also should, due to the great responsibility involved in this matter, avoid ad hominem abusive and straw man logical fallacy and acknowledge that that's not because the vast majority of people in the world are unfathomably ignorant and unintelligent. Put your perspective in perspective, and don't criticize what you can't understand. Kevin Baas 18:21, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

You don't know what I know...what do you think I do for a living? Most europeans prior to WWII were also so ignorant as they are now to what could happen. So they wouldn't lose credibility, the intelligence community back pedalled on their previous view that WMD's were in Iraq in order to be politically correct. I know this to be a fact....you don't so consider this to be enlightening...not that you'll accept it because it doesn't fit into your narrow definition of reality. Hammer and sickle...now that's vitroil...imagine what it was like for the average person in the Soviet Union in the 1930's. If you come in here to lecture, you'll get it back in spades...you have nothing to teach me...for you THINK you do and that MEANS you don't. Goodbye.--MONGO 23:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Get hold of yourself. Kevin Baas 19:24, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Freedom is'nt cheap ... neither is Citizenship

I, along with many more, cannot see the connection you make, Mongo, in using war as the principal means for obtaining freedom.

Leaving aside the point that freedom is rapidly becoming a vauge badly-defined word, you utterly ignore the ways any society can bring about change within itself without resorting to armed combat. Black civil rights were not gained in the 50's and 60's by warfare; neither were women's rights, nor freedom of thought and expression.

Any given word may have different connetations to several different people. And that's assuming they all speck a mutually intelligible language. Not all of us do; look at all the words you and others here have exchanged without really communicating.

"I see little precedent for any neocolonialism aside from what happened in Japan in 1945 when MacArthur essentially wrote their constitution for them."

This quote of you is utterly dishearting; do you really know so little of the history of your own country's actions in the world???

One advantage of coming from a small nation is that we have a lot of experience dealing with bigger powers, all of whom have used us for their own ends. I hear you speck, and well-meaning as your words are, they are almost the same as those used by the British used when justifying imposing themselves on my nation.

As an American, of course you cannot understand this. Not once in your history has your country being taken over and gang-raped by another. I am of course delighted that such a thing has not happened to the USA; however, I do wish people like you would get more perspective than seeing things from a purely American-centred point of view.

America is not the World, and the World is not America.

Therefore it follows that the concerns of non-Americans are not the same concerns as Americans.

Both have the right to their views.

NEITHER have the right to impose their ways on the other.

You state that you have never travelled outside the USA. Please, for the love of God, do, and soon. And not just to Canada or Mexico; Europe is only a few thousands miles from you and has dozens of countrys and cultures within a small geographical area. We're as good a place as any to start. And we all speck English in addition to our own languages.

You NEVER understand your own country completly until you see it through the eyes of other people. I have being lucky enough to do a reasonable amount of travel in my time, and the old cliche is true - travel does broaden the mind. Listening to you reminds me of what I was like in my late teens, before I began to travel and see just how big the world actually is.

And tell us what it is you do instead of alluding to it mysteriously. Its childish. Either that or simply declare the subject off-limits.

I adore your passion. But please, listen to what people are saying; engage with them, and once in a while take and defend points of view that you are utterly opposed to. LEARN.

