Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:55, 19 February 2007

/Archive 2006

Happy New Year!

Have a trouble-free 2007 SCZenz! I hope you've enjoyed 2006. The sad thing is, though, that now we've got to wait until Easter for another big holiday. --Bowlhover 05:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Israel in American Politics

Concerning the question you posed in the thread that was removed, it should be clear from the context that I was referring to the Six-day War and not the Yom Kippur War. Of course, no-one in the West realized at the time that the war was set off by a pre-emptive attack by Israel. Quite coincidentally, I was visiting Jewish friends at their home in Amsterdam when the news broke. My friends there were relatively calm and convinced that Israel could withstand the combined Arab forces, but not so their further Jewish friends, some of who were in complete panic. I remember this like it was yesterday. I later heard the situation in the US, or at least New York, was quite similar. I can't back up my idea that the Jewish constituency has a somewhat disproportionate weight in the considerations of the pols, although maybe I could dig up some material from the archives of the Revolutionary Worker :). But the "sympathy" for Israel of extreme Christians is, I'm fairly sure, a relatively new thing, much and much later than 1967. It has something to do with certain things involving Israel that must be fulfilled before the Second Coming.  --Lambiam 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your personal assessment of Holocaust reparations

...on the recent Humanities Reference Desk query ("Israel foreign policy") while no doubt sincere, ill served the discussion. While it's clear that you took care to qualify this as the personal stance of yourself and your family, terms such as "large sums of cash" and "simply repugnant" are descriptions I wouldn't expect to find written in a public forum by one who declares affinity as a "proud Zionist." Reread what you wrote in the eyes of a Holocaust denier — or an ignorant reader likely to give credence to such — and perhaps you'll see what I mean. (Surely you've encountered the claims that the Jews staged the Holocaust to further their imperialist agenda, i.e. robbing the Palestinians of their homeland?) It also pains me because I know how such scorn for reparations as you express, has been internalized by impoverished, elderly survivors in Israel with a bleak quality of life below the poverty line, subsisting on the pittance provided by the National Insurance that's inadequate to cover their subsistence and health care needs. Therefore I implore you to exercise better caution in choosing your words on this and related topics. Then do read what I added underneath your comment, providing some encyclopaedic reference to how Nazi-era reparations to the Jewish people are being handled in part. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (a global-level worker in Holocaust commemoration, whose position is funded in part by the Claims Conference), 23:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:Civility violation warning

The adhominem attacks, insults, and metadiscussion between you and Clio the Muse on the Humanities Reference Desk have gone on too long. You engaged in violations of the civiliity requirements and launched personal attacks on Clio in your comments "And the mask finally comes off. MY GOD!. The above statement has got to be one of the most perverse, twisted, disgusting and appalling secretion of pure excrement I have ever had the misfortune of reading here on Misplaced Pages. "For the sake of some balance... a state which was itself partly built on terrorism"? Yes, I'm intimately aware of the activities of the Irgun. Yes they were a guerilla force. But please tell me where they ever, EVER used tactics involving the targetting of civilians to achieve their objectives. Please, as you say so often to others, DO SOME READING before you proceed to subject the rest of us to such a disgusting discharge of pure verbal diarrhea. The sheer ignorance and perversity of your statement is so disgustingly vile, and so openly anti-semitic...I'd say more, but I must be off to the bathroom to vomit."at . Clio engaged in similar ranting in the "France was Germany" topic started January 28. I am not taking a side in this, except to say that both of you are engaging in behavior detrimental to the Reference Desk and to Misplaced Pages, and I am asking both of you to remove or redact you inappropriate remarks, insults, and metadiscussions from the Ref Desk, including the archives. I have opened a discussion of this on the Discussion page of the Reference Desk. Thanks. Edison 17:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude ...

Loomis, what has happened to you? I liked reading your elaborations when I had time :P (I think you might hold the record in longest average posts). Passionate, opionated, hot-headed, sometimes cranky, sometimes maybe even personal, but you never came across as the type who holds grudges or becomes mean-spirited.

