Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:05, 25 December 2006

Hi Rosenkreuz; Thanks for the edit summaries. I hit Google to look them up, and learned about something amusing that I hadn't known. Here is the bolier-plate welcome message:

Welcome!

Hello, Rosenkreuz, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Tom Harrison 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Once again, you are straddling the line between civility and incivility with your most recent comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. As much as Ireneshusband seems to be trying to make this painful, you need to try to avoid exacerbating the situation. Also, your last edit summary might be considered a threat, but that is assuming Ireneshusband understands Latin ;). --Wildnox(talk) 16:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realised as much after reading the civility policy last night, but I left Ireneshusband a note in order to try to allay any damage I may have caused. Thanks anyway for pointing it out. Rosenkreuz 16:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I had seen the note, but I thought the note was before the comments I mentioned. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Wildnox(talk) 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So your apology only came after a rebuke from another editor. If it were sincere you would have appended it to the discussion itself rather than leaving a little private note on my talk page.

Your apology is entirely hollow. You knew exactly what you were doing. You have carefully pressed all the right buttons to paint me as an over-intellectual and conspiratorial nutcase through your sarcastic personal jibes, while throwing out enough red herrings to make sure the specific issues I outlined were not addressed.

I have, to the best of my ability, tried to assume good faith on the part of the opponents of the motion, even to the point of absurdity given the behaviour of you and a few others. You have made no more than a token effort to return the courtesy.

You claim to have a PhD—in logic of all things—yet you seem incapable of understanding the basic principles of debating, such as the need to define your terms, to address challenges directly and to concentrate on the issues rather than launching personal attacks or trying to intimidate your opponent through personal threats.

So what's your game, Rosenkreuz? Ireneshusband 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, Ireneshusband, I tried to act honorably and decently, but you are evidently unwilling to appreciate that. What happened is this. Tom Harrison slapped the standard `welcome' message on my page, as you can see above. I had been wondering about just how Misplaced Pages treats issues like arguments and disputes among editors, so I followed links from the welcome page and found the civility policy. After doing that, I left the note on your page, before anyone `told me off' or anything like that. I put the note on your page so that I was sure you would see it, and it would not get lost in the fray which is dominating the talk page of that 9/11 article.

You obviously, and you certainly cannot be blamed for this, have no conception of what the study of logic is like. In debating, while it does one well to be logical, ultimately results come down to rhetoric. Being able to lay out the essence of the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem on the back of an envelope is a wonderful skill, but it doesn't help very much in persuading people that you are right . Fortunately, I happen to be quite good at rhetoric as well, but, as I said, I think I have rather over-indulged in the argumenta ad hominem. I once again extend my apology to you for that.

But ultimately, it's up to you. You can accept my apology with the dignity and decorum with which it was offered to you, and we can move on; or this can turn into a Monty-Pythonesque argument about arguments where I can assure you, you will come out the worse for it. It's up to you. I have no wish to continue this bickering, and I have not wanted to idly toss insults around (hence my apology) but I won't put up with ongoing harassment either. Rosenkreuz 18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop making threats. You are very cunning, but that is all. Ireneshusband 18:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Coming to think of it, isn't it rather strange that you feel so confident in your knowledge of the policies and politics of Misplaced Pages that you are able to make your threats so brazenly, even though you have only been a Misplaced Pages editor for 3 weeks, whereas I (and I firmly doubt that I am unusual in this) have been an editor for many months yet I still feel I am learning the ropes? What are we to make of this? Ireneshusband 19:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

For a start, some people learn very quickly, especially when the subject matter is straightforward and easy to assimilate. I read something, and it sticks; and I am well practiced in inferring 10 more things for every 1 thing I read explicitly. Second, I didn't even know about certain policies until yesterday, such as the very civility policy which prompted me to try to make amends with you in the first place.

Thirdly, I would love to know what `threat' I am making that displays such an astoundingly subtle grasp of Misplaced Pages policy. I wasn't aware that I was making any threats at all, personally, only that I said I wouldn't put up with harassment (which isn't a threat), and that you would lose in an argument against me (which is a bald statement of fact). But your accusation is self-contradictory, anyway, because if you are so certain that my `threat', such as it is, makes maximal use of Misplaced Pages policies, how is it that you, who claim to still be learning, feel confident in describing it in those terms?

Finally, I don't know what you're on about, actually, and so would appreciate it if you would scarper off and leave someone else messages, someone who maybe wants to hear from you, because at this point in time, I don't. Rosenkreuz 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let it go

It would be better to stop now and let it go, both of you. There is no reason for this to go any further. It was pretty minor incivility in the first place (sadly enough; if you don't believe it, stick around for a while.) He has apologized, and no one should answer incivility with incivility, even if he had not. To the extent that you cannot avoid each other for a few days, both of you should limit your comments to content and avoid talking about the other person at all. Tom Harrison 19:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Africa

I just read book and watch films, if i dont know i go to websites and get info. i like fairness and pluraity and truth first.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 13:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

israeli espionage

Hey Rosie, thanks for your immediate suppression of the Israeli espionage possibilities. Did you ever bother to look into any of that stuff? I didn't think so. If you had, you would have seen how widely it was covered in the mainstream media, and you would have seen the DEA's 55-page report. Oh well. Ignorance is bliss for you, I guess, or at least a wet dream. --Fluffbrain 22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

My dear little hobgoblin, I think you'll find that vulgarity of such a tawdry variety serves nothing to endear you to your fellow man. I might point out that the likelihood of a bunch of dancing Israeli art students causing two aeroplanes to fly into skyscrapers is about the same as the likelihood of a flying saucer landing in the middle of the Arizona desert and being plundered by the USAF for secret technologies — only I very much fear that you would agree with me.

