| |
|
  |
 Adam Carr RfC |
|
|
| Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 3rd May 2006, 5:30am) 
When did 172 turn into Adam's pal? I remember when he used to try to stand up to Adam's POV pushing and aggressiveness, at least in some small way. Now not only does he support Adam, he harasses someone like Cognition, a user who is already completely marginalized? I don't know where he went wrong.
As I recall, I found references elsewhere in the Wikipedia Review to 172 as a "leftist." I was shocked by this, because he has always struck me as a stone neo-con, as has Adam Carr, who styles himself, for public consumption, as a "moderate social democrat." Adam's politics are a derivative of those of his boss, Australian MP Michael Danby -- Adam "owns" the Wikipedia article on Danby, and has ineptly asserted his employer's "progressive" credentials by saying that he is an admirer of Joe Lieberman. More to the point, Danby (and presumably Carr) have played host to Michael Ledeen in Australia. |
|
|
|
|
|
| everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
The Islamists that are running the place now are, as everyone knows, exceptionally tolerant of homosexuality. Real farsighted of you, Adam.
Adam Carr is on the record as saying that he rejects the NPOV policy--or at least rejects the standard interpretation of it. He believes WP operates according to a Western, secular, rationalist POV, and this is what he fights for, against the communists--hey, I thought that's what Marxism was? Western, secular, rational? I guess a clearer definition would be to just say Wikipedia operates according to whatever Adam Carr thinks is right. The ACPOV policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CrazyGameOfPoker |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined:
Member No.: 58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
I thought it was interesting that 2 people involved in the Request for Comment were blocked indefinitely - both of whom disagreed with Adam Carr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sgrayban (banned for an alleged legal threat - one which was made off-wiki in an e-mail and hence is not applicable to NLT) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mystork (a sock puppet, supposedly, of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colle, who in turn changed their name. Of course, no actual evidence that it was a sock puppet - Just Slim Virgin's decision) When they start banning dissenters, it raises questions. This was picked up by the media this time. Hopefully they will do so in future cases as well. This happens far too often, especially when trying to build "consensus". Consensus is when a bunch of people bully others in to agreeing with them. Consensus can include bans if necessary. How many users were banned for trying to include "Wikipedia Review" in some form in to Criticism of Wikipedia? Quite a few, I'd reason. How many were banned or punished in some way in relation to userboxes? They do this in order to get a false sense of majority view. Sock puppets aren't the problem - banning people in order to falsely build consensus is. Yet again we see Slim Virgin acting up. But this time 172 is joining in the party. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Donny |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 240
Joined:
Member No.: 79
|
QUOTE(Hushthis @ Thu 4th May 2006, 10:33pm)
I'm not proposing that Carr's views should be allowed to dominate as much as he is able to bully other writers. I'm saying the untoward behavior of educated people like Carr and many more offers ample evidence of why social activities require orderly processes. I'm saying the impact of untoward behavior is a direct result of the communities failure, not of the individuals who repeatedly do exactly what can be expected of them.
What kind of orderly processes did you have in mind? QUOTE(CrazyGameOfPoker @ Fri 5th May 2006, 12:09pm) The link is broken. |
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CrazyGameOfPoker |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined:
Member No.: 58
|
Sorry Donny, I was linking to a search in the NewsFeed forum. I guess it was only for me. Actually, I'm fairly certain that User:Colle (now User:Myciconia) did own User:MyStork. In fact I'm certain, because she admitted making it because she lost the password to User:Colle http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50221916I don't agree with the block though. The account wasn't being used for disruption, only continuing discussion. As it stands now, there's some backlash against Carr and his methods. [[User:El C]], now has a subpage about thim... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C/On_...22_of_Adam_Carr |
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
There has also been a mediation on Adam Carr, under the label "Cuba" now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._mediation/CubaWhat's the bet that the other 2 will end up being bashed over it, while Adam Carr gets off scot free? QUOTE(CrazyGameOfPoker @ Sun 7th May 2006, 3:28am) Actually, I'm fairly certain that User:Colle (now User:Myciconia) did own User:MyStork. In fact I'm certain, because she admitted making it because she lost the password to User:Colle http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50221916Fair enough I guess. Although why didn't the banning admin, Slim Virgin, use that in evidence? QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 7th May 2006, 7:00am) QUOTE(CrazyGameOfPoker @ Sat 6th May 2006, 5:58pm) As it stands now, there's some backlash against Carr and his methods. [[User:El C]], now has a subpage about thim... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C/On_...22_of_Adam_CarrNote that the list of endorsers of Carr's behavior is a close match for the cabal. Not really. Besides Slim Virgin, there's nobody there that is in the cabal, or is even a maybe. And Slim Virgin said on El C's page that she disagrees with Adam Carr anyway. Also of note is this false label on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CubaQUOTE News This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details.