I am very sorry to say this, but that's exactly how I read your posts, when you're criticizing Clio's (and only Clio's, no one else's) replies. All because of a snappy remark made 200'000 years ago. This is what is known as irrelevant history in the dramatic world of the internet. It's completely irrelevant.

You say you're acting in the encyclopedia and the questioners' best interests, but how can it be in anyone's interest to make these kind of personal attacks. You can present differing views or corrections as such and on topic. I sometimes think I get corrected more often than not at the reference desk, however, this actually does serve everyone, because the facts are set straight and other references are presented while the tone remains civil. Of course I'm sometimes embarassed when corrected, but that's my own vain little problem. Other than that, everyone wins, including myself, for having learned something new. Even when I believe it's a miscorrection, it's no big deal. Often someone else jumps in, or, if really necessary, you can always present more references (preferably for the reader's and not for the winning-the-argument's sake) and say that you stand by your comment.

The past weeks, on the other hand, you have repeatedly hinted and even plainly stated, that Clio's answers aren't to be trusted, because they are coming from Clio. This is ad hominem, and very unfair to Clio. If I got corrected that way at the reference desk, I wouldn't be posting there anymore. It seems that Clio is tougher than I am, but as you can see Clio too reacts sensitively to your criticism. You know this, and that's why it's called baiting. This is unpleasant to most of the desk's visitors, the only ones who get a kick out of it are those who adore the drama. Do you really want to entertain them?

Please, Loomis, cool off, somehow. You don't have to like Clio, you don't have to agree with Clio's answers, but can't you just move on, dammit? I realize this is none of my business, and I'm only telling you this, because I hope for your sake that you return to your old self sometime soon again. Please feel free to remove this post after you read it. It's only addressed to you, and I will be happy to see it being removed. ---Sluzzelin 06:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have to run and make it brief. For the record, I completely disagree with your characterization of this editor, whose edits are a clear asset to the reference desk in my mind. Believe me, I am sensitive to antisemitism, and my own radar frequently registers at the reference desk, but not with regards to this editor's answers. You mustn't forget these are online personalities we're dealing with, I have no clue who these people are, I have no clue who you are. I don't see you as a monster, and I'm sure you're no monster in real life, but we all have monsters in ourselves, and the internet is precisely where they like to come out and play. I think it's time you call them in for supper now. I don't know whether you're an obsessive person, and it doesn't matter. I read the pattern of posts at the reference desk as obsessive. There's really no way for anyone to see "the real you" here. What to do? My advice: either stay away from this user, ignore this user entirely, until you can see things in perspective. Or, if you can't keep your monster locked up, take a reference-desk break until you can see things in perspective, I did remove your post on my talk page, not because you're not welcome there, but ... well, you know why. ---Sluzzelin

Without wishing to sound patronizing or holier-than-thou, but probably managing to do so anyway, I would like to express my appreciation for the tone you chose in your last comments at the humanities reference desk. Thanks. ---Sluzzelin 23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't apologize for your comments as being "holier-than-thou" or anything. I truly appreciate the fact that your previous comments were not meant to chastise me, but rather to help me improve myself. You seem to believe in me, and that warms my heart greatly.

I'm assuming you're referring to the "National Socialist" post. Well life is a learning experience and I never intend to stop learning.

I expressed to you before my sincere concern regarding Clio's tendency towards "Nazi Apologism". This last post had me more concerned than ever. "Bitterness and discontent inevitably leads to National Socialism"? "The Russian Nation suffered more at the hands of the Nazis than any other during WWII"? Reading between the lines I couldn't help but feel truly disturbed by those remarks, yet again. Yet I took your advice, and responded in as cool a fashion as possible.

I'm just wondering though Sluzzelin. You spoke of your "radar". Has it at all changed? Have these last bizzarre remarks gotten you the least bit suspicious? Perhaps not. Perhaps I'm just a paranoid Jew. Believe me, I've been accused of much worse!

