Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie". It's reminiscent of the Catholic leading figure (I forget his name) who once observed: "When I gave people food, they called me a saint; when I asked why people were poor, they called me a communist." I suggest the latter is because people like to cover up their own moral bankruptcy, but I'm open to correction. Like I said, there are always two or more sides to a story. Maybe.

http://pt.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dom_H%C3%A9lder_C%C3%A2mara

It's from Dom Helder Camara, who was a Roman Catholic Archbishop in Brazil.

Who famously wrote a book about the need for revolution in class-struggle, then was offended that people called him a communist. Perhaps he figured that commies are always violent.

It's always permitted to ask WHY people are poor. But if your answer is only that they are poor because somebody else has taken their wealth away, that pretty much labels you a communist. You've found a "witch" to blame.

Of course, outright theft is sometimes part (in some places even most) of the answer. But on the world stage it's only part of the answer. Wealth isn't created in our modern industrial age by some people simply concentating the weath that was always there, in a zero-sum process. Concentration happens, to be sure, but wealth itself is created by industry and trade. Marx admitted this, but thought that such weath was basically stolen as soon as created, except in the rare cases where people manage to work alone. A very stupid and destructive idea. The syndicalists did much better.

Anyway, Camera didn't really think much about industry and trade. All he did was complain of class-struggle, see theft. I'm tired of these social theorists who don't really understand trade and engineering. Ayn Rand (who went entirely too far in the other direction) is their punishment for not paying attention.

Huh? So you're saying that if someone tries to articulate two or more sides to a story, then he is "promptly" called a "commie"? Is that what you're saying? Not only is that claim obviously false (I've frequently articulated multiple sides to controversies, and I have never been labelled a "commie" for my trouble), it doesn't even make sense. Communists are not generally known for being even-handed or especially concerned with nuanced, neutrally-stated truth.

And what does this have to do with "moral bankruptcy"? The only thing on these themes that resembles moral bankruptcy would be the behavior of various communist regimes in the last 100 years--than which there has not been any more morally bankrupt, at least in terms of body counts. Is that, perhaps, what you're vaguely driving at?

No, you get called a "commie" (and rightly so) when you insist on looking at economics entirely in terms of a giant game of "find the witch." IOW, as a huge web of paranoia. As though a bunch of primitive Amazon tribeman, thinking all bad things in the world are due to evil charms by malignant people, were suddently given the chance to "explain" poverty, inflation, and the national debt.

You can always tell commies by their lack of understanding of engineering and trade, and their immediate need to find something (anything) wrong with the world and then procede immediately to look for some rapacious and power-abusing person to blame for it.

Are you decompensating or maybe just punch drunk? Red bating at the same time you rave on about "witch hunts" looks like a prize fighter who is just too confused to keep his guard up. Guess what comes next?

Why is this in "General Discussion", and why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?

Do you see me blaming communism or Marxist-Leninism for all the evils of the world? You don't, do you? In 2011 the Commies are (finally) irrelevant. They have been for 20 years and are now only an irritation in academic backwaters and little BBS fights instigated by old-guard trolls.

You think the world is just hunky dory so long as your own privileged is maintained. Your red baiting (or Shia Baiting or whatever is cheap and easy) seems reserved for anyone who can even envision any other kind of world.

Of course McCarthy's imagined foes didn't cause any evil either. I suppose I might have gone with the "Have you no decency" clip but that a little heavy handed against anyone as ineffectual as you. I like this one of JMcC more and it reminds me of you in the ability to dish it out but not take it. He'd be dead in a couple of years.

I guess I could move it for you but in all fairness WR bought the farm some time ago. Maybe it the endless debating society of H Anthony and Milton. Maybe the endless waves of the hordes of Wikipedia. My rubbing Molton's face in his own racism didn't help. Neither did your own creep-out obsession with the details of Mr. Wales personal life. But I'll move it to the annex.

I'll spell it out for you. It's in general discussion because it relates directly to the fundamental rule of NPOV. Ever heard of it?

Allow me to correct my statement. My own subjective experience does not necessarily hold true for everyone else in every WP topic category. It does, however, hold true to the fact that in the space of a mere two or three months at WR I've been called a commie no less than 18 times (mainly by Roe). That doesn't necessarily bother me; as an ex-wikipedian formerly active at modern military history topics I'm thoroughly accustomed to it (and so are a few others).

No offense GBG (because I completely understand why you would feel that way), but maybe you guys should recruit some new mods who think judicious moderating could actually improve the place.

Okay Mr Sanger. Let's overlook conveniently the fact that the United States is the only country in the world that has ever been found guilty of State-sponsored terrorism. The US ignored the ruling, saying it did not recognise the ruling. See The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, International Court of Justice (ICJ) 1984. (Curiously, the US now suddenly wants Gaddaffi to be brought before the same court that it earlier refused to recognise). Let's overlook also the CIA-backed death squads in Indonesia, which accounted for the deaths of nearly one million civilian suspected communists. Let's overlook also the CIA-sponsored Operation Phoenix in Vietnam that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilian suspected communists. What am I vaguely driving at? I'm driving at the well-established fact that the American WP (and you, apparently) is/are simply unwilling or unable to deal with complexity and diversity, not least of all in the sphere of politics and modern history. In my book, that amounts to moral bankrupcy. If that makes me a "commie", then so be it. Better a commie than a fucking hypocrite.

Wow! I'll accept that as a compliment. Didn't know anybody took me THAT seriously. Alternatively, you sure are one insecure SOB.

So tell me someone, anyone: Who exactly funds / controls WR? Could it be WMR? (Which latter might account for all the eternally meddling and bemedalled wikipedians here: just keepin' an eye on things, ya know).

Why are you still crying about your thread here in the Annex?

I'm not the cry-baby who thinks communicat is intent on "killing WR", and goes running to mods every time the truth hurts. Only thing I'm crying about, Mr Know-All, is your apparent inability/unwillingness to tell me who if anyone funds/controls WR.

3 letters. Starts with a "C" and ends with a "A". Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Funny thing is, the guy you're getting uppity with has a long, long, long history of questioning who "funds/controls WR". Greg isn't in cahoots with the management in any way shape or form.

You, dear Communicat, are just the latest verbose paranoiac to grace us with your presence. One can only hope that you'll get bored or busy sooner or later and give up, but for the time being you've somehow managed to become the life of the party. GBG's point was more or less that a party that somebody like you can become the life of is not a party worth hanging out at (the nearest bar, pub, or tavern would almost certainly be better).

Before you get on your large plastic horse and denounce me: I actually agree with you more often than I do the people you're arguing with, I just don't jump in because I rarely feel the urge to jump in to defend the asshole.

Perhaps Communicat and Ottava can go to Target and procure a plastic tarp and a gallon of Wesson corn oil before retiring to the comfy confines of a Motel 6?

"You know he's not messin' when he goes for the Wesson..."

Dear SOB_Johnny, why not just tell me: who if anyone funds WR? Simple question, merits a simple answer pse. (Oh, and BTW I don't have any gripe with GBG. Whatever gave you that idea? In fact, I think he's one of the few sensible individuals around here. Unlike your good self.)

Nah, they've bigger fish to fry. More likely to be Soros, maybe. But why the secrecy? It's not such a big deal.

*Snort*

Communicat. WR is actually a grass-roots endeavor. It's simply fallen on hard times. If Soros were running it, don't you think he'd pay for a few ads?

*coughs*

Never mind. I will tell you the truth. WR is a rare cooperation between the Anti-Defamation League, The John Birch Society, and MI6.

Thanks Zoloft. Much appreciated. "Grassroots" hey? Now I understand; that must mean free servers/hosting, free bandwidth, free techies, free domain fees, etc, etc. Even a few free pseudo-intellectuals and free free-for-alls. Land of the free, I love you.

I sincerely think it would far better to shutter the site. Even if a new crop of moderators performed flawlessly and optimized participation with the sites current participants and anyone likely to join in it would not accomplish anything I'd see as worthwhile. In the mean time there are still a few things worth saying in the rubble of the site including but no limited to "it would be better shutter the site."

To the words "it would be better shutter the site", maybe add: "and do a redirect to Wikipedia Watch, which says it all and has no room for mindless prattle."

Says the guy responsible for the majority of the mindless prattle over the last few weeks. It's as if Ottava went around accusing everyone of being too argumentative.

Ha ha. No, that's Wikipedia. WR is just a sideshow.

I would come back as a Global Moderator if things are really bad. Keep in mind though...

I was like this coming to WR:



Then I became a mod:



Now, I am a former mod:



If I return, I'll be a:



And there will be (proverbial) blood.

*Note to Mod: I never did figure out how to re-size photos on this forum. Could someone fix the above and tell me how to do so?



Indeed. *sigh*

Point, defeated.

Some person using the pseudonym "Selina" is the root sysop of this site, and she (?) finds a way to pay for the approximately $200 in hosting costs each year. One year, I contributed (I think) $20 or $30 to help out with the annual bill. I tend not to like Selina very much, because I thought this site could be run in a much more effective and meaningful way, but she didn't have the time or inclination to put forth the effort, and she didn't want to cede control of the site to someone who would. But, that's her choice, and I have to respect that.

Ya know Radek, that stuff really messes with your brain after a while. (Which might not necessarily be a bad thing if you want to add to your dazzling collection of wikimedals).

Says the guy who, whenever his neo-nazi views are challenged, can only retort/resnort "Fuck off". Well, as you can see, I'm not fucking off; and I still maintain you're a neo-nazi, despite or because of your unconvincing veneer of intellectual "superiority".

Interesting to note Selina's avatar appears to proselytize a now more-or-less defunct Irish terrorist movement with known links to British intelligence MI5/MI6. Nothing surprises me anymore about the wacky world of WP/WR. Long live Wikipedia Watch.

He did give you a very nice synopsis of US involvement in Chile. Be grateful he didn't decide to really squash you about USSR involvement in central Europe. However, by that time he had realized he was dealing with a True Believer, and there was no point.

If there's anything worse the people who simply say "fuck off" when they are called neo-nazis, it's people who call anybody whose politics are to the right of Rosa Luxemburg a neo-nazi in the first place.

Get the story right, you banal creep. Radek gave me no "very nice synopsis" about US/Chile. I deliberately distanced myself from that off-topic. His "very nice synopsis" was in fact directed at others including GBG who subsequently demolished Radek's brilliant thesis very nicely, thank you. As regards USSR involvement in central Europe, my only regret is that Radek was not among those at Katyn. Same applies to you.

Gosh, scratch a leftist, find a murderous bastard.

When people like you take their masks off and start making racist (yes, yes, I know "Poles" are not a race) and sociopathic remarks like the above, while at the same time whining and self-pitying themselves over how they got banned from some internet forum "unfairly", I know I'm doing something right.

Telling a dumb Polack that "he should've died at Katyn" takes no balls. Try something braver. Go insult some other ethnic group along the same lines.

Scumbag.

I happen to be of Polish extraction myself. Don't for a moment flatter yourself into thinking everyone with Polish blood in his veins is cast in the same mould as yourself, you egocentric fuckpig.

On reading the above brilliant exchange of sentiments, my only observation is that, as we grow older, we apparently grow no wiser or more intelligent--just a little less crazy, and the cultural and historical references change from generation to generation.

As to Communicat, it's like this. He's a rabid leftist. As such, he feels morally superior to others who aren't equally far left. He comes here to bait and criticize, as this (ironically) flatters his sense of moral superiority. Others understandably insult him in return. But this only encourages him because after all, if you sincerely believe yourself to be morally superior, insults are only evidence of your moral superiority.

I've already plonked him, myself.

I disagree that WR is going downhill. I find it quite entertaining!

Nah, you've not plonked me. You've simply and unsrprisingly failed to respond to my earlier remarks about body counts. But you're right about one thing: WR is not going downhill. It's already at the bottom of the cesspool, thanks to rabid wikipedians like you, Radek, and Roe. Funny things is, whenever anyone tries to engage them in reasoned debate about NPOV in WP modern history articles, the topic goes off-topic and then off-off-topic and mudslinging replaces rationality. Why am I not surprised?

Larry Sanger is a "rabid Wikipedian!?!"

What are earth have you been drinking?

He's a rabbit Wikipedian. Furries rule that site.

Wasn't he the same guy who earlier bragged here about all the NPOV material he contributes to WP?

Plus, Radek has retired. And I only improve articles on obscure topics in the sciences. This stuff is mirrored at many sites, and I believe it is essentially independent of Wikipedia.

I do it altruistically. Just to make Rand turn over in her grave.

The one thing I find disagreeable about communicat is that he uses that cute little cat for an avatar. An avowed ailurophile as myself simply cannot abide by having cute cat images associated with such rampant idiocy.

That is my only complaint on this issue. Carry on.

The one thing I find disagreeable about Kelly Martin is that she doesn't have an avatar at all.

GBG, you may ban away. Why would someone want to participate in a cesspool, and why would the current swimmers welcome such obnoxious criticism of the water temperature?

Like I get to decide or something.

There was a moment when I thought a small purge could turn the site around. But that moment passed. If it is any consolation sometimes I feel the same about your posts, although you were never among those I felt needed to be banned.