User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive June 2004

WHEELER?

I am so tired of this place. I can't get anything done. It is just constant fighting to maintain simple truths of definition. I can't move to other things because there is a constant revert war on everything. I come up Western Culture. It gets turned around to some kind of leftist thing. The Classic Definition of a Republic is destroyed by editing by liberals. These people don't have a clue to what they are talking about. Yet they presuppose their superiority. If they knew anything they would have written it first. Nothing means nothing anymore. What's the point here? It is nothing but disgusting. I do hard work and someone comes by and messes with it.

What's the point here? NPOV only means Leftist slant to everything here.

Is there something to do with starting a Christian wikipedia because this is just absolute nonsense to keep fighting with these stupid people. That is why I left college. It wasn't about learning at all. I wasn't learning anything at college. It is all propaganda. I want to go someplace else this place is disgusting. kAnd this place is about propaganda. It isn't about experts writing about anything.

I read the Doctrine of Fascism, I get reverted by a bunch of yahoos that don't read it. I can't stand this idiotic nonsense.

And I don't like this new format. I like the old one. 198.108.150.2 15:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are being annoyed by some of the strengths of the wikipedia. For example, the constant editing by random people (largely Left-wing academics). That is good because it keeps things fresh, and because eventually, theoretically, we will end up w better content than any one of us alone could write. I have been a pollster, and often read surveys, and the sad truth is the more educated people are Left wing, generally. Thats because the schools teach them to be. Whats to be done? Check out this test http://politicalcompass.org/ It says I'm Left-wing too... ;) Sam Spade 15:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kev

'They underline your POV here, and the difficulty it causes you in thinking outside the box.'

Hearing that from the person who decided to create a VfD on the libertarian socialism page based mainly on the fact that he had never heard of it before is a very bad joke. Kev

'Firstly you assume that a stateless society could ever be desireable.'

There are people who desire it, thus it is desirable for those people. For you to deny this is the height of arrogance. Even if you were playing on the "there has never been an instance of stateless society" card you would be wrong. There have been isolated instances of stateless society, some of those have included modern anarchists, and many of those anarchists did desire such a society before, during, and after its existence. It really is amazing that you are so full of yourself that you can crassly deny the very desires of those you disagree with. Kev

'Secondly you bypass completely the glaring possibility that Anarchists have something entirely other in mind than a long term state of anarchy.'

I am an anarchist, I desire a long term anarchist society. All the major anarchist theorist and the vast majority of their followers have said exactly the same thing, and I see no reason to call them liars. If it so happens that you don't believe them, your personal opinion that they (and myself) are all involved in some kind of grand lie is not sufficent evidence to deny the very expression of their desires. Honestly, how dare you dictate to other people what they want or don't want. What right do you have to tell me and others what we are allowed to desire and what we are not? Kev

'Something similar to how people have always responded to anarchy? The rapid aquisition of power, the manipulation of chaos, and the installation of totalitarianism?'

Funny, there is a whole class of people who have not responded to anarchism in such a way when it occurs. They are called anarchists. That you are a statist who would seek a rapid acquisition of power in the absence of authority does not mean that I am, and your idle speculation as to our ulterior motives does not belong in wikipedia articles. Kev

'Anarchy leads to warlordism which leads to totalitarianism.'

Are you STILL unable to tell the difference between the word anarchy and anarchism? Are you for real, or just trolling wikipedia? The fact that most (not all) attempts at anarchism (not anarchy) in the past were crushed by overwhelming force of statists like yourself is NOT a reflection of the values of the anarchists who are hung in your streets and shot in your jails, it is a reflection of YOUR values. Kev 16:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User talk spam

Thank you for the welcome message you left in my user talk page, however, I've been on Wikipedia for a while (albeit usually logged out). Looking like generic boilerplate, I decided to check your contributions to see if you posted the message to other people's user talk, which was the case. I understand that you're trying to be friendly, but you are inadvertently spamming, especially since user talk pages are usually linked to email.

If you feel that newcomers may feel overwhelmed, perhaps the "Welcome, newcomers" page should be made shorter and more user-friendly, and more prominently linked-to from the front page instead of sending out messages.

BTW, sorry if I came off a bit insulting, but this is just text (as opposed to speech), and I don't really think :-)s were quite appropriate.