Fergananim

Lecture, lecture, lecture. You assume I am unworldly due to my not having been outside the western hemisphere. I remmmber when I was a Park Ranger and this guy from The Netherlands and I struck up this conversation and for some reason it became a heated discussion. He ended up telling me that Americans are afraid of the outside world and I told him that all Americans were afraid of was having to finish a war someone else starts...again. My current occupation is definitely off limits and I am sorry...I can't even create or edit articles remotely related to my vocation. So I try to contribute to the Parks, etc. I am convinced of one thing and that has been stated by me in the past...and that is the vast majority of contibutors to Wiki are liberals due to the nature of the medium. I listen to what they have to say quite well, but I disagree and to feel that this makes me wrong, even though I oftentimes am only a divergent opinion, is condescending on your part. I am well aware of what the outside world thinks of the U.S. and mostly it is a combination of respect, fear, distrust, feeling dominated, and in some circl;es, that the U.S. is crude, unestablished, a spinoff of the real deal. Let me put it this way and this explains in some degree why Kerry lost the election....the west, midwest and the south of the U.S. feel that they are looked down upon by New Englanders and especially that "cradle of American intellectualism: New York"...Americans oftentimes feel as though Europeans especially look down upon us....Kerry had the misfortune to be seen as an eliteist by the MOB...the MOB meaning the greater mass of U.S. citizens. BUt now I have to be the ugly American and this will piss you off. If the U.S. didn't exist, the world would quickly descend into an new dark age. Don't assume I am ignorant just because I have a different viewpoint. Equating a potato famine to the current events in Iraq ia absurd. Furthermore, I suppose Europe would have been better off without the Marshall Plan...I remember a silly movie with Peter Sellers in which he was a leader or such from a small somewhat impoverished country somewhere in Europe and they decided that they should invade the U.S. and then lose becuase their reasoning was that all countries that lose wars to the U.S. get rebuilt and become prosperous...though the movie was a farce, it's premise was based on a concept that is true and that is the U.S. does help to rebuild countries it wages wars with...can you name an example in which this didn't happen? Even Mexico after the war 1845-1846 enjoyed a periood of economic growth after they were defeated (which I freely admit was one of the worst wars the U.S. ever fought and for the worst reasons.)--MONGO 10:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I respect Fergananim, his experience, and the knowledge that he has acquired. I don't see anything objectionable or logicaly disputable in what he says, with the exception of "As an American, of course you cannot understand this." As an American, I understand it. I think what he meant was, as an American, we may not have had the experiences of other countries, which yes, are different, by definition, and therefore do have valuable knowledge and experiences that other countries (such as the U.S.) do not have, just as you and me probably have different academic backgrounds, and thus each of us knows some things that the other person doesn't. That's why we communicate. What would be the point of communicating if that wasn't the case? What he said that it may be more difficult for people who have been in quite different situations to understand, and that it therefore may require a greater degree of effort and imagination to really understand. He is asking you to make that effort. I don't see anything objectionable or offensive about that request. Kevin Baas 20:19, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I consider his opinion to matter as well, but also see it as somewhat insulting...to think I will gain, due to his manner in reproachment, invaluable knowledge of my own country by visiting some foreign land is a typical old world looking down on the new world myth. I am also chastised by the rhetoric that I somehow think war is the best means and or only means of solving diplomatic crisises...an all or nothing analysis of my opinions just because I support things like the 2003 liberation of Iraq.--MONGO 20:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I had a response here... I don't know what happened to it, if i didn't save it or what. Frustrating! I might find it eventually. The point of it, basically, was: Personally, I would not be the least bit offended if someone said that to me. Up to the "I am also chastised by..." part, that is. There, I sympathize, as noone should like to nor deserves to be viewed in black and white. Kevin Baas 22:09, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Here it is! You censored it with this edit.

Well you come off kind of hawkish to me, as well, FWIW. I understand how you would be offended by that, thou - the fallacy of the excluded middle; to be seen in black and white instead of grey. Regarding the first part of your response, however, I fail to see how gaining knowledge by visiting other countries is neccessarily "old world" -> "new world" or "new world" -> "old world". I would say that it is a rather reasonable and unbiased assertion, like saying that one gains knowledge by reading a book or by talking with someone else. (who, analgously may be thought of as "some foreign land".) I would not be the least bit offended were anyone to suggest that to me. Kevin Baas 21:02, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Fergananim Responds

Hello everyone. Sorry to take so long to get back to you all.

First of all, in no way did I mean to insult Mongo or any other person, least of all any Americans, with my views. I suppose that's the problem with doing your level best to be honest; sooner or later you will offend someone.

Neither did I intend it as a lecture, which means that Mongo's response to it got off on the wrong foot from the word go. Because he percieved it as a lecture, he responded in kind. You have no idea how this depresses me, even more so because I have found very much the same response to occour time and time and time again from many Americans. How is it that we can speck the same language yet still not understand each other?

"He ended up telling me that Americans are afraid of the outside world" Please, point out where I said this. Maybe I have overlooked something.