The citation is in: Pablo Bachelet (2006-05-02). "Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy". The Miami Herald. It is not being used as a source. A story is being written about it. That's different. And the story is talking about how the Cuba article is horribly inaccurate. Used as a source implies that the newspaper accepts the article is being accurate enough. And besides which, It is not listed in the Wikipedia as a press source article. Someone should alter that misleading banner to say something along the lines of "This article is so inaccurate that a newspaper wrote about its woefulness". |
|
|
|
|
|
| Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Sun 7th May 2006, 3:11am) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 7th May 2006, 7:00am) QUOTE(CrazyGameOfPoker @ Sat 6th May 2006, 5:58pm) As it stands now, there's some backlash against Carr and his methods. [[User:El C]], now has a subpage about thim... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C/On_...22_of_Adam_CarrNote that the list of endorsers of Carr's behavior is a close match for the cabal. Not really. Besides Slim Virgin, there's nobody there that is in the cabal, or is even a maybe. And Slim Virgin said on El C's page that she disagrees with Adam Carr anyway. I have seen Ambi's name mentioned on the discussion thread about "who's in the cabal." I give her credit, however, for recusing herself from a case where I was involved. Will Beback is SlimVirgin's siamese twin. 172 has lately become their cheerleader. I'm unfamiliar with the others. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sgrayban |
|
Gone
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 907
Joined:
Member No.: 7
|
Adam Carr blanked his whole talk page right after a user, Xed, made a post about "Why I Supported the Liberation of Iraq" that Adam had been critized about many times. Seem's he has deleted that as well from his website. Isn't blanking your talk page a blocking offense? Geez I'm so confused about what is legal, illegal, blockable and banable with wiki. Hmm maybe it was the QUOTE Look, I'm not looking for a philosophical argument about the nature of truth. I'm just explaining to you that if you keep violating the policies on personal attacks and civility, you're going to get blocked—whether the Truth is on your side or not. In my lay opinion, I don't think Cuba is a democracy, either. But that doesn't excuse rude behaviour directed at other editors. That is all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC) harsh warning from the administrator there that prompted his quick leave? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sgrayban |
|
Gone
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 907
Joined:
Member No.: 7
|
QUOTE(Hushthis @ Mon 8th May 2006, 12:13am) QUOTE(sgrayban @ Mon 8th May 2006, 7:06am) Adam Carr blanked his whole talk page ...saying "normal revert wars will be continued on my return." Hmm something is fishy here. Look at what he blanked that seems to be a very harsh spanking from a admin there. In particular read the section Elections in Cuba discussion. Maybe he is trying to hide the fact an administrator of real power has turned on him. Someone here that can point this out to a admin on wiki that isn't banned yet? This just might be enough to see Adam blocked. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sgrayban |
|
Gone
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 907
Joined:
Member No.: 7
|
QUOTE(Hushthis @ Mon 8th May 2006, 12:33am) In this edit, 172 simply vandalized the aritcle while making a recalcitrant remark in an edit summary denouncing dispute resolution processes. OMG ! Adam and 172 are the most stupid(est) people I now know. QUOTE Revision as of 05:07, 8 May 2006
172 (Talk | contribs)
(rv, I won't recognize attempts at malicious compliance with dispute resolution) I'm not sure how QUOTE + population_estimate=11,345,670|HASFDLLKal;kjdshf;lksafhl;skdf is a rv(revert) And then we have http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52095662QUOTE Current revision
Bletch (Talk | contribs)
(rv per 172) Uhhhh doesn't a " rv per count a revert by the asking user? Hmm me smell's 3RR violation. Bletch isn't stupid, he puts in who asked him to do it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sgrayban |
|
Gone
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 907
Joined:
Member No.: 7
|