--Ldrhcp 21:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"hate speech" NPOV

Please review. Sam Spade 03:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Please explain. Why did you not start with the sentences about whose weaknesses we both agreed? Rather than just reverting disagreemtns we should be worked out on talk. Get-back-world-respect 03:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree generally, but the edits I reverted placed the extremely POV term "Hate speech" (have a look at the article on "hate speech", a more intellectually and morally repugnant attempt at enforcing thoughtcrime than this term escapes me..) and simultaneously removed cited information. One of them also contained a serious grammer error. Perhaps you are right that I should have strove to make such edits as might have been mutually agreeable, but they were not immediately obvious. I would have improved those passages we agreed were difficult some time back if I has possessed the muse to do so. Some of your statements in talk suggest to me that you might find some use in the link above. If so, please do avail yourself of such. Sam Spade 22:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

If you know a better term please use it, I think hatespeech is entirely accurate when calling the president of another country "a balding Jean of Arc in drag" or claiming that he "[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/899082/posts and his poodle (sic!) Putin]" had "severly damaged the United Nations". If you see grammar errors please correct them, do not intertwine that with alleged lack of neutrality. The removing of cited "information" was explained to you. Get-back-world-respect 22:45, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I understand your POV. I object to your placing loaded words within the article itself however, and am concerned by your use of it in talk. Having an opinion is ok, expressing it is acceptable, and placing it in the article is against policy. You clearly think that this is an example of "Hate Speech", and by default agree that there exists such a thing as "Hate Speech". I find the concept an act of Fascism, and a solid step towards Newspeak. What do I think would be an acceptable substitute? Anything NPOV. Sam Spade 22:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Hate speech is just a term for hateful speech which exists and using the term has nothing to do with fascism. Complaining without making a better suggestion is not particularly useful. Get-back-world-respect 23:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I am prefectly ok with replacing it by "aggressive harrassment" and still a bit puzzled that someone can feel that there is matters a lot which of the terms is used. Get-back-world-respect 23:40, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I admit the concepts of "hate speech" and "hate crime" offend me, but I am not alone in that, and their very use implies the moral judgement that they are acceptable. The other thing that concerned me was the combination of your statements in talk, your user name, and the statement on your user page. Neutrality is of similar importance to factual accuracy, the two of them being the fundamental policies of the wikipedia. I am open to anyone being of any opinion, but it is important that the articles reflect our own as little as possible. One of the profound benefits of the group editing process is the steady reduction of POV and increase of factual accuracy, which I'm glad to see you appreciate. Cheers, Sam Spade 23:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Their use implies that they are acceptable? You mean that the words are acceptable? Why do you think the words are unacceptable? Is "hate speech" a legal term in the US and you think that it should not be a crime? If so I partly agree, in Germany it is dealt with as insults for which you have to pay a fine and if you insult something official like the flag or the president you could go to jail but I know of no case. We have laws against denying the holocaust and sedition - usually in connection with racism - which I think go over the top.

With my user name and the statement on my page I am trying to reveal most openly where I have a strong personal opinion. Sometimes I argue according to this opinion on talk pages but I regard it respectless to sneak personal opinions into articles. It is also counterproductive because it reduces the credibility of the project. Get-back-world-respect 10:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I think we agree about the hate speech laws then. Racists are encouraged, not cured by laws obstructing their freedoms, as this persecution gives them the justification they crave. Are you German? I also reveal a bit about myself with my name, but my politics/theoretical biases are far less categorical, and thus suit themselves poorly to convenient explanation. I will contemplate producing some listing of them in the future. Sam Spade 04:06, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Opinions

