Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Will Beback _ How to be obtuse
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
Watch and learn, as Will http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#Misrepresentation_in_Gays_and_Aids_section the ancient art of how to wear down your opponent by pretending you're a half-wit.
Posted by: Kato
The LaRouche article has clearly been taken out of context. This LaRouche 'AIDS/Gay bashing' nonsense has been rumbling for years on WP, and stems from some out of context quotes used by political propagandists Berlet and King.
http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/Scans/lynchgays/usebats1.jpg is the original from the 1980s. Incidentally, LaRouche's article reads as one would expect. He seems to think British football hooligans were teen gangs (most were in their 20s, 30s and even 40s), who were creating a wave of "lynchings" of AIDS sufferers (which obviously never happened). Then he draws a distinction between the "Protestant ethic" of Britain which he claims "encultered" football violence, and Catholic countries who have a different "tradition of the confessional" and hence no such propensity - which would come as a surprise to the vast organized hooligan gangs in Catholic Italy and Argentina! But that's LaRouche. Why make informed statements, when you can concoct some lunatic theory that doesn't stand up to cursory reading? 
Posted by: sbrown
Then he draws a distinction between the "Protestant ethic" of Britain which he claims "encultered" football violence, and Catholic countries who have a different "tradition of the confessional" and hence no such propensity - which would come as a surprise to the vast organized hooligan gangs in Catholic Italy and Argentina!
Not to mention Glasgow Celtic. If you told one of their supporters theyd been "encultered" to the "Protestant ethic" of Britain you might find something shoved somewhere!
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
This LaRouche 'AIDS/Gay bashing' nonsense has been rumbling for years on WP, and stems from some out of context quotes used by political propagandists Berlet and King.
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
I was more interested in the charming way in which Will pretends he can't understand anything Leatherstocking says.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Will has now graduated to a full-on rampage over the "Views" article, in which he is demanding that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=298867243#Gays_and_AIDS which he denounces, be replaced with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=299381097#Gays_and_AIDS which he has newly authored. However, in an amusing development, Leatherstocking has ascertained that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=240986344&oldid=240119206
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=299591040&oldid=299589165
Posted by: Rhindle
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=299591040&oldid=299589165
I think you should appeal your ban too. Put him completely over the edge.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
It might work, too. I've thought about it. But then I'd have to edit Wikipedia.
Posted by: Milton Roe
Will has now graduated to a full-on rampage over the "Views" article, in which he is demanding that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=298867243#Gays_and_AIDS which he denounces, be replaced with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=299381097#Gays_and_AIDS which he has newly authored. However, in an amusing development, Leatherstocking has ascertained that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=240986344&oldid=240119206
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=299591040&oldid=299589165
Is Will Beback one of those ever-persecuted-type gay people? If so, it would explain some his ire in the LaRouche matter, which is otherwise nearly inexplicable. I mean, it's not like the LaRouche cult took his money and stole his family. LaRouche isn't Scientology. What can the man ever have possibly done to Beback to get this kind of treatment?
Now, there's nothing wrong with being gay or Jewish. And if you're either one in Germany in 1934, you would have a right to a certain paranoia. But in Los Angeles, 2009, where Mr. Beback resides, playing those cards to explain paranoia just doesn't cut it. Since Will Beback is not Jewish, there's something else going on. But whatever it is, he's obviously gone over the edge, here.
Hey, Will! We laugh at LaRouche! You should, too! And we laugh at you.
Posted by: A Horse With No Name
It might work, too. I've thought about it. But then I'd have to edit Wikipedia.
Edit? Oh, I don't know -- think of it as Facebook with encyclopedia articles. Just ignore those boring old encyclopedia articles and hang out with the fun kids.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Will and Leatherstocking are well into overtime now. The dispute is over an assortment of dubious news clippings about Activists Behaving Badly, which Will wants to make the central focus of the Views of LaRouche article (in place of LaRouche's views, which are considered irrelevant by Will. or at the very least, poorly sourced, coming as they do from LaRouche.) So the epic battle spills over briefly into the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN#The_Times_of_London then to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NORN#LaRouche_on_Gays_and_AIDS where the arguments are so abstruse that no one else participates (except for a brief cameo appearance by SlimVirgin,) and now the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche.23LaRouche_on_Gays_and_AIDS As always, I'm rooting for Will, because I hope that his stolidly irrational and relentless, grinding approach to pushing his POV will one day win him the Dick of Distinction award that he has worked so hard for so long to achieve.
And when it comes to delivering http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=300655915&oldid=300610835 with a straight face, no one can top Will Beback.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
This has finally made it to ANI, with an interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=302844058#Improper_block_by_Georgewilliamherbert by Georgewilliamherbert (T-C-L-K-R-D)
. He reveals that Will is "the admin working content," whereas George is "the admin working enforcement." He says that this arrangement enables them both to "avoid having a COI." Has such an arrangement ever been mentioned before? In particular, what is the meaning of an "admin working content"?
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
It's back at ANI. Will Beback has been on a editing binge of truly SlimVirginian proportions, and it looks like it's All LaRouche, All the Time (thank God he's not an SPA.) He was bested by the LaRouche guys several times in a row at the Reliable Sources board, and finally he just went ballistic and got them all banned as Herschel socks. Leatherstocking is making a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_block_by_Georgewilliamherbert_.28the_sequel.29 about it. But LS misses one of the banned editors, Harry Angstrom (T-C-L-K-R-D)
. I thought Harry was just collateral damage, because he didn't really participate in the battles, but then I realized something bigger was afoot, because Harry touched the Holy of Holies, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Club&diff=307252965&oldid=306802493 For Will, this is as big a deal as Animal Rights is for Slim.