QUOTE(Hushthis @ Mon 8th May 2006, 12:57am) QUOTE(sgrayban @ Mon 8th May 2006, 7:36am) I'm not sure how QUOTE + population_estimate=11,345,670|HASFDLLKal;kjdshf;lksafhl;skdf is a rv(revert) Aknemonto removed the vandalism and 172 replaced it. That makes five reverts on the article by Wikipedia administrator 172 in 29 hours -- four in 24 if one counts two sequential reverts of separate parts of the article: 1... 2... 3... 4... 5On revert number four 172 accused whoever who put the protected tag on the article of being a sock puppet. That's a new one. Admins calling other admin accounts sock puppets? Let's step back and take inventory: Wikipedia is under a national spotlight, with wire service stories around the United States calling attention to this article. An editor who admits to edit warring is called up for some sort of disciplinary hearings, but gets out of it by posting a private e-mail from another editor involved in the article, against policy, resulting in the sender of the e-mail getting blocked. He and his admin friends return to the fray and boldy denounce the dispute resolution process. Admins involved in the edit war twice remove a protected tag placed by other admins and proceed to edit a protected page contrary to policy, all the while accusing the person who protected the page of being a sockpuppet. Meanwhile admin 172 vandalizes the article while flouting the 3 revert rule. I didn't think 172 was a admin at all. Sometime back Jimbo de-soped him for abuse of power's. Maybe I am wrong. Anyways looking at this is interesting as well. Although I must say the timing of Adam's need to go away for a conference and the harsh spanking by no less then 2 admin there for attacks. Looking at histories I also see that Admin PMA has disappeared as well claiming some sort of health reason after I showed proof of him inciting un-civil actions to Adam Carr All I know is that the rFc on Adam Carr is full of evidence that the only way anyone with his history of flat out abuse towards anyone has to be a f**king idiot to ignore it. It has got to be the longest rFc in the history of wiki that has been totally blown-off. Who the f**k is Adam Carr that he get's away with that many violations? |
|
|
|
|
|
| kotepho |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 152
Joined:
Member No.: 84
|
He doesn't have the sysop bit. Special:ListusersThe diff you show is just removing the tag, and it was sprotected anyways (so non-admins can edit). The tag has no effect on the actual status of the page. Special:Log shows that 172 has never used an admin power on [[Cuba]]. The page is semi-protected by Freakofnuture currently. His full protection logMeta rights log en. rights log |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sgrayban |
|
Gone
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 907
Joined:
Member No.: 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
We had an argument on here before, that was quite heated, where we were trying to determine whether USA was a democracy, whether Russia was ever communist, and whether Australia and Sweden were socialist democracies.
See, the majority view is that USA is a democracy, that Russia, at least from the Russian revolution through to when they embraced democracy, was communist, and that both Australia and Sweden are currently socialist democracies, Sweden having only recently changed to this and Australia being named as such for almost 100 years.
However, these are debatable. And it really depends on your definition.
If we take the view that a democracy is merely somewhere that anyone can vote, then yes, USA is a democracy, whilst Soviet Russia clearly was not. And of course both Australia and Sweden are democracies too.
And if we take the view that communism is merely somewhere that allows an even distribution of wealth then Soviet Russia, Sweden and Australia are all communist states.
But it really depends on your specific view on this, and it is very much debatable.
Cuba of course regards itself as communist, but also has on many occasions pointed out that it is also a democracy. Therefore, it could be argued that Cuba, like Sweden and Australia (and indeed, we could also argue Britain is the same) is a socialist democracy.
Its not a simple, clear cut thing, and certainly not something you should say without a reference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lir |
|
Communist
Group: Inactive
Posts: 978
Joined:
Member No.: 4
|
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Mon 8th May 2006, 10:23pm)
See, the majority view is that USA is a democracy
I dunno, I keep hearing that its a federal republic, for which it stands. QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Mon 8th May 2006, 10:23pm)
If we take the view that a democracy is merely somewhere that anyone can vote, then yes, USA is a democracy, whilst Soviet Russia clearly was not.
But in the US, 'anyone' can't vote -- many people are exempt, felons for example; and in Soviet Russia, they did have voting! Hell, here in the US I haven't voted on anything since 2004, and I'm not even sure my vote was counted; and since then, I think there has been only one opportunity to vote, and I didn't bother to do so, since it was just voting for some city councilman to vote for me. QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Mon 8th May 2006, 10:23pm)
And if we take the view that communism is merely somewhere that allows an even distribution of wealth then Soviet Russia, Sweden and Australia are all communist states.
