Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:38, 13 January 2008

Welcome!

Hello, OtterSmith, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Bishonen | talk 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC).

--- I'm beginning to think I should have skipped this, it could become exceedingly addictive. Thanks to you and those on IRC who cleaned up this page. htom OtterSmith 03:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Killian documents

Hi, just FYI I opened a WP:RFC about the use of blogs here. Kaisershatner 16:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

? Ahh, figured it out! Thank you! htom

Washington Post website policy

Hi. I have a question about the Washington Post, based on something you wrote at Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues#Dr Joseph Newcomer:

linking to the WP and WS is a dangerous activity, as both have been known to change pages without noting that they've done so.

This really disappoints me, as I've been telling people that the WaPo is now the world's best newspaper, and also the most web-savvy. I know this is off-topic for Misplaced Pages, but if you have any links about this, I'd love to read them. Thanks, CWC(talk) 13:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I should probably not been as definate as that sounds; I have seen, over the last half-dozen years, so many complaints about newspapers changing stories that I now think that all of them are doing it, even if they are not being "caught". htom 14:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I'll keep an eye open. (I have discovered a claim about surreptitious update(s) to a WaPo blog, but that's not what worries me.) Cheers from a somewhat relieved CWC(talk) 03:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

RfAR Notice regarding the Killian Documents dispute

Hi. You have been included as a party in a request for arbitration involving the Killian memos dispute. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 00:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear, but I'm going to be off-line for a while, probably Monday evening at the earliest. Real life intrudes. htom 05:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm back. htom 12:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good timing -- you missed lots o' fun . Check my talk page . -BC aka Callmebc 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hut

Re: this edit I see no reason for the deletions. That they may be obscure to you is not a good reason.). The links were not deleted because they were obscure, the links were deleted because they do not have articles (see WP:MOSDP#Redlinks for more info). Please feel free to re-add a link when (and if) an article is ever written about that subject! Ewlyahoocom 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on the Administrators' noticeboard

"He is not spinning a POV? This from the proud owner of http://aheckofa.com/FoolMeOnce/CBSBushMemos.html ?! Where is that ROFLcopter when I need it?"

??? That was an ignorant, borderline malicious statement. If you can find just one thing factually wrong in that site, feel free to point it out. It is what it is whether you like it or not -- try spinning that in your "ROFLcopter". By the way, I'm in sockpuppet/meatpuppet hunting mode now, and that comment, along with your odd "superscript" nonsense, has just put yourself on the checklist. -BC aka Callmebc 15:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Superscripts were invented several centuries before typewriters. I'm not going to look further at your site; it is obviously pushing your POV and you're entirely welcome to it. As far as my being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet or any of the other things you've implied ... get a real life. htom 04:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Right wingers seem to view reality as being no more than a big ol' liberal conspiracy. And I was thinking you were one LGF'er I didn't have to be that concerned about.... Whatever. -BC aka Callmebc 06:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever considered the possibility that their conspiracies are actually nothing but psychological projections of your own reality? htom 15:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....you might have a point there except that: A) I do believe I was referring to the well-documented behavior of right wingers towards logic, science and research as with evolution, global warming, and, yes, I suppose also with more minor things like the Killian documents; B) there has been an awful lot of "discussion" regarding the memos and so far, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's been primarily a battle between confused, unsupported, and demonstrably false nonsense on one side and a plethora (actually more a myriad) of hard, verifiable facts on the other; and C) if one was to go by the extremes people have been going to in avoiding answering any of those simple "Yes or No" questions posed, one could make the case that this indicates an awful lot of insincerity, among other things, on that first side as well.

And I was sincere about not editing things to disparage "CJ". Just think it through -- if I'm right (and I suspect you and some of the others are grudgingly allowing this to be a possibility at least, however loathe you would to ever admit it), who is going to publicly lose face the most? I told a certain blogger one time that he could save some face by blaming part of his "confusion" on the major media for saying that only typewriters were around then. And that's basically true. If you have been following the edit battles, in some ways it's all been just a deconstruction of all the confused myths that ended up going into wide and endless circulation all over, including Misplaced Pages, because no authoritative news source ever stepped up to the plate to knock that nonsense out where it belongs. For all intents and purposes, they all choked when it was their time to put that infinitely stupid game to rest.

