Can someone get "Louis Kyu Won Ryu" to stop vandalizing my
home page? He has no right to dictate what is on my page.
(He probably is Martin, but I will pretend otherwise. for
the moment; Martin has assumed other false identities in
the past. However, the present issue is that no one has the
right to dictate what is on our own homepages.)
RK
=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Although I could not prevent you, I would find it personally abhorrent if you people wasted money hiring some marketing company to "give the wiki a facelift". If you got money to blow, go feed children in third world countries. I think the wiki is pretty enough as it is.
As for a mascot, I think we should pick one of those tripped out deep-sea fish cuz, like them, we are bringing light to dark places.
Please stop Martin (MyRedDice) from writing on my User
page. I am tired of his support of Jew-baiting in Wikipedia
articles, but obviously Wikipedians feel that his behaviour
is Ok.
But I can, and do, ask that he stop harassing me by writing
on my own home page.
Martin's obsession with me is NOT funny; neither is his
constant support of violently anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish
bigotry.
RK
=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
>From: "Eric Demolli" <demolli(a)unice.fr>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l][roy_q_royce(a)hotmail.com: --A Request RE
>aWIKIArticle--]
>Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:16:37 +0200
[RR wrote:]
>>No one has yet used two clocks to measure the speed of light (one way).
>I'm not a specialist, but there is no need to measure the speed of light as
>SI time unit (the second) is defined by reference to the speed of light.
(So why didn't anyone chew you out for not even having a Sig?)
First of all, no mere definition can cause the outcome of any scientific
experiment.
Second, the definition that pertains to a speed of light is the one
that states that - by pure definition - a speed of light is _exactly_
299,492,458 m/s, but what speed of light is being defined to be
an exact number here?
It cannot be light's two-clock, one-way speed because no one has
ever measured this speed. Thus, it has to be either Maxwell's
_NO-clock_ speed or the one-clock, round-trip speed.
I fully agree of course that Maxwell's c is very close to the above
number, and I also fully agree that the round-trip, two-clock light
speed is very close to the above number, but I cannot agree that
the one-way, two-clock speed is close to the above number, and no
one has shown that it is close.
If you think that I am speaking some sort of gibberish here, then
please recall the fact that Einstein himself obtained a value
for the one-way speed of light that differed greatly from c. No,
I am not making this up. See the next paragraph.
In his book "Relativity_, Einstein noted that - given the truly
synchronous clocks of classical physics - (and he was not able
to prove that such clocks cannot exist) light's one-way, two-clock
speed will vary with the observer's velocity (and Einstein wrote
this mathematically as c - v for a departing light ray's speed).
If you still want to protest, then look again at Einstein's little
equation (which contained c - v as light's one-way speed) and tell
me how he derived it. Also tell me what it means physically. I
guarantee you that you will have to conclude that it was due to the
use of the truly synchronous clocks of classical physics on paper.
No amount of protesting or objecting from anyone can do away with
the fact that Einstein himself obtained the result c - v on paper.
And Einstein was not able to prove that this result will not _still_
occur truly synchronous clocks are used; all he did was force clocks
to obtain his chosen value c, supposedly chosen or given purely by
mere definition! It was certainly NOT given by any experiment using
two clocks!
This is why it is extremely important to separate the two-clock case
from the other cases (i.e., from the one-clock and the no-clock ones).
These three cases are fundamentally different. There are three different
speeds of light. And the one-way speed has not been determined yet.
(By the way, the second is 9, 192, 631, 770 cycles of some atomic
radiation, so it is not "defined by reference to the speed of light,"
as you said.)
One final remark: What is your personal prediction for the outcome
of "the one-way light speed measurement by using two clocks"?
------RR------(you can call me a stupid crackpot all you want, but
I speak with unforked tongue! :-) )
_________________________________________________________________
Help protect your PC. Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Robert,
Thank you for bringing this issue to the mailing list. I appreciate your
efforts to keep important articles from getting mangled.
By the way, it was I (Uncle Ed) who 'protected' the page.
I think everyone would agree that the word "apostate" has a negative
connotation. Perhaps it's best used in a sentence like:
*Francis Xavier McDougal called Friar Travers an "apostate".
Also, most of us would agree that the article should attribute the POV
that Vatican II is a "heresy" to adherents of that view, rather than
stating it as a fact or implying that it's 'common knowledge.'