Posted by: Cla68
It's back at ANI. Will Beback has been on a editing binge of truly SlimVirginian proportions, and it looks like it's All LaRouche, All the Time (thank God he's not an SPA.) He was bested by the LaRouche guys several times in a row at the Reliable Sources board, and finally he just went ballistic and got them all banned as Herschel socks. Leatherstocking is making a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_block_by_Georgewilliamherbert_.28the_sequel.29 about it. But LS misses one of the banned editors, Harry Angstrom (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I thought Harry was just collateral damage, because he didn't really participate in the battles, but then I realized something bigger was afoot, because Harry touched the Holy of Holies, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Club&diff=307252965&oldid=306802493 For Will, this is as big a deal as Animal Rights is for Slim.
Herschel, were those three accounts yours, or is GWH or some unnamed checkuser lying or mistaken?
Posted by: EricBarbour
Who cares?
Will Beback is such a tight-rectumed little shit,
he deserves to be sock-tortured.
By Hersch, or by anyone else up for it.
Posted by: Moulton
Like I was saying, amateur thespianism is the wave of the future for WikiCulture.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
For those of you who missed my grand mea culpa in another thread, my abusive sock account at Wikipedia was Helen Hochwasser (T-C-L-K-R-D)
.
Posted by: Moulton
More to the point, did you gain any ground by studying and employing the more effective practices of Mr. Baxter?
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Not really. I was somewhat disconcerted when Poetguy's Sybil-like sock disorder came to light, because I was thoroughly taken in, and was on friendly terms with some of the socks, while having a contentious relationship with others. I wanted to put it out of my mind.
Posted by: Milton Roe
For those of you who missed my grand mea culpa in another thread, my abusive sock account at Wikipedia was Helen Hochwasser (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
Helen Highwater, eh? Instead of being labeled a sock that whole page has been nuked from orbit by Ryulong. My, what special treatment you get on WP.
Posted by: Moulton
That he could craft characters capable of engaging in dramatic relationships of varying sorts is interesting. That's a skill that an author needs, so as to write a decent drama.
For all the angst and gnashing of teeth over Baxter's shenanigans, he does seem to have a notable ability to create and inhabit a variety of intriguing and engaging characters.
Posted by: Kato
That he could craft characters capable of engaging in dramatic relationships of varying sorts is interesting. That's a skill that an author needs, so as to write a decent drama.
For all the angst and gnashing of teeth over Baxter's shenanigans, he does seem to have a notable ability to create and inhabit a variety of intriguing and engaging characters.
Not really. None of them were intriguing nor engaging characters. I found them stiff, obsessively pedantic, and just plain odd.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
That he could craft characters capable of engaging in dramatic relationships of varying sorts is interesting. That's a skill that an author needs, so as to write a decent drama.
For all the angst and gnashing of teeth over Baxter's shenanigans, he does seem to have a notable ability to create and inhabit a variety of intriguing and engaging characters.
Not really. None of them were intriguing nor engaging characters. I found them stiff, obsessively pedantic, and just plain odd.
Agree, Taxwoman, for all "her" BDSM pretense was one of the most sexless characters to inhabit the internet.
Posted by: Milton Roe
That he could craft characters capable of engaging in dramatic relationships of varying sorts is interesting. That's a skill that an author needs, so as to write a decent drama.
For all the angst and gnashing of teeth over Baxter's shenanigans, he does seem to have a notable ability to create and inhabit a variety of intriguing and engaging characters.
Not really. None of them were intriguing nor engaging characters. I found them stiff, obsessively pedantic, and just plain odd.
Agree, Taxwoman, for all "her" BDSM pretense was one of the most sexless characters to inhabit the internet.
Well, maybe one of the most sexless sex-characters to inhabit the internet. If you're not going to qualify your statement at all, I really can't agree. Just saying "most sexless character" would be facing some really
Posted by: Cla68
I suspect that Will's and GWH's recent actions may have been, at least in part, a reaction to Will's losing the argument over the use of Communist Chinese sources in the LaRouche articles. We'll see what happens in the future as more PRC and Russian articles are unearthed and used in those articles.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Will had previously lost a series of other arguments, one on a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_36#Forum_International and then the two speedy deletes he did on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilhelm_Lautenbach and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stanislav_Menshikov Will's basic, overpowering obsession at this point is to eliminate any reference to LaRouche as an economist, and have articles that present him only as a controversial demagogue who is the focus of nasty rumors in the press. He has been laboring away on an enormous SV-style talk-page project, basically a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will_Beback/Scratchpad back in the 70s/80s. He will go nuts trying to exclude anything favorable from the Russian, Chinese, or Indian press.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
And now he has begun to implement his long-planned new policy, that the writings of Lyndon LaRouche may not be used as a source for Views of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). That should be obvious, eh? 
Posted by: Milton Roe
And now he has begun to implement his long-planned new policy, that the writings of Lyndon LaRouche may not be used as a source for Views of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). That should be obvious, eh?
It's an extension of an older policy that the writings of Charles Sanders Pierce could not be used as references for the views of Pierce.
What was that BLP we recently saw go past, were some writter for the National Review was trying to fix the viewpoint section of his own BLP, referencing his own articles in the Review, and got reverted with the warning that working on your own BLP is excessively COI? You have to sit back and watch as other people tell you what your beliefs are.* That's your brain on Wikipedia.
*N.B. Unless you're a functionary on WP or WMF, in which case you're permitted to do almost anything with your BLP you like. Including removing all the views sections.