Incidentally, it is ridiculous to expect anyone to believe that a .pdf file on a geocities page purporting to be a DEA publication is genuine. And it is even more ridiculous to believe that the Mossad, one of the most formidable intelligence agencies in the world, could find no better cover for an infiltration into an American governmental agency than to have a bunch of `art students' carrying Israeli passports loiter around the premises. Indeed, the very first sentence renders the `report' highly dubious. It claims that the Israeli students were trying to `penetrate' the DEA offices. You see, the correct term for what the `report' claims they were doing is infiltrating. That is when an outside agent tries to obtain access to a target through clandestine/covert means (not that posing as an art student of the same nationality as the agent is good cover, but anyway). Penetration involves coöpting an official already placed within the target structure and obtaining objectives in that way — and this is usually done by a very discreet approach by a single agent handler, not a team of 8 or 10 buffoons making a nuisance of themselves. What these art students were evidently trying to do by waving their portfolios around was infiltration — and I'm sure that the DEA would know the difference. But, who's to say that they were really Israelis? Why would Israeli agents claim to be Israelis, after all, when the Mossad is in the habit of forging passports from other countries? Maybe these clowns were Congolese or Uruguayan? Who knows?

I've also read a few reports published by the U.S. government, of a very similar sort to the one to which you linked, and they are nothing like your DEA forgery. Moreover, the DEA doesn't seem to have any recollection of publishing that report, and as no source has been given in order to corroborate its provenance, no decision can be made about its reliability, other than noting its dubious web location, unlikely layout, preposterous contents, and total lack of any other kind of plausibility whatsoever.

In short, the link you provided is a load of fucking bollocks, and you'll have to do better if you want to go adding that information to encyclopaedia articles. And it is always a pleasure, my fluff-brained friend, to scupper not only Israeli espionage possibilities, but propaganda issued by the paranoid, misinformed and conspiratorially-minded as well.

By the way, who's Gail Kennedy? Rosenkreuz 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done some more digging, and I think I understand now. The document was allegedly leaked from the DEA, and is purportedly a draft, which would explain why it isn't anything like a proper report. The DEA, however, has neither confirmed nor denied its veracity: which means absolutely bugger all, because that's a standard stance to everything. However, one once again has to question the accuracy of the sources, and the reliability. And, the likelihood of Israeli intelligence embarking on such a daft exercise. No, it's just far, far too stupid. It sounds like either a massive practical joke or some devious propaganda scheme by heaven only knows who, to discredit both the Israelis and the U.S. I wouldn't pay much more attention to it, if I were you. It preys on fear and insecurity, and frankly the sources are not reliable enough to be trust (there are too many weak links in the chain, filled in with inference and journalistic license). It would certainly be foolish to assume that Israel does not have ongoing espionage operations against the U.S., but this is not one of them. Rosenkreuz 01:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Very clever, Creutzfeldt, though to first hold forth with strong opinions on something you quite evidently knew absolutely nothing about, and then, after a cursory skim, to blather your opinions for a lot longer, seems out of character for a supposed expert in "mathematical logic" (a claim of yours I find very dubious), not to mention someone trained by "the Jesuits" (I hope you're seeing a counselor). Moreover, you can't even apply your "logic" consistently -- Apparently, it seems quite reasonable for a 9/11 Conspiracies encyclopedia page to discuss, at length, claims about a remote-controlled rocket having hit the Pentagon, and other unlikely scenarios for which there is a complete "absence of evidence," than for this espionage puzzle, for which there is some evidence, and an interesting flurry of mainstream media attention, but not yet enough evidence for a firm judgement. It would be good someday to have a proper explanation about the "Israeli art students" mystery, and not just your peremptory and prejudiced dismissal of it as "fucking bollocks" (I guess the Jesuits trained you in that particular science). In short, as I have said elsewhere, get over yourself. This overweening weenie-ness of yours is unseemly, as well as wilfully stupid. Practice your multiplication tables, keep up with your super-duper-secret-crypto code-book, work hard, and someday you will grow to be a man. Perhaps the hardware store will have a job for you. Anyway, I don't really care what you think, and I'm not even a zealous or crazed proponent of the "art students" theories. I just thought that it was something interesting to consider in the 9/11 context, something requiring clarification, something that merits, at the least, a bit of consideration. It pisses me off, though, when know-it-all knuckleheads like you arrogate to themselves the right to decide the difference between heresy and blasphemy. Maybe you should go back to the Jesuits for further training. --Fluffbrain 05:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)