I have high hopes for a quick Wikonciliation of this issue.
Sincerely,
Ed Poor
An anonymous user has been attacking our entry on
"Christian-Jewish reconciliation". He has added grossly
anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic comments in the Talk page,
and has been using the article to slander all Catholics as
"apostates". This new person is trying to make the
Wikipedia article present as a fact that Catholicism since
Catican II is heretical, and that he alone understands the
true interpretation of the Bible and of Church dogma.
This new user appears to be a so-called "Traditional
Catholic", who holds violently anrgy beliefs towards
Catholics and Jews.
In response, Martin (MyRedDice) and Stevertigo have egged
this person on, and have protected multiple anti-Catholic
and anti-Semitic comments.
Stevertigo then added a bizarre rant on oil, the
middle-east, Arabs, the USA and the State of Israel, none
of which has anything to do with this article. (i.e.
evolving relations between Christians and Jews.) It is
just another one of his attacks on Israel.
Stevertigo has also made bziarre and false accusations
towards me, claiming that I am writing "anti-Christian"
propaganda, and that I am being racist towards Chrisitans.
This, of course, is a total fabrication. In fact, I am
concerned about the way that this new user, Martin, and
Stevertgio are allowing people to slander and harass
Catholic Christians.
Wikipedia should be a community where all people, including
all Christians, should be comfortable participating. The
way that this trio is allowing hateful slander of Catholics
is simply unacceptable. To falsely accuse _me_ of
Christian-bashing is shocking, as only they are attacking
any Christians.
Stevertigo has further added sections to this article that
include total fabrications on Jewish views of Christianity.
he then criticises Jews for these positions (which they
never held in the first place.) And Martin is egging him
on, for reasons I can't fathom.
Finally, they protected this page.
Please help deal with thos shockingly hateful anti-Catholic
and anti-Jewish baheviour, and this total violation of all
Wikipedia norms.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
[Sorry about that lest email -- no html this time. Brian]
I've been trying to follow this, so I decided to "research" by looking at
the David Irving article Robert referred to. I'm new to the list, so I
don't know who's on it or what they know, but I want to weigh in with the
facts as I have found them (I know it's very long, but please read before
making any judgments). In short, I think that Richard has taken things out
of context Therefore I've put in below:
1) a short part of Richard's email -- specifically what he says Stevertigo
says about Irving.
2) the link to the page history
3) the article before Stevertigo edited it
4) the article after, which was posted with the comment line: (This is a
minor edit of about 2000 words... Definitely in need of some edits...)
Thanks, Brian <http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bcorr>
=================
At 04:36 PM 10/1/03 +0000, you wrote:
>Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 09:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Robert <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo should not be allowed to write about
> Jews
>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
...snip...
>3. [[David Irving]] is a much-maligned academic. He is a
>"young
>and talented writer," who has simply, and misguidedly tried
>to point out that post the second generation of Germans
>after the Holocaust "were no less victims of Hitler than
>the Jews were." Irving then wants "to bridge the gap
>between victor and victim."
>
>4. David Irving gave reasons why the numbers attached to
>the [[Holocaust]] could not be authentic. He repeats
>Irving's famous assertion: "more women died on the back
>seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever
>died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."
-----------------------------
Here is the page history:
<http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Irving&action=history>
-----------------------------
David Irving
(Revision as of 02:22, 21 Sep 2002)
< http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Irving&oldid=674726>
David Irving (born 1938), historian well known for his Holocaust
revisionism. Among other things, he denies that the Germans exterminated
jews in Gas Chambers during World War II
-----------------------------
David Irving
(Revision as of 19:29, 16 Feb 2003)
<http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Irving&diff=674731&oldid=…>
David Irving (born 1938), historian well known for his Holocaust
revisionism. Among other things, he has denied that the Germans
exterminated jews in Gas Chambers during World War II. In a judgement by
the High court of Justice, Irving was found to be a Holocaust denier and an
"anti-Semite."
A forgiving view of David Irving might see him as; a conflicted, ambitious,
and talented, (albeit entirely misguided) young man, who tried to shake
off, instead of reconciling, the legacy of German shame for his its Nazi
past. He originally stirred up a hornets nest of very sensitive issues in a
sensationalistic and irresponsible way, and in the light of the aftermath;
the stinging controversy, the focused attacks upon his person, and
marginalized prospects for future academic acceptance.