Yes, I am German. What do you regard "categorical" about my opinions? Does "bias" not have a negative connotation? Get-back-world-respect 21:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your opinions appear to be Left (anti-american, anti-authority, sympathetic to unconventional causes, etc...). The question about being German was based on my going to Germany this fall, and isn't otherwise related to this conversation. Sam Spade 21:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am not at all anti-American, I am anti-Bush, as are about 50% of the US population. One of my best friends is from New Jersey, and when I visited New York and Boston I liked both. I would not call myself "anti-authority" either. For example, I would appreciate it very much if the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court would be accepted as global authorities. I like the fact that there are institutions like the WTO, the UN or the EU, even though none of them work perfectly. I personally had only good experience with the police, and if there were no such authority as my flatmates our flat might become a big chaos every once in a while. What I do not like is when authorities get out of control, e.g. when teachers or professors get a lifelong position and start to act arrogantly and self-righteously. I regard prisoner abuses or the non-payment of the fine for the Nicaragua affair as extreme cases of this. I do not understand what you mean with "sympathetic to unconventional causes" nor what you reveal with your user name. Get-back-world-respect 22:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mumia is an "unconventional cause", and Sam Spade is a fictional character most famous in having been portrayed by Humphrey Bogart (my favorite actor). Sam Spade 22:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cannot read much politics out of the lines about Sam Spade. I still do not understand the meaning of the term "unconventional cause", and if you think I am sympathetic to Mumia Abu Jamal, I am not more sympathetic to him than to any other guy who probably killed someone and therefore sits on a death row. I find it disgusting to kill people, and I think no one has the authority to do so, especially not public authorities who should be there to protect lifes. In that regard I accept people who think that there is no other way to protect lifes than to take that of those who threaten it, e.g. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Get-back-world-respect 23:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, there isn't anything political about Sam Spade, he's just a pulp fiction detective. I ment that it reflected my personality or demeanor, not my politics. I support my govt. generally, and generally frown at treason. That being said it would have been for the best if Hitler had been assassinated sometime around 1940. Sam Spade 23:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You still support your government after it lied to the UN Security Council, broke international law by raging a war of aggression, by cluster bombing civilians and by denying human rights to its prisoners? In my opinion, Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, Aznar, Howard, and Miller are war criminals and should be tried at the Hague. Legally that is not possible with Bush personally, because he knew well why he did not sign the International Criminal Court treaty, however, US law is good enough to send him to jail if only it would be used properly. And Iraqis could sue the US at the International Court of Justice if only they had a democratic government. It is absurd that the US does not accept rulings of the ICJ although it sends judges to the Hague. And I cannot believe that an impeachment process starts when a US president lied about his sex life but not when he lied about weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Get-back-world-respect 18:31, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In my eyes it would have been legitimate to assassinate Hitler already in '39 when he had started the war of aggression against Poland, installed a racist regime and abolished democracy, e.g. by the consolidation of institutional powers and the media. Fortunately today there are free elections in free countries and people like John Kerry can help much more than Bonhoeffer ever could have done. Get-back-world-respect 18:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I respect my country and my commander-in-chief. I may even vote for him in nov., but its not very likely. I would never vote for Kerry, who is a slanderous sleaze (look into what the men he served with in Vietnam have to say about him). No american can be tried before the world court because we are the strongest. Hypocracy isn't really relevent in politics. Thats why the bit about Clinton isn't relevent. We do what we do, the why is likely too complex and too based in back-room secret dealings to be easilly understood. I do my best, and I rarely like what I find. Democracy is in many ways as much propaganda as Communism. At least the Nazi's were honest, eh? Sam Spade 21:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can very well understand that you respect your country. But your "commander-in-chief" made your country loose the respect of most of the rest of the world, and that will hurt all of us for a long time. He turned Afghanistan and Iraq into anarchy and created more terrorists than Bin Laden on his own ever could have. I find strange that you say you respect him without commenting on my accusations.

Please do not insult anyone on my talk page. Arguments are ok, "slanderous sleaze" is unacceptable at wikipedia. I judge politicians on their politics, not on what people say about them. I do not want to be friends with them, I want them to rule well, and to me Kerry seems to be a great chance for mutual respect, honesty, and diplomacy. Furthermore, there are veterans campaigning with Kerry. Most negative comments I have seen from veterans seemed to be based on their taking offense that Kerry condemned the war later on. You know, some people never learn the lesson. My father's father kept saying he had done nothing wrong, never was a Nazi, only served his country as a soldier, and that the Wehrmacht had not done anything wrong, it was all the bad politicians and Gestapo guys and those. Others do not want to hear that massacres like the one in My Lai happened, that the cover-up for the Tiger Force endured until last year and that things like these are likely to happen in every war since it is extremely difficult to behave responsibly when you are or have recently been fired on. I regard it as a deficiency of the US that Vietnam veteranship still plays such a role in politics, and I think it would be very helpful to have someone ruling who sees how sick that war was.

Your country may have the strongest military, but today no country can rule the world on its own, the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction cannot defend you against "mutual destruction". Your country is also the one with the highest debt, and it is strongly dependendent on imports, which is one reason why your guys were sent to Iraq twice. Your country is also dependent on others in the fight against terrorists. Two al Quaida suspects could not be sent to prison in Germany because the German authorities were denied access to US intelligence, similar things happened in Spain. Germans also could not supply information on another suspect who is in a US jail because German law forbids to supply information that might contribute to a death sentence, which is forbidden by European law. The friends of those terrorists lived in Hamburg peacefully until they took their last flight...