But none of those states had, or ever had, an even distribution of wealth! And furthermore, what makes you think that the definition of communism involves an even distribution? |
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
Those stats certainly don't look right to me, and aren't the ones that the government here has been using for decades. Yes, Brazil should be up the top in terms of worst difference between rich and poor, but so should USA. Why isn't Australia even in the top 30? That's ridiculous, to say the least. Perhaps they didn't list it in there. Most countries have some variation, its just a matter of how much. But I can tell you this - there is no poverty here. Absolutely zero. You can go through the streets here, and there is no homeless. Well, there are, but they are by choice, in 3 categories: career criminals, drug addicts and runaway children. And even they are not permanently homeless, and can be given hostels and food and money from the government. We have welfare for life, and our welfare payments are very high, comparable with minimum wage. In most parts of the country (in all but the ultra rich areas) what you get on welfare is easily enough to get you a roof over your head, enough food to eat, and enough money to pay your bills and have a small amount of luxury. This is available for everyone for life. And if it isn't enough, there is a government guarantee that they will take care of you.
No other country has this. You think of anywhere in the world, and they don't have a comparable system. Oh but wait, you'll say I'm lying about this too, won't you?
I suppose this is like how I introduced "original research" in to the Port Arthur massacre article, by being the only person that linked to actual references, in a totally unreferenced article, and because I quoted from those references while everyone else who referred to them said the opposite to what the reference said therefore I should have been banned over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
QUOTE(Lir @ Sat 13th May 2006, 2:38pm) QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 12th May 2006, 10:39pm) But I can tell you this - there is no poverty here. Absolutely zero. Come on now, you know thats not true; at the very least, the aborigines that live in the bush and shit -- they are poor dude! They are? They get twice as much welfare as anyone else, plus land rights money, can equal up to US $50,000 per year. You call that poor? I certainly wouldn't. We refer to them as the "royal family" because of the amount of money that is thrown at them. So yes, it is true that there is no poverty here. We are told this all the time, there are facts all over the place about it. The situation with the Australian aborigines is like this: They came to Australia 40,000 years ago during the last ice age, walking from parts of Africa, and settled along mainland Australia, Tasmania, Torres Strait, New Zealand, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and other Oceanic nations and provinces. Over time, the ice melted and the land masses shifted, so that today these groups are slightly different racially, although historically they are all the same people (at least, according to their paintings etc). Unlike the nearby islands, where war was common, war in Australia was rare, as there was plenty of land and not many people, and hence the Australian aborigines became a largely peaceful group, with little warfare. As a result, when settlers came, they were generally welcomed. There was plenty of land for everyone. However, seeing the violence in places like New Zealand and Fiji, many whites murdered aborigines. They were treated as less than animals, and not only had no rights, but were beneath convicts. During this time period, the entire race of Tasmanian aborigines were made extinct, and very few mainland aborigines remained. In the 1930s, in the wake of Australian women being given the right to vote in Australia, the first initiative was made to give rights to Australian aborigines. This initiative was to give half-caste Aborigines (who aborigines colloquially referred to as "yellow fellas") homes in Australian white families, and given respect, since they were generally looked down on by both white and aboriginals families. This initiative was relatively successful and led to for the first time many Australian aborigines being very well educated. In the wake of the discovery of the holocaust in 1945, the initiative was ceased and all records of it hidden. As such, when it was exposed in the mid 1990s as the "stolen generation" there was a great outcry, with many people seeing the corruption involved as being the aim of the project. In the 1960s, the first big change happened, which was giving land back to aborigines. This rapidly led to a movement to recognise aborigines, first as humans, then as being able to vote, and then given welfare and other rights. By the mid 1970s, Australian aborigines had more rights than non-aborigines. Throughout the 1980s, Australian aborigines received increasingly more rights, as people like Michael Mansell came to argue for increasingly more land rights, including the rights to Ayer's Rock, a controversial decision. Educational systems were set up, ATSIC was set up, police were required to not prosecute aboriginals if there was any chance of traditional reasons for the crime, and so forth. Throughout the 1990s, the great era of Aboriginal corruption came in to play. Aboriginal communities like Papunya came to manipulate and milk government moneys, as prominent aboriginals became rich from corruption, and as a result the general Australian public became more racist against Aborigines, as they saw the heights of corruption. As the race proportion rule was scrapped, people with no aboriginal heritage at all were milking the money to become rich from claims of being aboriginal. In the 2000s came some form of cleanup, as people like Michael Mansell were scrapped from aboriginal organisations, and an attempt was made to clean up the corruption that existed. ATSIC was scrapped and attempts are now being made to remove "positive discrimination" and things like CDEP are being reviewed. The general view today is that aborigines are not benefitted from getting large handouts. Whilst some sources falsely claim that Australian aborigines are poor, and hence deserve more money, this is a manipulation that is put in place by the corrupt individuals that are at the source of the problem, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, inside and outside of government. The reality is that aborigines are given enough money. The issue is that of responsibility. A system needs to be set up which encourages a responsibility towards their own destiny, one which encourages people to work, rather than sit in creek beds drinking and feeling sorry for themselves. Encouraging people to run their own schools and run them in their own ways. The era of throwing money at a problem is one which will soon come to an end. This is, of course, all related to the over-compensating for past atrocities. It is similar in many ways to post-apartheid South Africa, and we have a long way to go before there is equality. Calling them "poor" however does not help. It is factually inaccurate and leads to increasing the problems. People who can get US $50,000 per year for doing nothing are not poor. They are people who have no encouragement to get a job. And seriously, would you work if you got that much for doing nothing? |
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
QUOTE(sgrayban @ Sat 13th May 2006, 4:20pm)
Dang that's good money for being a aboriginal. Way better then the American's treat theirs.
