The Herschelkrustofsky ban revisited, SV and her posse at work Options

[Eva Destruction]

Regardless, the idea of a railway or road across the Bering Strait seems incredibly naive to me.

The problem seems to be the tundra. This book has some excellent descriptions of the situation. Here, a 140 odd years ago, Western Union is doing a feasibility study about stranding telegraph wire across the strait to Europe (with the side benefit of going to China). Ultimately it proved that an overseas cable worked and was surprisingly repairable.

In the summertime, the permafrost on the tundra melts leaving a milkshake like goo that's best to ignore. The time to travel is in the winter, when it's 20 below and colder than you know what you know where. However, in Siberia, you can trudge across the tundra mile after mile, and never sight a St. Alphonzo's Pancake Breakfast place like you can in ca.

Point is, any transportation path is going to have to be elevated for a very long ways.

The prevailing idea is to build a tunnel.

I think he's talking about getting to the tunnel – as anyone who's been in Alaska during summer knows, the ground there (and I assume in Siberia as well) has the structural soundness of oatmeal as the frost melts, so any tracks would either need to be elevated, floating in some way, or anchored to bedrock. It's not insurmountable – Russia has a lot of railroads this far north – but it would add to the costs (and we no longer have the "slave labor" option used by the Russians).

[GlassBeadGame]

I think that Lyndon is quite literally missing the boat. In the late 70's and early 80's he was advocating massive development of fusion reactors, which he deemed ought to be concentrated in India, although I don't think anyone asked India what it thought. Why not a synthesis of these two ideas? Massive "trophy container ships" powered by fusion reactors? The first one could even be called the "Helga" without so much as raising an eye brow. Widen the Suez and Panama canals for good measure. Fits in with the global warming "bonus" of a navigable Arctic.

I need me an Institute.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The prevailing idea is to build a tunnel.

I think he's talking about getting to the tunnel – as anyone who's been in Alaska during summer knows, the ground there (and I assume in Siberia as well) has the structural soundness of oatmeal as the frost melts, so any tracks would either need to be elevated, floating in some way, or anchored to bedrock. It's not insurmountable – Russia has a lot of railroads this far north – but it would add to the costs (and we no longer have the "slave labor" option used by the Russians).

I found in the PDF version of Mr. Cerny's article a postscript of sorts, which includes this assertion:

...the construction and maintenance of a railroad on permafrost is nothing new, and there are many proven techniques which can be used, including where permafrost conditions change over time.

I would add my own observation that the question of costs is a very "relativistic" one, depending on whether you are talking about short term or long term, or a local project versus the sort of global conception LaRouche presents. Beware of accountants. But to give a simple illustration: the Chinese MagLev line between Shanghai and its airport is fairly expensive per mile to build. But the much larger routes that they are presently contemplating will be much less expensive, due to economies of scale.

And then, when you are discussing infrastructure, you need to take into account the nonlinear effects, the complex ways in which an economy benefits from building it. LaRouche often uses the Transcontinental Railroad in the U.S. as an example of this. Another example, which may seem unrelated but is not, is the Apollo Program -- by conservative estimate, the US government got back $14 in increased tax revenue for every dollar invested in the project, due to spin-off technologies and whole new categories of businesses that sprang up around them.

[Hipocrite]

I'm pretty sure that LaRouche believes that global warming is scientific fraud. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[dogbiscuit]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

As opposed to the Wikipedian "Correct me even if I'm not wrong."?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

You're not wrong.

[Hipocrite]

Further, having spent the lesser part of two evenings reviewing, I cannot bless the conduct of either side of the main topic, the Herschelkrustofsky ban. While Herschelkrustofsky and his cadre were using Wikipedia as a promotional tool, which I despise, Bertlet was doing exactly the same thing.

I would have banned everyone.

[Cla68]

Further, having spent the lesser part of two evenings reviewing, I cannot bless the conduct of either side of the main topic, the Herschelkrustofsky ban. While Herschelkrustofsky and his cadre were using Wikipedia as a promotional tool, which I despise, Bertlet was doing exactly the same thing.

I would have banned everyone.

Why weren't both sides banned? In the recent Israel/Palestine case, both sides were, basically, banned. In 2005 and 2006 in the LaRouche cases, only one side was banned. Does this mean that Wikipedia's treatment of such issues is improving or becoming fairer?

[Somey]

Why weren't both sides banned? In the recent Israel/Palestine case, both sides were, basically, banned. In 2005 and 2006 in the LaRouche cases, only one side was banned. Does this mean that Wikipedia's treatment of such issues is improving or becoming fairer?

I'm tempted to say that you can't really compare the two situations because the potential for bad PR in the Israel/Palestine case is so much greater, but IMO the only people who should have been banned (or rather, "topic-banned") in the LaRouche dispute were Dennis King and Berlet - they're waaay too close to the situation to be "neutral," not to mention the fact that they were using their own writings as source citations. You could also make that argument for SlimVirgin and Will Beback, because they were facilitating them, but that's not quite the same thing.

That's not to say that the related articles shouldn't have been watched closely for insertion of questionable content sourced to LaRouche publications too, of course. I'm just saying that if they'd somehow removed Berlet and King from the equation, they would have had a fairly ordinary ideological dispute, with no need for extreme one-sided measures like the ones that were taken.

[Kato]

Those following this need to go back to the early stages of this thread because it is all there.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=167667

Not only did the anti-LaRouche crowd, led by SlimVirgin, completely over react by attacking anything associated with LaRouche completely outside process (deleting articles without discussion / banning random people by fiat etc), they fostered a nasty culture, where totally innocent people who had nothing to do with LaRouche were accused.