Too quick to rush to the assertion of his premises. he published books,
perhaps originally with little understanding of the kind of backlash they
would cause. 'Bad press being good press', he continued to work under
conditions of ever-increased marginalization, and rejection by whatever
limited academic connections he had. His associations with racist or
quasi-racist groups, began in an attempt to seek support for his work,
while perhaps negotiating issues in a way that tried to reconcile disparate
facts and social elements.
Irving, however, often was neither courteous or tactful; nor in the least
bit considerate of the passionate anger his books, theories and comments
would face, and he often spoke quite "tastelessly." As he put it, :
"I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's
a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and
large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died
elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney? ...I say quite
tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward
Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."
Criticism
The critics of Irving claim that his scholarship is poor, the substance in
his work trite, and its keen to make assumptions. In Richard Evans' Lying
About Hitler, London University Professor David Cannadine was quoted (Re:
Irving's first volume of his biography of Winston Churchill):
"It has received almost no attention from historians or reviewers...It is
easy to see why.... full of excesses, inconsistancies and omissions...
seems completely unaware of recent work done on the subject... It is not
merely that the arguments in this book are so perversely tendentious and
irresponsibly sensationalist. It is also that it is written in a tone which
is a best casually journalistic and at worst quite exceptionally offensive.
The text is littered with errors from beginning to end."
Richard Evans, himself, said: "Irving's conclusions were completely
untenable. I thought his scholarship was sloppy and unreliable and did not
meet even the most basic requirements of honest and competent historical
research."
Revisionism
In essence, the judgement of Irving and revisionism, by most historians is
that he and it represented a dubiously suspect middle ground between
outright Neo-Naziism and Legitimate historianism, in some attempt to
legitimize the Neo-Nazi movement. The general consensus on Irving, among
established historians, is that he was in far over his head, making the
typical mistake of amateur historians and scientists, of starting with a
premise, and seeking to prove it, instead of researching, and letting the
facts speak for themselves. This eventually led to his making academic
blunders, and to consequent public denouncements, and thus "revisionism"
was became a genre-of-sorts, sub-academia, attempting to tie together any
work that countered any previously established research into Nazi history,
as "revising" of history, and would attempt to include neo-Nazi racism in
the same category as thorough research that might challenge an established
fact.
Irvings "revisionism" centered around the idea that Hitler did not know in
any detail about the events of the Holocaust, and that the coordinated
actions by Nazis to murder 6 million Jews took place at some administrative
level, beneath the attention of Hiter himself. While it is true that
Hitler, was clever enough to sanitize records connecting him with the
concentration camps, the idea that the absolute dictator of a large, modern
country, having long-established political and administrative connections
and heirarchies althroughout Germany, Austria, and other Nazi occupied
areas, is highly suspect. There turns out to be very little paper evidence
indeed, of the administration of the Holocaust, regardless of any
connections to Hitler himself. Irving, his critics say, in order to accept
that Hitler knew of the holocaust, (disregarding, for the moment, any
direct role he may have had in its orchestration), would be, in essence,
saying that Hitler was only a benign figurehead. The evidence supports
otherwise.
Irving was someone who reacted defensively to sharp attacks of
anti-Semitism working with limited credentials - doing serious work, albeit
with little assistance and connection to familiar circles. Working with
limited evidence, such as the forgery of a "Last confession of Hitler", as
the partial basis for some of his work. Irving claims this as a defense,
that others have cited these false sources, and yet still recieve
legitimate attention, despite a flaw in their publication.
As the heated feelings about the Holocaust continue, but there has been
some recent academic consensus on an important Holocaust issue: That in the
late 1930's, Hitler had not yet planned to murder Jews of Europe, rather
had hoped to forcibly move them out of Europe entirely. Only later, the
theory says, after pressures from the war, did Hitler act to deliberately
murder millions of Jews. This idea is contradicted by the that fact that
the Nazis made prisons out of the Jewish ghettos, not allowing them to
leave en masse. It is supported by the fact that there was not yet any
devised way to kill and dispose of millions of people, in the camp furnaces.
Only more recently, and in the context of debunking Irving, who claimed
that it was impossible to incinerate and dispose of 6 million people, was
it discovered that the Nazis had calculated that human bodyfat, after
preheating, could provide the added fuel that would sustain the feasible
operation of the furnaces.