You didn't say it, a person I had a conversation with long ago said it....--MONGO 08:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"You assume I am unworldly due to my not having been outside the western hemisphere."

Anyone who has never being outside their own culture, way of life or country is unworldly in the true sence of the word. Prior to travelling I most certainly was. It was not condensation, it was words of advice. Even yet, all I have seen of the world assures me that there is a great deal that I do not know.

And frankly, yes, I do think you are unworldly. Not on presumption; statements such as "If the U.S. didn't exist, the world would quickly descend into an new dark age." pretty much prove it!

Knowing that you are ignorant is not always a bad place to start on the road of knowledge. And for you information Mongo, it was an American who drew my attention to this in the first place. Maybe there are Americans more worldly than you'd admit ...?

"Americans oftentimes feel as though Europeans especially look down upon us...."

Well that pretty much sums up your response to me in one. Its like this chip on your shoulder makes you hit us first in case we might have any blows to land; and thats what causes all the problems.

Thanks for replying. I won't bother wasteing your time in the future. Beannact De. Is mise,

Fergananim.

Good, because I think you are wasting my time...--MONGO 08:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. You're still more than welcome to visit us, as far as I am concerned, and I hope you have a good time when you do. Cheers. Fergananim

gay ambassadorship

MONGO, I took out the line about Ambassador Guest and Romania because it simply isn't true that Bush was the first President to appoint an openly gay ambassador. James Hormel, the former Dean of the Univ. of Chicago Law School, was appointed ambassador to Luxembourg by Bill Clinton, an appointment which languished in the Senate for nearly a term because the Republican majority refused to approve it. Hormel was finally able to assume his post in 1999.

I will grant you that Bush may well have been the first President to appoint an openly gay ambassador to Romania. But that's about it. Sandover 15:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right...corrected passage so that it details that Guest was the first one officially confirmed by the U.S. Senate...I undertand Clinton was the first, by Jesse Helms played obstructionist...click Micheal Guest stub and please edit or elborate as you see fit. --MONGO 16:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Back to the pet goat in response we resume with the last few discussions

I wrote:

Great! I think we all know what purpose that picture serves. We are all curious about how a leader reacts in a situation like this. For better or worse, thanks to this picture we all know what Bush's reaction was. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You wrote:

You only want it here because it helps your biased case and your opinion, not because it has any other purpose. Your perception of the photo justifies your reasons for wishing to keep it here. It needs to be tied into the text...if that is possible...without creating further point of view.--MONGO 20:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mongo, I know you didn't intend that personally. But I think since you seem to be new to Misplaced Pages and you seem to me to be the kind of editor who will be very valuable around here (even more valuable than you already are) in the near future, I'm going to be especially careful about how I respond to the above.

On Misplaced Pages, we have a principle called "Assume good faith", and another one called "No personal attacks". These aren't just words we write, they're words we try to live by.

Your sentiment in the above is a valid one and I agree that it should be expressed.

"I think that your admitted anti-Bush bias may be influencing your perception of the importance of this picture" would be acceptable because I have admitted I don't think much of Bush.

You can point out that you don't find the picture as interesting as I do and that's evidence that my liking for the photograph is an example of confirmation bias. As a matter of fact I am not that unreceptive to the possibility that this may be true.