I showed an example of someone being falsely accused here. If you follow Slim's replies to my example, you can see she doesn't acknowledge it, and tries to misdirect my complaint.

LaRouchian nonsense notwithstanding, I stand by my original observation of the causes behind the dispute:

I believe that you, Slim, were responsible for fostering a damaging culture that warped the notions of "outing" and "conflicts of interest" - that exploited memes of "stalking and harrassment" ("I could be killed if exposed") which ultimately, like the ludicrous anti-LaRouche campaign and many others, subverted Wikipedia from within, causing massive problems for many people. Add to that the blatant cronyism, which you exemplified, and you have the definition of a dysfunctional and dangerous process.

If LaRouchies were really to blame, this would have been an isolated incident. But it wasn't. The same practice occurred all over Wikipedia on numerous topics; Naked Short Selling, Israel and so on.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

In April, 2007, an editor went to SlimVirgin and Willbeback and wrote this about Mbhiii (T-C-L-K-R-D) :

New LaRouche editor

This looks quite familar now. [10] Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sadly, by now I can spot LaRouche propaganda from a mile away. 172 | Talk 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the edit by Mbhiii would have set off major alarms within the anti-LaRouche camp, because according to Will Beback's "LaRouche under the bed" doctrine, mentioning Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List and Henry Carey in the same breath is tantamount to quoting LaRouche. This was essentially the technique used to drive me off the project: you can't bring up ideas that LaRouche is known to favor.

I'm just saying that if they'd somehow removed Berlet and King from the equation, they would have had a fairly ordinary ideological dispute, with no need for extreme one-sided measures like the ones that were taken.

For all intents and purposes, Berlet and King have been removed from the equation, Berlet by way of a spectacular tantrum, and King because he doesn't seem to have the stamina to do it without Berlet. Slim & Beback are canny enough to be reluctant to engage in persistent violations of policy; they had a symbiotic relationship with Berlet and King, where Berlet and King would do the dirty work, and then Slim & Beback would wikilawyer and rationalize their behavior, with minimal risk to their own WikiStatus.

Since Berlet and King left, the LaRouche articles have essentially become a "fairly ordinary ideological dispute."

[Cla68]

If LaRouchies were really to blame, this would have been an isolated incident. But it wasn't. The same practice occurred all over Wikipedia on numerous topics; Naked Short Selling, Israel and so on.

And no history of Wikipedia for the years 2005-2009 will be complete without mentioning this. Are any of the POV-pushers and bullies who took refuge with that loose cabal still left or operating in the same manner? Jayjg's gone (at least for now), Jossi is banned, JzG, MONGO, JPGordon, and Crum375 are editing quietly, SV appears to be toeing the line, Berlet and King are gone, the ID Cab has been keeping their heads down, Gary Weiss is effectively banned, Will Beback has been more or less following the rules (he was slapped on the wrist in the recent Rawat case), FloNight left that group over a year ago, and I haven't seen ElinorD (or whatever she's called now) around lately. I haven't checked to see if IronDuke has been keeping his POV-pushing in check. If not, then he may be the last one standing.

If anyone wants to discuss the current status and legacy of the former Ruling Clique, then perhaps we should start a separate thread on it. As Kato says, that group was responsible for a lot of abuse in addition to the LaRouche situation, and that's their legacy.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Sat 27th June 2009, 9:54pm

[CharlotteWebb]

I haven't checked to see if IronDuke has been keeping his POV-pushing in check. If not, then he may be the last one standing.

Show me anyone still standing and I'll show you an unwitting decoy.

[Cla68]

I haven't checked to see if IronDuke has been keeping his POV-pushing in check. If not, then he may be the last one standing.

Show me anyone still standing and I'll show you an unwitting decoy.

Yes, it could be that some of them have simply changed their methods. If so, then that may be a topic worth exploring sometime.

[dtobias]

That particular clique seems to have faded away. That doesn't mean there isn't abusive stuff going on there, of course, but it's being done by different people on different topics.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

If anyone wants to discuss the current status and legacy of the former Ruling Clique, then perhaps we should start a separate thread on it. As Kato says, that group was responsible for a lot of abuse in addition to the LaRouche situation, and that's their legacy.

News flash -- Will Beback has gone ballistic. He has suffered a rash of minor defeats lately, including the reversals of his POV-speedies on Wilhelm Lautenbach and Stanislav Menshikov, and his failed attempted to suppress a Russian source that worked to his disadvantage in a LaRouche dispute. In the latter instance, SlimVirgin briefly stepped in on his side, so it was old home week for a few days, but she withdrew from the dispute after testing the wind. So Will Beback, frustrated and alone, seems to have gone kamikaze. He has resurrected an old draft by Chip Berlet which "exposes" LaRouche as a raving homophobe, using the typical array of misquotes, bogus quotes, and some serious dumpster-diving among his press clippings, looking for any scrap of gossip. He is demanding that this concoction be substituted for the current flawed but semi-reasonable section of "Views of LaRouche."

[CharlotteWebb]

Views of Lyndon LaRouche is an ambiguous title and should clearly be renamed depending on whether we are referring to "Lyndon LaRouche's views", or "[Other people's] views of Lyndon LaRouche [and of LaRouche's views]".

But first we'd need to agree on which one it is.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Historically it has meant "Lyndon LaRouche's views," but Will is going for mission creep: first, LaRouche's views that are deemed notable by the press, and now, LaRouche's views as paraphrased by the press (no primary sources.)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And now Will sets out to recruit new allies here.