Irving v. Lipstadt
David Irving, in 1996, sued writer Deborah Lipstadt, and publisher Penguin
Books in the High Court of Justice for her book Denying the Holocaust, on
the claim of libel. The verdict in Irving v. Lipstadt was short:
14.1 It follows that there must be judgment for the Defendants.
This followed numerous court findings, including the counterclaims of his
"anti-Semitism", of his being a "Holocaust denier", and of his
misrepresentaton of fact in his books.
On the issue of Irving's anti-Semitism, Mr. Justice Gray of the Queen's
Bench Division, in giving judgment against David Irving in April, 2000 wrote:
"[Irving's] words are directed against Jews, either individually or
collectively, in the sense that they are by turns hostile, critical,
offensive, and derisory in their references to semitic people, their
characteristics and appearances. A few examples will suffice: Irving has
made claims that the Jews deserve to be disliked; that they brought the
Holocaust on themselves; that Jewish financiers are crooked; that Jews
generate anti-semitism by their greed and mendacity; that it is bad luck
for Mr. Wiesel to be called "Weasel"; that Jews are amongst the scum of
humanity; that Jews scurry and hide furtively, unable to stand the light of
day; that Simon Wiesenthal has a hideous, leering evil face; and so on...
The inference which in my judgment is clearly to be drawn from what Irving
has said and written is that he is anti-semitic." (Matas, David. Bloody
Speech. Winnipeg & Niagara Falls, 2000, p. 64)
===In defense of==
Irving has had, at least, one defender in Dr. Joel Hayward of Massey
University in New Zealand. Hayward, responding to claims that Irving was
unqualified, having never finished a batchelor's degree, by citing
respected historians Gerald Reitlinger, Georges Wellers, Jean-Claude
Pressac, and Walter Laqueur, as having unusual qualifications as
historians. Hayward also wrote:
"I have critically examined - keeping issues of truth, objectivity and bias
at the forefront of my mind -- ALL his thirty-one books... [I have] been
able to check his sources and they way he used them... I can say with
confidence that I am as well positioned to comment on Irving's scholarship
as anyone. My judgement: I certainly don't agree with all his arguments and
conclusions, and strongly disagree with some, but I can't find serious
flaws in his methodology and I have never found a single example of
deliberate falsification of evidence. ...Deborah Lipstadt's book is
hopeless [and] Gerald Fleming's [book] is easily the best of the
anti-Irving books, but even that ultimately fails to prove falsification or
improper consideration of evidence."
Hayward's motivations, however, have been called as suspect as well: His
masters thesis at the New Zealand's University of Canterbury, caused an
uproar, in making the claim that far fewer than 6 million Jews, perhaps
fewer than 1 million, perished in Nazi concentration camps; adding that
Hitler could not be held personally responsible for any suffering
experienced by the Jews of Europe. Hayward later apologized for the thesis,
expressing remorse over the "mistakes I made as an inexperienced student",
adding that he was "inexperienced in the historian's craft and knew
relatively little about the Holocaust and its complex historiography."
David Irving's 'Focal Point Publications' official website - Holocaust
victims website
I really am unhappy with the way that Christian Identity
anti-Semites such as Stevertigo are being allowed to push
hatred of Israel and Jews on this e-mail list, and on
multiple Wikipedia articles.
I am even more unhappy about the way that several people
are writing me privately, admitting to me that they too see
huge amounts of anti-Semitism, but that they are publicly
unwilling to say or do anything about this, especially in
regards to Stevertigo.
This man is a violently hateful anti-Semitic racist, and
the way that so many people consider him a valuble
controbutor onl serves to further the impression that
Wikipedia is becoming an internet haven for anti-Semites,
as well as people who Catholics and others.
The following analysis of Stevertigo shows that he is a
"Christian Idenity" style anti-Semite. What people do with
this information will show whether or not anti-Semitism is
considered acceptable or not on Wikipedia.
Just stop allowing him to edit articles on Jews,
Christians, Israel, etc.
******************
Stevertigo's latest efforts have been to whitewash
that much maligned beacon of academic integrity, [[David
Irving]]. I immediately removed the text, only to start a
minor edit war and provoke censure for the act, even from
people I believe acted out of good intentions. You might
also want to see the essay on Irving that SV posted on his
personal page.