Thanks again for your comment. Please keep in touch. I appreciate your perspective.

Lewis

Loomis 23:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding apologism, revisionism etc., let's just say that, though I take it personally to an extent, I can accept that history is read and re-read, written and re-written, personalized, de-personalized - fresh views are interesting to me. I can also accept that there will invariably be reductionists and relativists on both "sides", and that can be one cause of offense. I think this is a case of a simplification causing offense.

To be specific, the word "inevitably" certainly wasn't accurate in that sentence, but, as you know, correlating the relative economic or subjective plight of the native mob/plebs/hoi-polloi with authoritarian, xenophobic political movements is nothing new in socio-political analysis. Simplifications abound: Reducing the Third Reich to some unique satanic glitch in the course of humanity or whatever other populist versions of history we encounter every day wont characterize it either.

As for your reply at the desk, I wont speculate on reasons why there are virtually no fascist (for want of a better word) organizations in the history of African Americans and Jews, but I think the user's intended meaning was more something along the line of: "Bitterness and discontent (among the native, usually white and Christian political majority) may be a hot bed for (not "inevitably leads to") National Socialism. This can't apply to political minorities (not necessarily identical with minorities by population) precisely because they are in the minority and represent one of the main targets of these movements. Of course you can see this as a generous interpretation on my part, but regardless of how I read the sentence: No, I don't feel anything, and certainly not the disgust I sometimes feel when people are bashing minorities at the reference desk (sometimes out of pure ignorance, which doesn't make it any better). Regarding antisemitism, apart from the usual trolls, my main frustration are the Middle East debates. But let's not go there. Let's not, lol. ---Sluzzelin 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the calm rationality of your response. Regarding the central issue, that being racism, or more particularly anti-semitism, my sensititivies tend to be rather different than most. Most good people tend to be rightly disgusted by the most open, ugly and unabashed demonstrations of racism, such as a burning cross on the front lawn of the house of a Black family, a Swastika spray-painted on a synagogue or a Jewish tombstone, or a characature depicting a Black as a baboon or a Jew as a horned develish creature. This is of course a healthy gut-reaction. Yet, though you may find my position on this to be quite bizarre, I really see this ultimately resulting in some good. In fact, and you may actually find this reaction as TRULY bizarre, any time I see a Swastika spray-painted on my local synagogue, I actually react with an odd sense of pride and satisfaction, knowing that these incidents only serve to remind those who'd rather sweep the whole ugly thing under the rug as being a disgusting relic of history, that racism is alive and well, and must be continually dealt with on a day to day basis.

For example, I have relatives with serial numbers tatooed on their forearms. Now these tatoos can be easily removed, yet these relatives refuse to remove them, instead they wear them with pride. Odd sort of pride, eh?

I know you REALLY didn't want to get into a Middle East debate, and I'm not bringing the subject up to get into any further debate on it. In fact I won't even mention one word concerning any argument pertaining to the situation. All I'd like to say are a few words concerning my attitude towards my Arab cousins. They're just that. My cousins. Whatever state of violence that may exist between my people and our Arab cousins, I place very little blame on the Arabs as a people. To me they're but unfortunate pawns in this whole mess.

Those who truly disgust me and who I truly blame are those non-Arabs, especially those (usually left-leaning) anti-semitic pseudo-intellectual Westerners who so subtly and so surreptitiously feed my Arab cousins with every possible false moral pretense to hate Jews and Israel. The way I see it, this kind of subtle and disingenuous moral support is the largest source of the problem.

I hope you forgive me for bringing up the Middle East. But as promised, I made no direct reference to any specifics. I only brought it up to illustrate my point. Simply put, it's my view that a subtle, surreptitious act of racism or anti-semitism can cause more harm than a hundred burning crosses, a hundred spray-painted Swastikas, and yes, even a hundred suicide bombers.