The amount varies. On welfare, a 30 year old Australian can get AU $230 per week (US $200 per week) or about US $10,000 per year. On top of that you can get rent assistance, remote area assistance, clothing assistance, looking for work assistance, relocation assistance, loans, medical assistance plus of course discounts from anything ranging from going to the movies to catching busses and trains. Aborigines get 2 times that amount, so a 30 year old Aboriginal Australian in the same circumstances will get AU $460 per week (US $400 per week) or about US $20,000 per year, with all of the additions. If you have a dependent child, you get more money again, about 1.5 times as much for the child compared to an adult (which is based on some weird logic that children cost more to look after than fully grown adults). This is manipulated regularly by people who have kids to make money, and then don't look after the kids properly. If an Australian Aboriginal lives in their traditional lands, where their family is from, and that land is a verified "Aboriginal community" then they own that land. If a company decides to mine that land, and the traditional owners decide to let them, then the miners will pay people of the community an amount of money for the privelege of mining. The amount that you get for this varies depending on what they are mining, how many people in the community, and so forth. So in Groote Eyelandt, for example, which is gold mining, people will get about the same amount again, plus a bit, so about US $30,000 per year for mining rights, or US $50,000 per year total. While near Kalgoorlie, with gold mining, they only get about US $20,000, for US $40,000 total. And where they are only mining lesser gems, they only get US $10,000, for US $30,000 total. And of course some places they don't mine at all. Oh, and if you don't live there for the whole 2 weeks, you don't get that money. The aborigines call this "sit down money". Most aborigines get more money than most non-aborigines. Yes, they have a higher unemployment rate, but again, if you got that kind of money, you wouldn't work either. |
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
This bit here was particularly disturbing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nt_by_Adam_CarrThis guy is a fucking bastard, big time, and deserves to be banned. But then again, Wikipedia likes bastards like him, and they hate people who would go against him. So perhaps saying "deserves to be banned" is wrong. Rather, I should be saying "would be banned from a decent service". By Wikipedia allowing such a fucking bastard to walk around saying such things, it is showing itself to be what it really is like. On top of that, what he is saying is basically for Zleisten to be permabanned from Wikipedia. And I am sure that they will happen. It is inevitable now that all who opposed Adam Carr over this will be permabanned. And of the comments, note this one: QUOTE 2. Glad to see he's on form. image:smile.png SlimVirgin (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Cabal approval. This bastard of a comment from User:138 was pretty disturbing too: QUOTE What a farce
What a farce. What a storm in a teacup. Yes, Adam comes across as smirkingly arrogant and rude (and he might well be so beyond the virtual world.) He is also a dedicated contributor. Quite why he needs a pack of groupies (172,Ambi, etc etc) running around attempting to defend him is just amusing. Not to mention the head-in-the-sand denial of reality that the pro-Cuba club are stuck with... I know a lot of you find Wiki super-important, but incidents like this really should be cause for some inward-reflection - on all sides - as to the actual value of what is going on here at Wiki and how much you wish it to affect you. I think the fact that you rise to Adam's bait is the saddest indictment of this RFC. 138 08:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC) And this bit of arrogance from Adam himself: QUOTE Adios, amigos
I'm taking this page off my watchlist. See you all at the front lines of freedom. Adam 02:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Bastante comprensivo, Dr. Perhaps I should issue a block for your next inevitable incivil personal attack, anywhere? And the next one, and the next. It's bound to disrupt your editing patterns. How's that for an ideological conflict of interest [technically] perfectly propper block? Since none of the above admins are likely do anything. I already blocked (and not only Skyring) on your account before, time to be evenhanded? It's easy to side with the intelligencia of the imperialist slave masters. Freedom for them, servitude and slavery for the rest. El_C 03:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC) But why the hell is El C going against someone like this? Perhaps El C is one of these rare Wikipedia admins who still has their own mind? Opposes Adam Carr yet also vehemently opposes IsraelBeach. Perhaps there is hope for him yet. But this part was perhaps the most intelligent bit of the whole RFC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...he_job_injuriesI'll leave it at that. |
