QUOTE(Heat @ Thu 29th October 2009, 4:51pm)
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Thu 29th October 2009, 3:44pm)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 29th October 2009, 3:00pm)
From there we go to Jgordon, who
in refusing Leatherstocking's "unblock" request, tells him point-blank, "you're a sock."
Oh? All this time I thought the choice of username was a straightforward acknowledgement to that effect.
Leather stockings are more durable than cotton but hard on the feet, plus they offend animal-rights folks.
Word to the wise, if you don't want people to think you're a sock don't use the word "stocking" in your username.
I don't understand why Herschel et al go through all of this. I think Cla68 is exactly right that the material sounds like an exposé, at least from my most recent glance at the Jeremiah Duggan article. For one thing, how can you have a lead that so strongly suggests an involved murder plot, without even saying what the accusation is? This should be right at the front: some people have alleged murder, or that he was killed in a panic due to harassment and abuse by the LaRouche organization. Instead you read through the article wondering what they're even getting at, with additional clues laid on as you go. Then you have the summary of the LaRouche organization: a set of groups "which promote the view that LaRouche is a figure of international political importance." Seriously? It sounds ludicrous, even if in some sense it is true. I mean, say the group promotes LaRouche and his views if you want, or even just say they promote LaRouche, but the way this is written is downright tongue-in-cheek.
I don't even mean to criticize the article. The question is, with such obvious problems, why would you spend all this time fighting with socks and so on that only serve to insult the intelligence of people who might help? Once you're reduced to this, how is any of it more than a ridiculous game? All this snarky BS, pardon me, from accounts like "Leatherstocking," only serves to maintain this circus where so few outsiders want to get involved.
I might clarify that the problem with these articles doesn't seem to be that they're too "anti-Larouche," it's that they're written in a tabloid style. LaRouche is, from what I can tell, spoken of extremely negatively and dismissively by mainstream sources. I don't know of anyone who openly gives his views any credence whatsoever, to put it nicely. So maybe my problem is that I don't get why anyone would put any breath into supporting this guy in the first place (that's separate from thinking the article should be disinterested, although I think a disinterested article would reflect worse on LaRouche).
Obviously one explanation is that Herschel et al enjoy making a game out of Wikipedia, and that all of this is simply in pursuit of that goal. I'd counter that even that is a bit undermined when it's done by promoting such a weird organization.
This post has been edited by Mackan: