User talk:LenBudney: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Pax. |
Cleaned out old discussions. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Grouped by Subject == |
== Grouped by Subject == |
||
Cleaned up on 2003-09-09 |
|||
=== Israeli "Torture" Allegations === |
|||
The use of torture was officially confirmed by Yitzhak Rabin. it is not alleged. --[[User:Elian|Elian]] |
|||
Rabin specifically denied the characterization or Israeli interrogation methods as "torture". I read the speech too, you know. Someone who can't tell allegations from fact is an idiot--e.g., Karl. Et tu, Elian? --[[User:LenBudney|Len]] |
|||
:Elian: The question is if the confirmed practices of the Israelis constitute torture. In my definition (and that of Amnesty and a lot of other institutions), they do. |
|||
:Len: ''(Nods) Uh huh. And according to others, they don't. That's what makes an allegation an allegation, rather than a fact. I can't believe this is news to you.'' |
|||
====...Snippage...==== |
|||
:Elian: And nothing justifies to call adherents of other definitions of torture idiots. If you can't behave civilized, keep away from such hot topics. --[[User:Elian|Elian]] |
|||
:Len: ''(Shakes head) No. Karl is not an idiot because of his definition of torture. He is an idiot because he can't seem to figure out what "NPOV" means.'' |
|||
:Elian: And you can't seem to figure out what basic civil behaviour means. Idiot is an insult and not a term to describe someone's capability or incapability to grasp certain concepts. I think an apology to Karl would be appropriate. --[[User:Elian|Elian]] |
|||
:Len: ''"Incapability to grasp certain concepts" like NPOV, for instance. Please state the nature of your confusion.'' |
|||
[[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]]: I had to leave before the argument on Apartheid was over, so I never got a chance to say that I was very very upset with the way you used my talk page--and wikipedia--as a place for juvenile insults. It is unbecoming, and I am sure this is not the image you intended to project. |
|||
Len: ''Sorry--how do you address a man who asks to be told the difference between fact and opinion while editing an encyclopedia? Besides thunderstuck and disappointed, I frankly have no idea how to explain this distinction to somebody who has reached adulthood without learning it. An illustration seemed the only likely course.'' |
|||
---- |
|||
Hi there Len. By chance I remember having read your home page sometime before (in connection with Supermemo, that wonderful piece of software which I also swear by!). It's great to see you contributing to Wikipedia. I liked your article on the [[parable of the broken window]] - Wikipedia is currently a bit weak in economics, so it's great to see good new articles in this area. [[User:Enchanter|Enchanter]] |
|||
Hi yourself! Thanks for the kind word. Have we also met on the Supermemo mailing list? (If not, have you heard about the Supermemo wiki at my homepage? I'm trying to get people to contribute...) --Len. |
|||
:Thanks Len. I have lurked a while on the supermemo mailing list but not posted much! Your supermemo wiki is a great idea. I hadn't found it before, and I will definately be dropping by there in future. [[User:Enchanter|Enchanter]] |
|||
---- |
|||
Len. I don't normally get involved in the Arab-Israeli edit wars but the recent one of which you were part worried me. There is nothing ''alleged'' about Israeli torture of Palestinians, it is well documented by [[Amnesty International]] and others. It is disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise. I draw your attention to the following report on the torture of an American Arab. http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1098/9810022.html. [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] 12:23 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC) |
|||
The specific allegations are, in several instances, denied by Israelis and attested by nobody but the individual claiming to have been tortured. As for the instances which Israelis acknowledge, or which are attested by solid evidence, it is disputed in most cases whether they rise to the level of torture. International law recognizes ''some'' levels of force in interrogating (1) terrorists, and (2) individuals holding information needed immediately to save lives. Finally, the situation is rendered less clear by the fact that some enforcement officers may exceed their mandate, but their behavior is reported as if it were official Israeli policy. (As for the web page you offered, a perusal of the web site certainly demonstrates how impartial and unbiassed they are...''snicker''. "But...but...they even say they're unbiassed on their 'About' page!") --Len. |
|||
---- |
|||
:This is not an Arab publication. |
|||
::''[Who said it was?]'' |
|||
:It is an American publication founded by American people with knowledge and experience of Middle-Eastern affairs. |
|||
::''[And bias.]'' |
|||
:To brand this as biased because it doesn't fit in with your pre-conceived notions of the rights and wrongs of the Arab-Israeli conflict is simply a case of sticking your head in the sand. |
|||
::''[And calling them biased because their selection of content is clearly biased is called what?]'' |
|||
:Your comments suggest that you support the notion of torture in certain circumstances. You also suggest that International law also supports this notion. I would be interested if you could find out under what circumstances this is the case. |
|||
::''[None of what you just said is true. International law supports more aggressive interrogation, under certain circumstances. You are deeming it torture, whereas in reality this is debatable in some cases.]'' |
|||
: To help you along Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil rights states ''No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.'' [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] 00:52 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC) |
|||
::''[Interesting how the US drops off its ''Al Qaeda'' prisoners in Egypt, so they can be tortured. Which confuses me: aren't Arabs little lambs, and Jews murdering nazis?]'' |
|||
---- |
|||
In the mean time, please don't insult me any more. [[User:172|172]] |
|||
:[''I'll try, idiot.''] |
|||
-------- |
-------- |
||
Revision as of 11:46, 9 September 2003
Grouped by Subject
Cleaned up on 2003-09-09
I did not add bias to any articles. I have listed contributions on my page, 172.
- [I read them, idiot. The bias was clear.]
I have improved every article boundlessly. In fact, I think that's the real source of the resentment.
- [Bwahaha! "Boundlessly"! Self-love is one thing--it looks like you could marry yourself.]
I suppose that everything I wrote was too elevated for you.
- [That remark, for instance? Well, man, I'm rubber and you're glue...]
There is a war about to start. Find something more important to do than engaging in petty bickering. Vera Cruz
- What war are you talking about? Not meaning to be dense... --Len.
Start with these... Vera Cruz
- (Snipping a few dozen articles) Sorry I asked. I took your question seriously, and thought you'd give me some sort of useful answer. My mistake. --Len.
Ignorance is bliss, no? Vera Cruz
- I didn't realize you were making an inane remark like, "With war in Iraq possibly impending, you shouldn't bicker with 172." It's equally fair to say, "With all the hunger in the world, you should turn off your computer and go do something, Vera." But thanks for insulting my intelligence twice; it's very refreshing. --Len.
There's a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk regarding the 1933 assault weapons ban which you may be able to answer. If you email the user who left the question, please also post a notice on the desk. Thanks! --Eloquence 21:36 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
Coming across your user page, I realized that you still haven't apologized for waging that personal crusade against me when I was a new user, accusing me of 'whitewashing every socialist in history' and disparaging me with all your choice insults. If you admit that the charges you conjured up were misguided, I could perhaps reconsider my negative opinion of you as a Wikipedia contributor. 172 06:56, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at your current contributions to see whether you've improved any. As it stands, your combination of poor editing and personal narcissism make apology impossible. Anyone who claims to have "boundlessly improved" an article by injecting his own weird POV is going to get short shrift from anyone with sense. --Len.
- Followup: you seem to have toned down the egotistical rhetoric considerably. Still rather POV and left-wing, but considerably less self-absorbed. If you are, then I'm ready to let bygones be bygones. Pax? --Len.