I'm not telling you off for the way in which you phrased your statement (in time you'll learn for yourself what is and is not acceptable, and in the unlikely event that you don't you'll end up with an arbitration case on your hands). But because I think you have a valid point and could have made it without impugning my good faith I just thought I'd give you my personal ideas about how you could have phrased it far more effectively--far more persuasively, for me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I come across with a big bite and that is because I work in ah, well, I can't say. Anyway, my first sentence was a bit rude. You are right to feel slandered and I express apologies for this. My second sentence could have been phrased better, but it expresses how I feel about some of the folks here. I stated that I think it is an asset for Misplaced Pages that there are probably a lot of intellectual folks that have gravitated to this and that means we should get first hand, qualified information on a number of subjects. As a rule, these academics or intellectuals per se tend to be liberal politically. In that, I do not think that that they're able to maintain a neutral point of view in some circumstances. I understand that some POV is normal. I do not think that bad reporting is acceptable...and Tony, without insulting your intelligence, which I know is high, I find many of the sources provided are tabloidish (I know that isn't a word) and I argued why van Wormer's opinion is inaccurate and not neutral. Without going into that now, I will do all I can to maintain a high level of civility. However, there has been many attacks on me as well, though not by you. I do plan on contributing articles that I am interested in but as I work almost 60 hour weeks, until that slows down, it is hard for me to gather the time to do so...I am not new to Misplaced Pages but I haven't used it except for referencing...that is why I am puzzled by the pervasive liberal bias of the George Bush article. I saw it and was shocked as almost all the other articles in here are excellent. I guess I am biased as well, because, (you might feel disgusted), I have no serious problems with the guy. Unfortunately, like most of those that rise to his level, he had a lot of help getting there and there is absolutely no doubt that he could do a better job. Much more to say on the subject and perhaps I'll get back to you on my thoughts about the differences between European and U.S. politics.--MONGO 09:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please don't edit war. It's considered bad form and in certain circumstances it can get you blocked from editing for up to twenty-four hours. Consider joining the Harmonious editing club, which promotes some principles that, if followed, make for a pleasant editing experience. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought I argued that the items I edited were lousy. Without going into it now, my first edit was to revert a vandal, the second one was an edit, and the third one was in response to me being reverted only a few minutes after I edited. I looked over the club...not sure if I am willing to live by all those rules yet. Tony, the Bush article can be accessed in one or two links when his name is queried from any browser...I have serious reservations about the accuracy and neutrality of the article...editing and explaining why is the one of the only ways I can make it better. Thanls for the advice.--MONGO 08:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BUSH

I think you mischaracterize Bush on the Couch when you describe it as a "secondary opinion." As far as I'm aware this fellow Justin Frank arrived at his opinions independently of Van Wormer, who as far as I'm aware is not qualified in his field, clinical psychiatry.

I include this piece primarily because Frank's book constitutes a published opinion delivered by a professional, but also because it was extensively quoted by the President of another country in an attack on Bush. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In response, then I say he is "armchair quarterbacking" in that once again, he did not perform his diagnostics in a typical doctor to patient relationship as one would expect a professional to do. I am further dismayed that he is a former writer for Salon, who I have already said is strongly biased against Bush. Again, Castro would use whatever negative opinion regardless of it's worth he could get if it allowed him the opportunity to cite the reference and speak unfavorably about a President of the U.S.--MONGO 13:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he may well be "armchair quarterbacking." This does not make his publication unencyclopedic any more than it is unencyclopedic to report the 1966 opinion of John Lennon that the Beatles were, at that time, "more popular than Jesus". Yes, he's very biased against Bush. But we don't only report the opinion of people who express a liking for the subject of our biographical pieces. The Misplaced Pages article on the widely revered Martin Luther King carries a description of one of King's speeches as "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi", and J. Edgar Hoover's description of King as "the most notorious liar in the country."

You're right that Castro would use "whatever negative opinion" he could get. However the Justin Frank book provided him with some pretty powerful ammunition: a book analyzing the psychology of the President, written by a professor of clinical psychiatry. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I think we're going around in circles here, so I'll just jump off now rather than go round one more time with you. As several others have remarked, it looks as if you want to have statements about opinions of Bush to be subject to some special new criterion that we don't apply to other articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong to say the Van Wormer piece is there at my insistence. A day or two ago I stated explicitly that I was not going to restore the Van Wormer piece again if it was removed. It has been removed since then and restored by someone else. I still maintain the intention to do nothing to restore the piece if it is removed. If it stays, it will be because someone else wants it there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

History Revision

"I am deeply opposed to revisionist history in which analysis of persons and events of the past are critiqued based on the moral standards of the modern world."

That's a highly interesting point of view, Mongo. But you gotta understand, all history is CONSTANTLY revised and analysied according to the standards of whatever time it is we live in.

Anyway, before I say more on this I would very much like to hear you expand your thoughts on this. For myself, I am an Irish historian living and working in Ireland. Slan! Fergananim

Historically speaking, I am conservative. As an example...George Washington. I find it unfair if he is judged to be an immoral character due to his ownership of slaves. In the modern world, slavery is illegal everywhere. But in the era of Washington, it was a norm in the American colonies, the subsequent American republic, many places in Europe and so forth. I have seen it written as a condemnation on Washington even though he was progressive for his times, ensuring that upon his death and the death of his widow Martha Washington, his slaves would be freed. Though that seems not so grand a thing in todays world, in 1799 it was a noteworthy issue. Another example....the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki....now, this is a much more recent event that was witnessed and dealt with by many people still alive today. An analysis of the justifications of the atomic attacks made by many then and today would find very polarizing viewpoints on this issue...my concern is that the U.S. would end up being condemned for the decision to use these weapons in the future if we end up ridding the world of nuclear weapons...there must be a full understanding of the reasons of why the bombs were dropped and put in the perspectives of the events and politics of the day, not based on current dogma which finds the issue to be more and more of one opposed to their use at that time. Understanding that my attitude is the use of those weapons actually saved lives for the U.S. and Japan...all indications are that this is true. I do not think Bill Clinton should have apologized for the use of those weapons, but understand why he did so. Naturally, one must provide a historically accurate picture of the person or event in history to be scholarly and I agree with this. My problem, and the problem some have is when history is essentially rewritten based on moralities of the present age, and fail to take into account that these events of the past were acceptible in the ages they occurred.--MONGO 11:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For my own part I don't think its fair to call Washington immoral simply because he owned slaves, as he was very uneasy about the whole institution, and his later actions on that issue were laudable.

As regaurds Hiroshima et al: War is industrialised murder, and every death that occours in a war is both a tragedy and a crime. The idea that you have to take life to save it is like fucking for virginity.

The USA won't rid the world of nukes anytime soon.

Murder has never being accectable in any age. Why else the concept of wergild, eraic, and punishment for it?

Thanks for getting back to me. Love to hear more from ye. Fergananim

Well, interesting point about Hiroshima...but war is fought to be won...I doubt many Americans (or British for that matter) could have cared about how many Japanese died, and could have cared less about how they would die, so long as the allies won. It doesn't make it right...but war must be brought to a conclusion and the Japanese weren't going to surrender without the motivation...the possiblity of total elimination. Hence my argument that the use of the bombs was done based on the attitudes of the day and has only relatively recently been moralistically challenged.--MONGO 07:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right in that wars must be brought to a conclusion, but better for them not to be fought in the first place. We can but try.

"the Japanese weren't going to surrender without the motivation." Maybe. Who knows? Here's a few links with with you can make up your own mind.

• http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html
• http://www.doug-long.com/
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
• http://www.lclark.edu/~history/HIROSHIMA/

If we choose to fight a war and justify it by expressing our fight in moral statments, is it not incumbunt upon us to act morally at all times?

Otherwise, what difference is there between 'us' and 'them'? Fergananim

If facts serve me, the need for the U.S. to fight a war with Japan in the 1940's wasn't a choice but a necessity. I do not think the use of the atomic weapons on Japan was an act that was immoral in any way. I appreciate the links, but my understanding of the use of the atomic bombs is derived from an education on the events, not from any blind opinion. There is no good evidence with which the allies had in 1945 that would outweigh the evidence that pointed, in all directions, to an overwhelmingly costly amphibious invasion resulting in the loss of up to 250,000 allied troops and perhaps millions of Japanese. Some have suggested that the use of the weapons was also a show of strength for the Russians to see...and some argue that there was bigotry against the Japanese which was so pervasive that no one really cared one way or the other how we defeated them, so long as we won. Those issues are noteworthy, but fail to surmise the basic facts of the issue and they were primarily around Truman's desire to end the war as quickly as possible and minimize losses of allied troops. Regardless of the perhaps hundreds of analysis's and issues the allies dealt with regarding how to end the war with Japan, the main goal had always been to do so quickly and at the least cost to the allies.--MONGO 13:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the use of the atomic bomb was a decision made by a small group of people, not the general populace. Thus, the de facto moral consensus argument is logically invalid.