Before you react, here are some thoughts. SV is acting
cleverly-so cleverly, in fact, that for a while I thought
that SV was actually Irving himself. By the way, it's not
that far off. Notice how, on the Talk Page, when I called
Irving a Nazi apologist, he signed his response "The
Apologist." I was up to three this morning, tracing his
contributions, and their development is too sophisticated
for the standard anti-Semitic gibberish that people post.
In short, his argument over several weeks is leading
somewhere. The points he is trying to make are as follows:
1. Anti-Semitism should be defined as taking extreme
actions against Jews: killing them, maiming them, or
hurting them in some other, physical way. Anti-Jewish
sentiment is not anti-Semitism.
2. [[Henry Ford]] may have published anti-Semitic articles,
but
by this definition, he is not an anti-Semite.
I call this stage, "testing the waters." He continues:
3. [[David Irving]] is a much-maligned academic. He is a
"young
and talented writer," who has simply, and misguidedly tried
to point out that post the second generation of Germans
after the Holocaust "were no less victims of Hitler than
the Jews were." Irving then wants "to bridge the gap
between victor and victim."
4. David Irving gave reasons why the numbers attached to
the [[Holocaust]] could not be authentic. He repeats
Irving's famous assertion: "more women died on the back
seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever
died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."
By following this logic,
5. The Nazis could not possibly be anti-Semitic (point 1),
because while they spoke about the Jews harshly, they did
not actually do any harm.
Therefore:
6. Who is responsible for the supposed imbalance between
Germany and the rest of the world if not the Jews?
As evidence for this, I quote Stevertigo's misquote of
Chomsky on his homepage: "Those who express their fear and
concern over manifestations of anti-Semitism among Blacks
and others might be taken seriously if they were to pay
even the slightest attention to what is said by their
friends and associates. They do not." In other words,
Blacks are justified for anti-Semitism because of
anti-Black racism supposedly prevalent among Jews. In other
words, anti-Semitism can be justified. Once again, we go
back to "testing the waters."
This argument is remarkably sophisticated-more so than, for
example, Clutch's rantings. Stevertigo is using quite a few
techniques used in top-notch propaganda efforts:
* He is combining fact with fiction in sophisticated ways,
so that readers immediately make the assumption that if one
statement is truthful, the other must necessarily be
truthful too.
* He is appealing to the innate sense of identification
with the underdog that most people have: notice his quote
from Thomas (originally in Psalms, but who is gonna check):
"the discarded stone is the keystone."
* He presents as fact things that only people with
specialized knowledge will know is wrong. In "Letter versus
Spirit" last night, he wrote: The Hebrew word "Torah", in
fact, similar to the Christian Old Testament, translates as
"the Law." He got a little snide when I called him on that.
* He is trying to drive wedges between people involved in
the debate.
* He is employing cynicism to fend off criticisms of him:
"And due to my ties to the Neo-nazi Filipino hemp mafia…"
* He is citing NPOV as a justification for promoting his
agenda.
* He is transferring guilt from the victims to the
oppressors. For instance, "Even though they were only small
children while Hitler was alive, they still shouldered the
heavy hand of guilt - of War-raped mothers and sisters, of
destroyed country, and a long lost sense of who they were."
In other words, the poor German children watched their
mothers raped by the Allies, their country destroyed by
them, and their sense of identity "long lost."
Poignant, painful imagery, but what the fuck is "long
lost?" "Long lost identity" is actually a Nazi phrase
regarding the lost of German culture because of Jewish
infiltration, but who the heck is gonna know that unless
they actually studied the history.
* He is claiming to take a middle ground between two
extremes: "I think Irving represents an important middle
ground between victim and victim." In other words, Nazis
should be rejected (or at least at this point, their
arguments should be rejected), but so should Jews, because
the two represent extremes.
Please understand that we will not change SV's mind. He is
too steeped in his belief system for that. My concern is
that he is fooling others.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
RK,
Just to respond to your first numbered point, re the statement:
* Anti-Jewish sentiment is not anti-Semitism.
I'm fairly sure that anti-Semitism is generally held to include
"anti-Jewish sentiment". I faintly recall that at one point, the
[[anti-Semitism]] article even defined it that way.
Those who advocate a different DEFINITION of the term are welcome to
their POV, of course, but any non-standard (or controversial) usage
should be marked as such.
I'm sure we can reach a harmonious resolution of this issue, through
calm discussion just like this.
Keep up the good work!
Ed Poor