The Nazis were not honest. Hitler blaimed the burning of the parliament on the jews and lied in numerous other occasions about them, assassinated some of the people who had helped him to get into power, tried to hide what was going on in the concentration camps, broke his treaty with Stalin, and proclaimed a super race that did not exist and that, if it had existed, would have been ruled by someone who would not have been a member of it.

Being the strongest is not really a conclusive explanation of why US citizens cannot be tried by the International Criminal Court. They share their questionable privilege with, amongst others, Cubans, Iraqis, Israelis, Libyans, North Koreans, and citizens of Myanmar and Zimbabwe. Get-back-world-respect 22:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here is my trial version User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. Sam Spade 04:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kerry

A number of soldiers who served with Kerry have refered to his having accused them of war crimes as "slander", so that was not an insult. "Sleaze" was a word carefully chosen. It is not a vulgarity, but rather a term which accurately sums up my impression of Kerry[1]. I am sorry if my use of this term bothered you, but I have to say as far as it being "unacceptable at wikipedia" that is questionable. I find your suggestion that my commander-in-chief is a criminal vastly more offensive, I can assure you. Not that any of this makes any difference, Bush and Kerry are cut from the same cloth, so to speak. Both are Bonesmen, and both attend Bohemian Grove. Things are all too often much less familiar and comfortable than the simplistic reasons we would assume lie behind them. Sam Spade 22:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just because others do not want to accept that US soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam does not mean that your calling him "slanderous" was less than libel. The difference between an insult and a legitimate accusation is that the latter is based on facts. It is a fact that the Bush government presented forged documents to the UN Security Council. It is a fact that the Bush government started a war against a country that had not attacked anyone before and that, as we know today and as most others thought before was not likely to attack either. In my eyes it is especially infamous that the country that has the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and that does not allow inspections itself rages a war against another country that allows inspections. It is my personal opinion and that of many others that the war broke international law. Even if other opinions are possible I need no insulting words to defend mine. A word like "sleaze" is unacceptable here and says more about the person who uses it than about anyone else. It is another fact that law and order are out of control in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is another fact that US forces used cluster bombs, killing innocent civilians. It is another fact that no 9/11 terrorist was either Afghan nor Iraqi national.

I cannot see how a person like Bush could be of the same cloth as someone who argues like Kerry, even if they both belong to a small rich elite who unfortunately up to now is granted exclusive rights by the US population. In Germany we have hardly any elitist universities, we do have politicians in high positions without any significant personal wealth, and a few who have not even attended university. In my opinion Joschka Fischer shows very well that wisdom is not exclusively sold by the Ivy League.

PS: I really enjoy our open dialogue. Another user with political opinions very different from mine for unknown reasons sneaked away from our discussion although he still enjoys spreading his ideas on article talk pages where they do not belong. Get-back-world-respect 23:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

“Just because others do not want to accept that US soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam does not mean that your calling him "slanderous" was less than libel.”

“A word like "sleaze" is unacceptable here and says more about the person who uses it than about anyone else.”

Are you suggesting that I committed libel? I hope not. And this “says more about” stuff is also not polite. If you notice, I have been very careful to be polite in our discussion, and I would request that you likewise maintain civility if we are to continue such communications. It is entirely possible that the person who “sneaked away” was offended or hurt by a comment such as these, which you may have made without caution. Your accusations against my president would constitute libel were you a reporter. My statement about Kerry was based on evidence [2], 220 fellow soldiers, whose word I trust. Perhaps you are right that calling him a “sleaze” tells a bit about me. It shows that I have strong negative feelings against the man. It shows that I am careful not to use inappropriate language in an open forum such as this. And perhaps most importantly, it demonstrates that I am a fine judge of character. ;) Sam Spade 00:16, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are not answering my questions. First, you do not answer why you still respect your president after what he is accused of. Second, you do not answer why you use disparaging words like "sleaze". This word is unspecific, therefore cannot be based on facts, and your explanation for using it is self-righteous and ridiculous. I am sorry if you feel uncomfortable when I am straight-forward, but I see no point in having a discussion when one is not. My accusations against Bush are no libel, he is even called a deserter without those who call him so getting a libel suit. There is freedom of speech and opinion in the US as well as in Germany. I have not yer read your reference with the 220 fellows, but as you know there are many veterans who support Kerry as well. Get-back-world-respect 00:41, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can see that article has hardly anything specific against Kerry, it mostly shows that those people do not like him. They feel upset that he accused US forces of war crimes, however, it was proven that US forces committed them in Vietnam, including rape and mass murder. Furthermore the people seem to be disappointed by the fact that Kerry got out of Vietnam with his three purple hearts. I can very well understand a person who wants to get out of a crime, and there is certainly nothing slanderous in it. The one accusation that might be valuable is that I know of no proof that specifically the Swift Boat veterans were involved in war crimes. If that was what you labeled slander I apologize for accusing you of libel. Of course you have the same right to have an opinion as everyone else. However, you should not make unspecific accusations. Get-back-world-respect 00:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the links