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lir |
|
Communist
Group: Inactive
Posts: 978
Joined:
Member No.: 4
|
Bliss, when you cite a source, its not enough to list like 10 sources and expect the reader to find your evidence somewhere therein -- you have to explicitly point out specific sentences, and then discuss how those support your argument -- this is especially true, when you are making an argument which is the complete opposite of what everyone you are talking to believes. In fact, what I read of your sources, actually indicates that aborigines are poor -- a great deal in those articles involved a discussion about aborigine welfare, and the fact that they are on welfare... which, indicates to me that they are poor. Indeed, I found this picture, which I think clearly illustrates that aborigines are actually poor -- maybe Im wrong, and they have millions in the bank, but they sure do look poor: (IMG: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/images/0017n001.jpg) I also found this image, which makes a more subtle point: (IMG: http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoons/new/2005-04-22%20Work%20tests%20dole%20aborigines%20226.JPG) QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Sat 13th May 2006, 1:43am)
They get twice as much welfare as anyone else, plus land rights money, can equal up to US $50,000 per year.
Well, the operative word there is 'can' -- that doesn't mean they do get so much money. What evidence do you have of this anyways? QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Sat 13th May 2006, 1:43am)
This is, of course, all related to the over-compensating for past atrocities.
Do you think Native Americans are over-compensated as well? It seems to me, that it is rather difficult to imagine that the aborigines could be over-compensated for having their land invaded, and stolen from them. I mean, Australia is worth such a lot of money; I just can't imagine that they have been paid in full, for all the natural resources and territory which was taken from them -- yet you somehow believe that they have been "over-compensated"! |
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
I could try to explain this, but you're a fair bit ignorant about this, so I am not sure if its worth it.
Okay, Native Americans do not get anywhere near the amount of financial support to what Australian Aborigines get. They also do not get anywhere near as many land rights. However, Native Americans do get treated with more respect. They get to run their own schools. They get to acknowledge their own culture. On their own land, they can use their own laws. They have responsibility.
And this is the whole point of the whole thing. Australian Aborigines get money but not responsibility and this is the CAUSE of most of the problems. Throwing money at a problem doesn't make things better, it makes it worse. Just because someone has money does not make them happy.
The reality is that the Australian Aborigine is traditionally a nomadic person, who would not live in just one place, but would move regularly throughout the year, with many temporary homes. Setting up permanent homes for them, then expecting them to live traditionally simply does not work. So of course they destroy their own homes. Its traditional to do it. They are ready to move, so they set fire to their own homes before they go. They have no need for electricity, so they routinely destroy all electrical appliances. And they typically put out their mattresses, and sleep out on their front porches under the stars.
There is also an issue with possession. Traditionally, aborigines do not own anything. They do not own the land either. The concept of a traditional owner isn't really real - it just means the person most responsible for taking care of the land. Its a responsibility issue, not a financial one. Making it financial breeds confusion, and in turn corruption. They think that they are doing the right thing by allowing miners to come, because then it brings money to the land.
Aborigines living out in their traditional lands are left with a dillemma as to whether to embrace their traditional lives or to engage in some parts of modern society. And the fact that most of their traditional lands are controlled in reality by white people makes things difficult. They have schools run by white teachers, who teach them English and make no serious accommodation for them living out there, and as a result they finish primary school with an average understanding of a year 1 level, and most don't go to school beyond primary school. They learn nothing from the whole experience, because they are not in control of their own experiences.
They go out there with adequate nursing and medical supplies, and think therefore that they don't have to worry about traditional healing methods. So they get sick, and they don't worry about it. Then a nurse runs up to them and heals them, and gives them medicine, and tries to treat them, only they don't bother to take their medicine, and they get sick again, and they die at an average age of 55 years of age.
They get all of this money, and what do they do with it? In town, they would just drink themselves stupid, but out bush its worse. Out bush, most communities are "dry" and drinking is illegal. That means that prices for alcohol are about 10 times more than what they normally would be, and its rare to get enough to get drunk on - certainly it doesn't happen every day. So drugs like petrol sniffing or marijuana are more common.
Gambling, however, is not illegal. Aborigines love to gamble. They play cards. They'll sit down and when they all get their pay packets, they'll sit down and play for them. Once per week they have their pay packet gamble. One will be the small pay packet, for the sit down money, and the other will be the big pay packet for their dole (or vice versa if they live in a mining town). And the winner will get $50,000 in one hit, and typically will buy for themselves a brand new car.
So they travel in to the nearest town, and they get ripped off by a car dealer, buy for themselves a brand new car that is totally the wrong kind to be taking out bush, and inside it they stock all of their shopping - hifi stereo, mobile phones, clothes galore, CD players, DVD players, VCRs, computers, whatever they decided to spend their money on.
Then they'll travel back out bush, and a lot of the time they've forgotten to put enough petrol in the car. See, most cars don't actually have a big enough fuel tank to get out bush, which means them buying a separate can for extra petrol. So then they are sitting by the side of the road thumbing for a ride. And nobody would stop to give petrol to aborigines sitting on the side of the road - they all think they are sniffers, and hence dangerous. But not only that, hardly anyone ever travels along there anyway.
So after 2 or 3 hours, they get so angry with people not stopping, and with the car, that they set fire to it. Boom up in smoke goes $50,000 worth of winnings, all in one go.
That doesn't happen every time though. Perhaps 1 in 5 ends up like that.
The rest of the time, the car gets back out bush. Once out bush, they'll drive it like crazy, every man and his dog will drive it around, and before too long it'll crash in to something or else wear out through over use and the lack of a reliable mechanic. And you can expect it to last for about 3 months total. Some though can last up to a year or two.
Got an idea what happens to all of the money yet?
Not everyone acts like that though. Some are more responsible with their money. Some sit down and clean their house and sleep indoors and have all of their electrical equipment in order, with clean clothes and fresh food and all of the rest. Some live well, and live healthily.
And what happens to those ones? Well, unless they are a mighty powerful martial artist with 3,000 bodyguards, their house will be destroyed, sooner or later, by people who are jealous of it, often just plain old petrol sniffers, who like to set fire to houses and destroy things. Thus it becomes increasingly difficult to live well.
But that's the aborigines out bush. Aborigines in town, especially when they are a minority, are a different matter entirely. They live the same as everyone else. Aborigines in Sydney, for example, get better jobs, and higher wages, than non-aborigines. And of course half-castes and people who are not really aborigines just get the money and use it like anyone else who was manipulating a corrupt system would - they use it for more money for themselves. I've got aboriginal heritage, and I was offered money, but of course I refused. Would that have disadvantaged me? Would I suddenly have been in extreme poverty over it? Of course not.
It is well documented that the primary cause of these problems is the very fact that they are handouts. The American model is regarded as a good one. Sure, there's not as much money, but there is more responsibility. There is more respect, more pride.
And in the end, do you want to have money thrown at you?
Throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. And they are stuck between being corrupt rich bastards and a badly treated group that are treated as less than animals.
Hopefully you have some version of understanding there.
Sometimes I wonder about you. You still insist that my adding of references to the Port Arthur massacre article constitutes original research, and their stating of things that cannot be found anywhere on the internet counts as legitimate research. So I don't know how much I trust you on this kind of issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
QUOTE(Poetlister @ Sun 14th May 2006, 7:24am)
Maybe it's because I'm blonde, but I can't see what relevance Australian aborigines have to this thread. Can the last few posts be put elsewhere?
Edit:
The last post must have slipped in while I was writing this one! It is of course highly relevant, and I don't include it in my comments above.