But Sluzzelin, as bizarre and outlandish you may consider my views, I hope that at the very least, they can give you some better insight the motives for my perhaps bizarre and outlandish views and PAST (lol) behaviour. Call me a dirty Jew (not you specifically, but generally) and I'll surely laugh. However make assertions like "Bitterness and discontent inevitably leads to National Socialism" and my blood boils. Loomis 16:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, no need to apologize for commenting on a topic I brought up first. Facing the symptoms of racism in real life is a whole other deal, and we could swap gigabytes of stories, for sure.

I try to keep my political opinions to myself here, in general, but especially at the reference desk. Don't want anything to slip in between my lines either. I stay away from loaded questions on the Middle East. I just wanted to signalize, to you, that I'm sensitive to antisemitism. But most likely I'll continue shutting up and keeping my thoughts to myself. ---Sluzzelin 23:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

(Gosh, this is one long thread, dominated by my posts. And here I was poking at your lengthy elaborations.) I caught this commentat WP:RD/H. I know you're teasing, but still: I probably shouldn't be stating my opinions on the quality of comic book literature either, but I guess I'm not as careful here as I am with political opinions. Also, I'm not trying to be mysterious, I'm just a burned paranoid child and would like to keep my real-life and online activities completely separate. User:Sluzzelin is mine and I shall design it however I choose, whether there's any symbolic meaning behind "all those black balls, with one conspicuous green ball" or not :P. ---Sluzzelin 00:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh relax Sluz (may I call you Sluz?) it was just a joke! Be as mysterious as you please. All I know, and all I really care is that you seem to be a really decent guy/(girl?). I suppose I have the opposite tendency. I wear my heart on my sleave here, and I'm revealing about pretty much everything about me except for my family name and my street address! I should probably hold back a bit more like you do...but no...wait...I like it this way! This is my style and I'm proud of it!

In any case, I definitely agree with you when it comes to expressing opinions concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The whole issue gets WAY too much attention and press as it is, considering how relatively few people are actually involved. There are so many other conflicts and crises in the world that involve so many more people, yet get virtually no attention. For example, Sri Lanka, with about double the population of all Israelis and Palestinians combined, has been in a state of bloody civil war since 1983. Almost 25 years of violence, claiming the lives of some 65,000! Yet how many average Joe's even realize that there even exists a country called Sri Lanka, let alone aware of the blood that continues to be shed on a daily basis in that so little known poor island nation? In fact, you've inspired me. Don't be surprised if I bring this point up in some future discussion! Loomis 01:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm afraid relaxing is a talent I'm not too familiar with. Yeah, Sluzz is fine, anything but Bob, really. Go on doing your thang, that's how it's supposed to be, WP should reflect the diversity of madness, and not everyone here should behave in the exact same "Stepford" way, ugh. (I will remove your address if you're ever crazy enough to post it though). ---Sluzzelin 02:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey Loomis!

Just dropped to say How ya doin??? I am alright myself. My college and the course is taking its toll on me, and I am afraid I just dont have enough time to wiki anymore.. :( .. But I'll logging in now and then to check my msgs and answer a few RD questions if can (the really simple ones I mean ;-) Anyways... hope you are doing great! And hope everything you planned is coming along really good. Drop in a line whenever you can. Take care! Cheers! See ya! :-) Jayant,18 Years, India • contribs 14:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoring deleted content

Why did you restore the content that had been removed for being off-topic? It's still off-topic now, so it still doesn't belong on the ref desk talk page. Friday (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Barringa