Also, I recall learning somewhere that there was some disagreement about that in some of the higher offices of government that knew about it, and I know for certain that Albert Einstein, who made the A-bomb possible, was rather discouraged by it's use in Hiroshima. Kevin Baas 15:08, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

I would hope Einstein would be. Who wouldn't be discouraged by it's use...but it was used and that is that. Interestingly, the Gallup poll on the "righteousness" of the use of the bomb taken in 1945 was 89% in favor while at some point in the 90's it fell to a low of less than half...strange how peacetime makes everyone soften up about their need for retribution. Regardless, had I been President and Japan failed to surrender after the Tokyo fire bombing, I would have definitely used atomic weapons in an effort to end the war.--MONGO 10:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Gallup poll is an interesting statistic. In my opinion, it's relevant and a NPOV way of addressing the elusive "morality" question of the bomb, depending on how the poll question(s) was (were) worded, ofcourse.

Given what I know about the situation, which I feel is relatively limited, I'm inclined to say at least that I would have seriously considered that option. I vaguely remember hearing something to the affect that Japan was just about to surrender, and certainly the cost would have been less, economically, in human lives, and ecologically, were that the case and we deliberated just a little longer. That would be my main reservation; that just as the use of the atomic bomb may have saved a lot military, economically, etc., so could, quite possibly, a moment of deliberation have saved even more. It's difficult to know either way - the element of chance in war; the element of the unknown. Kevin Baas 21:57, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

You mentioned a conspiracy theory in one of your edit summaries. What is this conspiracy theory you mention? Kevin Baas 05:38, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

We already discussed this before didn't we? It is tired. I know you put a lot of effort into the Ohio voting irregularitites article, and find it mostly to be a lost cause. I am glad the article is there, but do not think that it warrants discussion or link from the first or second (or third) paprgraph of the GWB article because it simply fails to be authoritative. Let's discuss van Wormers and Franks silly innuendo instead....--MONGO 09:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Kevin Baas 07:27, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Kevin, the conspiracy theory is mostly yours, I am sorry to say. I read your article...I don't buy it. I wish it was true...I think Bush is a putz...but I don't think the results from the OHIO irregularities are even one tenth strong enough to have given the election to Kerry. Does every democrat think the world would change that much if Kerry was elected? Doubtful.--MONGO 07:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't have an article. Not on wikipedia. You can't "have" articles on wikipedia. I have one on wikinfo, thou, "morphogenic network", it's really rough and slopply, but you can check it out if you like. Anyways, I'm still not aware of any conspiracy theory surrounding any thing you're talking about. Could you describe this conspiracy theory to me? Who are the co-conspirators? What did they conspire about? I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but since you're accusing me of having one, I'd kinda like to know what you're talking about. Kevin Baas 09:51, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Here's one..I see you did most of the "research"Moss v. Bush--MONGO 13:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did a lot of research (not in quotes) for that article, yes. Everything in that article actually happened. Nothing in the article alleges, discusses, implies, or alludes to, a conspiracy, in any way, shape, or form. The article states, in NPOV fact, what happened in the empirical world, regarding the civil case in Ohio Supreme Court, "Moss v. Bush". Do you have a problem with that? (You mention it in what seems to me like a derogatory tone.) Add that to the list of unanswered questions. I'm still more interesting in the first one, though, which remains to be answered. Kevin Baas 14:48, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

And I have applauded you for those efforts in the past...but I question your modus operandi in such an endeavour and consider SOME of the article to be "fishing" for facts and not balanced....sorry Kevin, you seem greatly motivated and I applaud that but I do not agree with all you have to say or the method behind SOME of your madness. I do not mean to be derogatory. Am I the great quest...ie: if I can be converted to your train of thought then anyone can?--MONGO 10:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heh... I like that, it's a little more light-hearted. I think what I've been trying to get across here, and I think we're converging to this, is that there should be no "quest", and therefore, any notions of either a) being on a quest, or b) someone else being on a quest, should be done away with as much as possible. Only when all persuasion and suspicion (that is, forces that artifically embellish or diminish credibility) are put aside, can the underlying facts be seen through a flat (undistorted) lens.