Well, the point I was trying to make is that we here can't agree on what makes something a socialist state or not, for example whether or not Australia is a socialist democracy, or indeed whether it is even a democracy. Or whether USA is a democracy. Or whether Russia is a communist state. Now if we can't agree on whether or not Russia is communist, how the hell are we expecting people to agree on whether Cuba is communist, without so much as a source? And the thing is that I can talk about Australia with some degree of integrity. I was born here, my family on all sides have been here since first settlement, I've got native Australian (aboriginal) heritage and I have lived my entire life here, in all parts of the country. I live and breathe this stuff. So when I say that Australia can be regarded as a socialist democracy, you know that I've got real weight. And if I say that Australia has a government backed guarantee of no poverty, then you'd know that I am probably right. Sure, I could eek through to find that famous Bob Hawke speech about how "no child will live in poverty" and see if I can find when the next Prime Minister Paul Keating made it in to an official government guarantee. And see if I can find anywhere where current Prime Minister John Howard supported it. I could do all of that. Or I can point to some things that are somewhat more obvious, like the lack of difference between rich and poor. But you see, even these obvious things are being disputed here by Lir. Nor, Adam Carr is not Cuban. He wasn't born in Cuba, he hasn't lived in Cuba all of his life. And he is not talking about something that is blatantly obvious. He is not talking about something that has thousands of references to back it up. He is not talking about something that an entire nation will back him up on. No, he is talking about something which he believes, as someone who is not Cuban, and hence probably really doesn't know. He's not an expert on Cuba. Now if I can't even get people to accept without reference that Australia can be regarded as a socialist democracy, then how the hell does Adam Carr expect people to accept that Cuba is a communist state and not a democracy without references? Its bleeding debatable! And for the record, Australia has a long history of the Communist party, and later the Socialist Party, which in turn became the Labor Party, the self same party which Prime Minister Bob Hawke was the leader of when he made the pledge for no child in poverty. The Liberal Party is the other major party. The Liberal party is closely aligned with the wealthy upper class, and is regarded as the capitalist party (or, for Americans, they can think of Liberal as being like Republican and Labor as being like Democrats - weird how the party name has nothing to do with their policies, huh?). So its probably wrong to refer to Australia as a socialist democracy. More accurately, it could be described as a half socialist/half capitalist democracy, which wavers somewhere in the middle. To me, all of this is pretty bleeding obvious. And for the record, I agree with Adam Carr that Cuba is communist and is not a democracy (unless they are a socialist democracy). However, that needs a cite. If I'd lived in Cuba all my life, and was talking to fellow Cubans about the obviousness of it all, I probably wouldn't need a cite. But Adam Carr is not Cuban and he is not talking to Cubans. Adam Carr is Australian and he is talking to primarily Americans about this. Now if I can't convince you without cites that Australia is a socialist state, or even that there is no poverty here, or that Australian aborigines get the largest amount of welfare money of any native peoples on earth (by a very long way), then how the hell can Adam Carr who is not Cuban and quite frankly knows jack all about Cuba, convince people without a cite about the state of Cuba's political system? Does it mean that people who ignore the obviousness of what I've said are whatever the equivalent of Fidel Castro supporters are to this argument? Or does it mean that they are just people who are unwarrantedly skeptical about things and are missing the point of the argument? Adam Carr is a bad egg, and does not belong there. I see that the Cuba article no longer has that statement made so boldly on the front. Hopefully it never re-appears. At least not without a cite. |
|
|
|
|
|
| kotepho |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 152
Joined:
Member No.: 84
|
QUOTE Some of your recent edits appear to be too heavily POV; I think you can see that. If you'll promise to more strictly adhere to NPOV in the future, I'll go ahead and unblock you early. Everyking 05:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I will restore the block if you do. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, hold on a second. I thought admins were not ever supposed to overturn another admin's action. Didn't you say that? Everyking 04:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Not without prior discussion. And here I am discussing it prior to doing it. Remember that you're not allowed to comment on another admin's actions except on his or her talk page, so your response on this page violates the arbcom ruling. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Do not comment again on Cognition's talk page on either Phil's or my (or anyone else's) actual or proposed admin actions. Take note that I will block you if you continue. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I prefer vanilla to chocolate ice cream. I tend to drink Coke more often than Pepsi but I also enjoy Pepsi. Everyking 05:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
lol? WP:RFAR/Everyking 3 for those not in the know. "Everyking prohibited from commenting on administrators' actions 3) Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration." It doesn't say commenting on admin actions of others, but taken by. Thus, future actions are not covered. </wikilawyering> Everyking just can't seem to catch a break =/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
