ICC (was: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedians as war criminals)

Thu Apr 17 08:34:42 UTC 2003

tarquin wrote:

> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>> America fears that the ICC will do X, Y and Z.
>> Supporters of the ICC call these things unlikely or impossible.
>>
>> (Or something like that.)
>>
>> What you said about the "appearance of a troll" has, itself, the 
>> appearance of a personal attack. But I don't mind. It reminds me 
>> about [[Sam Gamgee]]'s amusing poem from The Lord of the Rings. 
>> (Although I confess I am a bit worried about going outside my cave 
>> during daylight: I might turn into stone :-)
>>
> Ed, it was the way you said "kangaroo court" that seemed trollish.
> Reading tonight's version of the ICC article, I can see that (to 
> summarize very broadly), US opponents feel that the ICC is a "damned 
> if we do, damned if we don't" sort of setup, since it would be the US 
> doing the actual dirty work of dragging out any dictators.
> I don't necessarily agree (it still smacks of imperialism as an 
> argument - the shark saying "why should I take part in the minnows' 
> parliament?"), but it is clearly put, and the article is much 
> improved. :-)

Personal attack would be if I called a person a troll, but not a 
specific action as has been the case.  I do have strong opinions on 
these matters, but for the most part I am content not to push these 
"interesting but dangerous" matters.  However, sometimes when an 
otherwise respected Wikipedian  takes an outrageous position, it's hard 
not to reply.  Rick Wilson's babblings didn't make enough sense to merit 
any response at all.  It seems that whenever brings this stuff to the 
attention of the list it starts a whole new uproar.

I'll try to find time to look more closely at the ICC article, but in 
the middle of tax accounting work (the Canadian season runs to April 30) 
I need to pay a little more attention to work.  To continue the analogy 
started by Ed, looking back too seriously on this recent ICC debate 
could turn some of us into pillars of salt.

Ec