I'm sure we all are a little bit bias, without intending to be so or being aware of it, but fortunately we have all have different knowledge and experience, and can combine this together to get a clearer and more complete picture. If you have factual or NPOV disputes with the article, then please, for the sake of the article's quality, bring them up on the article's talk page. Kevin Baas 21:42, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

protect

Didn't mean to single you or anyone out and I don't blame you for your conversations...I just viewed it as coalition building and don't like it...I attempted to protect your conversation and have now removed it in it's entirety(sp). Sorry about that.--MONGO 08:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I recognise and share your legitimate concern. In certain circumstances a group of editors can try to keep a page in a state that they prefer, opposing any single newcomer who tries to change it. Something similar to that happened to me the other day--my initial attempts to edit the introduction of an entry were repelled because, it was claimed, the current intro was the result of months of consensus work.

My response was to chuckle a bit and show the intro, as it then was, to some colleagues. One or two of them went to the article and helped me to edit it to include some of the significant facts that had previously been omitted or not given much prominence. There was, in the end, little significant opposition, once we'd shown that this was not just a single person objecting to the current wording. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see...but that was my point in a way... I respect your efforts to make things "better" but object to this methodology from the standpoint that it may be going on (and surely is) to block or gang attack certain articles. Anyhoo...enough said.--MONGO 13:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is not falsifiable. Kevin Baas 13:09, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I have banned TDC for a week as it was the second violation in rapid succession and I have invited other admin's views on Christiaan to have him banned for longer too. While this is his first violation of which I am aware, he has been sailing very close to the wind for a long time, far too close for my taste. Both should mend their ways or I will ask for a ArbComm decision on both their behaviour. But why are you accsuing me of "whining" ? Or is this a remark directed at Christiaan? If so it should not be on my talk page. Refdoc 11:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No I wasn't asking you to not whine...sorry about that...I'll remove it...--MONGO 11:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR template

Please don't mess with the template. It's the way it is after a lot of tinkering from the admins who deal with this page. Thanks. Noel (talk) 13:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Twas an accident...have a legitimate complaint...sorry.--MONGO 14:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Omphalocentric

At the risk of appearing to be Viajero's sock, I'll reply to your question on the meaning of this word. It's derived from omphalos, a Greek word for the navel. The English word omphalocentric denotes navel-gazing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

omphalocentric

Omphalos is the greek word for bellybutton. For the ancient Greeks, Delphi was considered the omphalos, the center of the world. -- Viajero 12:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to both you and Sidaway...hopefully I am not a bellybutton gazing American...not sure what all that means but it could be bad...for me that is...thanks again.--MONGO 12:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

Could you please vote on the proposed move Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda → Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda? The vote is here. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 17:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...I'll look into it and will vote after I have a chance to see whats what.--MONGO 08:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conquest

Well I understand your viewpoint--we had the same problem on George W. Bush where you thought that just describing significant allegations was tantamount to giving them credence. Here you seem to think that just saying that the invasion is sometimes referred to by opponents as the "Conquest of Iraq" is tantamount to us describing it as a conquest. If I agreed with you on that, of course I'd have to remove the equally POV term "Liberation of Iraq". As it happens I don't.

For me that fact that the term "Conquest of Iraq" (combined with america to filter out the sixteenth century conquest, etc) has around thirty times more google hits than "Third Gulf War" suggests that it should be included, although personally I would not use the term any more than I'd use the term "Liberation of Iraq" (though I note that many of the 100,000 or so references to this term are somewhat sarcastic in tone).

I'm not wedded to the idea of including all these names, however. We could get rid of all synonyms if you like, leaving only the descriptive Invasion of Iraq. I'd go along with that because I don't think the names are of much value. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your recent extreme personal attacks

Hi, just thought I'd make contact with you and ask why you're being so extreme at present. I would like to discuss the article George W. Bush with you rather than suffer your claims, which are false, that I'm pushing a point of view. I don't feel that your personal attacks, which incidentally are far, far beyond anything that is countenanced by Misplaced Pages policy, can help in making the article better.