Is there a diff to illustrate the posting you complained of on my talk page? That would help me to determine if action is indicated against Barringa. I had only noticed your apparent baiting of a different user. Thanks! Edison 06:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• You posted to my user page the following exchange: Your removal had the effect of answering the question in the affirmative. i.e., that the true God of the Jews is money - but delete it so as to hide this fact from everyone. You need to restore the question and comments so that users can see that this is not the case. To avoid confirmation that your intent for the conclusion to the question is to be this understanding please restore the question and comments and state the above there. -- Barringa 21:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The question should be restored. Loomis 03:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want the question to be on the Reference Desk, I do not understand why you are badgering me to scold the original poster Barringa for placing it on the Reference Desk. Scold yourself and allow us to get on with answering serious requests for information. The Reference Desk is not intended to be a soapbox or a debating forum over which middle east religion or ethnicity is the best and most rightious. Such a question is inappropriate, which is why it was appropriately removed. Regards. Edison 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For egregious violations of WP:NPA a solution is to go th Arbcom. But be aware that all actions by all parties are subject to review, and sometimes the result is the smiting of al who have transgressed. I have not heard of "reprimands"as a remedy, only blocking. 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Edison

True God of the Jews

You're going to have to work on your facetiousness. Dial up the sarcasm, otherwise a casual reader will take it the wrong way. Clarityfiend 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editors

Please do not tell anonymous editors that their comments are irrelevant and illegitimate. Friday (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis why?

my non-removal

Loomis - I am the user "83.100.158.13". I didn't remove your question at all. I pointed out to the person who did remove it that it had been put back - and that it probably didn't matter.

If you read/reed the top of Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Humanities#Why are the Crusades Viewed so Negatively? you will see that it was another user who deleted it.. I've copied that part over so that it is clear:

I removed this question from the H desk. Soapboxing, designed to start a debate rather than seeking references, etc.—eric 03:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed this question from the H desk. Soapboxing, designed to start a debate rather than seeking references, etc.—] 03:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why no-one else has pointed this out to you I have no idea.

I pointed it out on the reference desk talk page, 83.100. ---Sluzzelin 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

my view on crusades etc

I personally think that both the term "crusade" and the muslim 'equivalent' "jihad" (both are religiously sanctioned wars) both have acquired negative connertations - so I thought the premise of your question was a little shaky.

my mistake

However I did say I thought that you 'soapboxed a bit' that was my opinion and probarly wrong to say. It was not intended to be offensive to you.87.102.11.134 17:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries 87. In the confusion it seemed that you were the one who removed my question. Aparently I misread the post, and I apologize for that. I also apologize for the harsh words. Though it may seem so at times, I really don't at all enjoy fostering animosity or getting into fights. I also greatly appreciate the fact that you took the time to clarify all this. I truly hope that we can put this misunderstanding behind us and I look forward to a friendly, civil realationship between us here at wiki in the future. All the best. Loomis 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally

So we see, then, that the tendency for 'Jewish' affinity toward 'money' simply did not exist where it has not been influenced by these medieval laws (i.e. in Europe, before these were enacted; or for Jews living in the more tolerate Ottoman empire). Thus, there is no inherent relation between Judaism and 'money' —this is what Marx meant when he distinguished between the "Sabbath Jew" and the "Jew whose God is money"— and this is where half-baked symbolisms fail. It is nonesensical to assign mystical attribute to the concrete developments behind the economic history of the (European) Jews, since any such would-be 'answers' invariably follow from the whims of preexisting prejudice. בברכה, El_C 13:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

on February 17 you wrote...

Failing to recognize the significance on February 17 you wrote: “...As I've mentioned before, the story speaks of a Golden Calf being created and worshipped, and then, upon seeing it, Moses, with the help of God of course, gave the Israelites a choice: Worship the Golden Calf (representing idolatry, materialism, money etc.) or worship God. Those who chose the calf were swallowed up by the earth (along with the calf). Those who chose God were left to survive and go on to being the ancestors of today's Jews. I can't imagine a better illustration of the fact that Judaism is about worshipping God, not money. Loomis 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)” And then came Jesus Christ to likewise give the Israelites a choice to follow Him or to be irrevocably condemned for eternity. (swallowed up by the Earth forever) including their descendents to the last generation including you Loomis and all others here now claiming to be a Jew no different than in Moses time when those who returned to Idolatry were condemned for all time. -- Barringa 17:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)