But like I've said more than once -- whatever. -BC aka Callmebc 18:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm on the "right" side ;) and I fully understand that I might be on the incorrect side as well. It seems to me to be extremely unlikely that Col. Killian had anything to do with the creation of the images (there are no documents) being discussed. Whether they were created by Buckett or Lucy or Rove or the Kerry campaign or the Bush campaign I don't know; we won't settle that question ever (unless someone comes forward and believably confesses.) There may have been, at some time, typewritten orginals created by Killian, but those hypothetical documents were not what was presented to CBS and USAToday. -- htom

But my basic logic at work here is that if you eliminate the possibility that the documents, collectively, could have been forged under any circumstances, then what is left? At that point, it doesn't matter in the slightest about Burkett or whoever. I'm not going to rehash my reasoning and evidence here, but that's, well, the deal. Dispute all you want, but you know I have refuted everything from your side, while on my side I have stuff that nobody has come close to touching with anything remotely factual or logical. It is what it is. -BC aka Callmebc 21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

But you have not eliminated that possibility. Real documents can be forged (if money, it's called counterfeiting.) At best you raise the potential for there to have been actual documents that the images are somehow derived from. This has always been a possibility, but it is one with an exceedingly low probability. htom 15:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did, actually. Even if you grant the forger enough expertise in Photoshop to cunningly so randomly "age" the documents to the point that you can not replicate most at all with a modern word processor , as well as make him/her an exceedingly diligent researcher who carefully culled through all the DoD records to gather up convincing content minutia to a detail that exceeded greatly what bloggers and even the media could pick up on (including a reference to the now redacted James Bath, who was suspended exactly one month after Bush , you still have a couple of issues: 1) someone so brilliant would very likely have been smart enough to have used some old typewriter like the still easy to find Selectric to create the forgeries; and 2) you still have that Feb. 2nd, 1972, memo with the reference to Bush and Bath having some sort of flight certification issues -- information that could only have been derived by an analysis of Bush's flight logs, but which were not released until AFTER CBS had obtained all the memos. Those flight logs had not been available for over 30 years, and even then, likely only to Bush's superiors in the Air Guard/USAF. The pro-forgery claims may start as a big pile, but item by item, it shrinks down to nothing under close scrutiny. The "they are real" pile starts off a bit smaller, but even after you take out CBS's incompetent, dumbass handling of them, there is still a pile left. Like I said, it is what it is, and you should think instead really long and hard about what this all means, especially in regards to the way the White House dodged answering questions about them, as in the "answer" given to "Stephen, from Colorado Springs, CO" here. I always find it interesting how Dan Bartlett fields the question there, and how he gets mentioned and described in this long interview of Burkett --there seems to be a certain "consistency" in behavior. But, again, whatever.... -BC aka Callmebc 21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

All of this is easily explained: Carl Rove had it done, to distract both sides from "more real" issues. That, unfortunately, means that Killian didn't write the memos, making them forgeries. The only real question is "who forged"; there is little doubt that someone did. htom 22:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'Tipi' website

Thanks for sending me the websites of the 'tiopi'. If you noticed they are exactly the same as what Labongo wanted to claim as a lavvu (http://www.g-sport.no/gs/templates/Produkt.aspx?id=8385). Thanks and take care... Dinkytown (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop Loss Article

What are your thoughts on my revamping of the stop loss article? Thanks. Equinox137 (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On first read, a great improvement. Thanks! htom (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Evan has gone from arguing to vandalizing the page. What do you recommend? Equinox137 (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, he's already gone - he quit Misplaced Pages. I know I've been frustrated with Misplaced Pages in the past, but geez - he quit only after five edits. Equinox137 (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please come to the Waterboarding talk page

Saw your comment on AN/I and I think its better on the talk page of the article rather than there.--Blue Tie (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Prove what?

If you mean youre doing what the CIA would want ie trying to cast doubt on if waterboarding is torture then it is demostrable by your actions. 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk 11:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 16:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)