Sam,

Thank you for providing those links...and especially on the name-signing directions. Out of curiosity, was there anything in particular that I posted which prompted your message?

Take care, BeakerK44 04:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

emails

Hmmm, first, your first email appeared normal to me (not as a long line). The second was full on br indeed. Are you sending mails in html or just not formatted ? Check your emailer. I remember someone had this problem, but I do not remember "who". SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:06, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

straight-forward

I am not being straight-forward here, the wikipedia is not a good place for that. Germany does not have freedom of speech. Being rude is not synonymous with "straight-forward". The veterans who support Kerry are few in number. There are however 220 military men who knew him, served with him, and are willing to sign their name and give their strories why he is unfit to lead. I wrote my thoughts about Bush, but they got lost in an edit conflict, and I am dubious as to the good sense in spending more time expressing our opinions here, its simply not what the wiki is for. You can contact me by IM if you want to discuss non-wiki issues further. Sam Spade 00:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why do you think Germany had no freedom of speech? Because of that holocaust denial law? The only exeption I can think of. Have you checked Veterans for Kerry? Think that page is controlled by a dirty dozen? I use no IM. Is that instant messenger? Email ok with you? You can be straight-forward with me, just do not use inappropriate language or make unspecific accusations.Get-back-world-respect 00:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gay bathhouse

Please stop altering the gay bathhouse article to make it non-neutral. The items you added have all been reverted on the grounds that they are untrue. Exploding Boy 18:35, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

We're still waiting for you to come to talk: gay bathhouse and clearly enumerate your issues with that article. Exploding Boy 03:39, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Just to make this clear, am I to understand from your message on my talk page and your lack of comment on the gay bathhouse talk page that you refuse to explain your objections to the page and to participate in the mediation process proposed by Raul? Exploding Boy 03:45, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

anti-American sentiment

I am sorry but that was a really poor of you to revert the anti-American sentiment article and grant that lunatic the possibility to engage in completely off-topic bashing of Canadians. Get-back-world-respect 00:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Plot thickens

Mussolini recalled and destroyed all available copies of the Doctrine of Fascism in April l940 after he had second thoughts about certain phrases in it. This from in Fascsim by Noel O'Sullivan, l983 pg 138 who references, Mussolini's Roman Empire, by Mack Smith Penguin, ed., l979, first published in l976, pg 247.

Questions abound

What are <<>> in the text? Is this proper to the original text? Did Mussolini publish an edited version? Can we get some help from the people at Encyclopadia Italiana? Are the copies of the l932 Enciclopadia Italiana originals, reprints with the new revised doctrine in it. Are there TWO doctrines of Fascism out there and can theses documents be put side by side and a comparison made?WHEELER 18:43, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From Svigor

Thanks for your support along the lines of intellectual honesty. I don't demand anything other than that from anyone. It's really rather mystifying to me how people can in good conscience treat White Nationalists the way they do, especially in light of the prevailing near-total ignorance on the subject of our ideologies (as opposed to the popular misconceptions of same).

I'll review the links you were kind enough to send me and be sure to come to you with any questions I may have.

Thanks again (and sorry if I posted this in the wrong spot)

````

RickK

If you want to discuss Svigor's comments on the Vandalism in progress page, please do so, but to delete the entry without comment is inappropriate. RickK 05:30, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

See [3]. Stop slandering/harassing me, and please discuss matters rather than deleting my statements. Sam Spade 05:42, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi Sam. I'm afraid that RickK has declined mediation with a message left on my talk page. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 21:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome to the site, Sam. I appreciate it. Zaxxon