Has something happened since I was last involved with that article? I'm very busy on other articles a lot of the time so it was a big surprise to see this abrupt change in your behavior on returning to it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the fact that you disagree with me. I'm talking about your extreme personal attacks, statements not about our disagreemts but personal statements about me and others that go well beyond what is acceptable on Misplaced Pages. For instance:

• "The only thing you wish to do here is utilize this medium to promote your obvious left wing bias...I have yet to see you add anything of substantial encyclopedic merit to this article yet"
• "what purpose does your presence here serve if all you wish to do is perpetuate an anitBush ramble in this article in light of the fact that you are hostile to the right?"
• "Your support of this kind of sensationalism isn't proof to me that you wish to be encyclopedic, but rather to find and incorporate less than worthwhile trivia that distorts the subject matter to fit your politics"

And I haven't even quoted a single word directed to me. In the couple of months or so since I lasted edited that article regularly, you seem to have turned into one of the most flamish, disruptive editors on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Why it isn't a good idea to try to game the 3RR

You lost count.

Times in UTC:

• 02:09, 17 May 2005 "rv see talk"
• 00:01, 18 May 2005 (no edit summary)
• 00:21, 18 May 2005 "revert....number 2"
• 02:02, 18 May 2005 "3rd revert...see everyone in 24 hours and 1 minute even though my first revert was due to vandalism"

I don't block for 3RR, so don't worry. But don't play games like this. You will lose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't mistake what I'm saying here for a threat. And no, none of those reverts were purely to remove vandalism. All were reverts of good faith edits.

I'm warning you not to engage in gaming like this. Don't act as if you have a right to three reverts a day. You don't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You write "the items I had restored against my revert had been in discussion ad nauseum..". That doesn't make you immune from the 3RR. It's precisely during an edit war that it tends to be applied.

You write "Go ahead and block me". I already told you: I don't block for 3RR. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush and ad hominem attacks

MONGO, although in theory I am sympathetic to your viewpoint, and agree that there is much in this article that is poorly substantiated personal attack, I have to reiterate that you are not helping by injecting the personal attacks against the left-of-center editors. It allows your opponents to dismiss any validity your arguments may have and instead focus on your behavior. I also find it frustrating when sophisticated arguments are made to justify libelous garbage, but flaming out on your opponents is never going to fix the article, and I think you'd help your cause more by trying this experiment: make edits and add talk WITHOUT any reference to the motivation or characteristics of the other editors, and try to avoid "POV pushing" as an accusation; it's an ad hominem attack. Instead, explain WHY the details introduced are not NPOV, etc. I'm glad there are other wikipedians who are trying to mediate the leftist drift of most of the articles about conservative figures (from Bush to Gingrich and all in between), but in my opinion, you would be better at it if you tried to avoid the interpersonal conflict. Just my two cents. Regards, Kaisershatner 14:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for your reply at my talk page. Believe me, I'm sympathetic, and you're probably right about the behind the scenes protection of pages here. Others have tried to convince me that it's pointless even to struggle against the leftward drift (see User:Anonip) and maybe they're right. But part of why the subtle leftward drift is effective is that the proponents of it use wiki policy as a weapon to enforce their POV, and when you or anyone else hit the ceiling in frustration that's just used against you. I'm about at the point where I may walk away for awhile, or permanently, so your situation is familiar to me. Anyway, thanks for fighting the good fight. Kaisershatner 13:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hope I took care of the problem: Junk_science#External_links. Nobs 21:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please don't refer to good faith edits as vandalism. Please don't order people to participate in discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In retrospect I wouldn't have worded the edit summary like that; it could be read as hostile in tone. Now your wording on my user talk page is almost unbelievably combative and contains several personal slurs and false accusations. Please stop doing this, it's getting far, far beyond what is considered remotely civil on Misplaced Pages. I ask you to reconsider your recent behavior. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation

I believe you've violated this rule on the George W. Bush article. I've posted the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:MONGO. JamesMLane 11:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It does seem that you violated 3RR, and you have therefore been blocked from editing for twenty-four hours. If you dispute this decision, please e-mail me or another admin. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)