| Revision as of 03:52, 21 October 2005 view sourceCognition (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users999 edits →Greetings from User:Cognition← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:02, 27 October 2005 view source Herschelkrustofsky (talk | contribs)2,877 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Shortly after joining Misplaced Pages in Spring of 2004, I became involved in a dispute with a group of editors over the article on ]. My version of the story is that I wished the article to conform to Misplaced Pages ] policy, whereas my opponents wished it to be a soapbox for their anti-LaRouche point of view (see ] for more information). In the course of this dispute, I requested arbitration, which had little effect. Ultimately, the dispute was resolved through negotiation and compromise on October 10, 2004. Those who are curious may consult the edit history of ] and related articles from October 10 until early November to get an idea of what I considered honest compromise versions of those articles. During this period, I was free to concentrate on editing articles about Classical Music, South America, and other areas of interest. | Shortly after joining Misplaced Pages in Spring of 2004, I became involved in a dispute with a group of editors over the article on ]. My version of the story is that I wished the article to conform to Misplaced Pages ] policy, whereas my opponents wished it to be a soapbox for their anti-LaRouche point of view (see ] for more information). In the course of this dispute, I requested arbitration, which had little effect. Ultimately, the dispute was resolved through negotiation and compromise on October 10, 2004. Those who are curious may consult the edit history of ] and related articles from October 10 until early November to get an idea of what I considered honest compromise versions of those articles. During this period, I was free to concentrate on editing articles about Classical Music, South America, and other areas of interest. | ||
| Not long thereafter, a new group of three editors arrived on the scene, and re-opened the dispute. These new editors were more fanatically determined to make the articles into propaganda vehicles, to further their agenda of the ] of LaRouche and his movement. Ultimately a new round of arbitration was initiated, and this time the result was a form of restriction upon myself and another editor, Weed Harper, who took my side in the disputes; we were prevented from editing LaRouche-related articles. There were no similar restraints upon the anti-LaRouche team of editors, who wasted no time in converting the LaRouche articles into a soapbox for propaganda, making a mockery of the ] policy. One of these editors briefly enjoyed, back in the 1980s, the status of being a cut-out for intelligence circles who were deployed against LaRouche; he has subsequently gone into well-deserved obscurity, and is now using Misplaced Pages as an attempt to relive his glory days. | Not long thereafter, a new group of three editors arrived on the scene, and re-opened the dispute. These new editors were more fanatically determined to make the articles into propaganda vehicles, to further their agenda of the ] of LaRouche and his movement. Ultimately a new round of arbitration was initiated, and this time the result was a form of restriction upon myself and another editor, Weed Harper, who took my side in the disputes; we were prevented from editing LaRouche-related articles. There were no similar restraints upon the anti-LaRouche team of editors, who wasted no time in converting the LaRouche articles into a soapbox for propaganda, making a mockery of the ] policy. One of these editors briefly enjoyed, back in the 1980s, the status of being a ] for intelligence circles who were deployed against LaRouche; he has subsequently gone into well-deserved obscurity, and is now using Misplaced Pages as an attempt to relive his glory days. | ||
| As a result of these events, I have become highly skeptical of the value of the Misplaced Pages project, and my participation in Misplaced Pages has become sporadic. Therefore, I you wish to contact me, do not leave a message on this page; instead, use the link. --] 14:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | As a result of these events, I have become highly skeptical of the value of the Misplaced Pages project, and my participation in Misplaced Pages has become sporadic. Therefore, I you wish to contact me, do not leave a message on this page; instead, use the link. --] 14:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:02, 27 October 2005
Nota bene
Shortly after joining Misplaced Pages in Spring of 2004, I became involved in a dispute with a group of editors over the article on Lyndon LaRouche. My version of the story is that I wished the article to conform to Misplaced Pages NPOV policy, whereas my opponents wished it to be a soapbox for their anti-LaRouche point of view (see my user page for more information). In the course of this dispute, I requested arbitration, which had little effect. Ultimately, the dispute was resolved through negotiation and compromise on October 10, 2004. Those who are curious may consult the edit history of Lyndon LaRouche and related articles from October 10 until early November to get an idea of what I considered honest compromise versions of those articles. During this period, I was free to concentrate on editing articles about Classical Music, South America, and other areas of interest.
Not long thereafter, a new group of three editors arrived on the scene, and re-opened the dispute. These new editors were more fanatically determined to make the articles into propaganda vehicles, to further their agenda of the demonization of LaRouche and his movement. Ultimately a new round of arbitration was initiated, and this time the result was a form of restriction upon myself and another editor, Weed Harper, who took my side in the disputes; we were prevented from editing LaRouche-related articles. There were no similar restraints upon the anti-LaRouche team of editors, who wasted no time in converting the LaRouche articles into a soapbox for propaganda, making a mockery of the NPOV policy. One of these editors briefly enjoyed, back in the 1980s, the status of being a cut-out for intelligence circles who were deployed against LaRouche; he has subsequently gone into well-deserved obscurity, and is now using Misplaced Pages as an attempt to relive his glory days.
As a result of these events, I have become highly skeptical of the value of the Misplaced Pages project, and my participation in Misplaced Pages has become sporadic. Therefore, I you wish to contact me, do not leave a message on this page; instead, use the "email this user" link. --HK 14:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
HK 8 July 2005 00:37 (UTC): I haven't visited Misplaced Pages for several months, and I am pleased to discover that someone attempted to place this on my user page. I prefer to have it appear here:
For your hard work in keeping fascist propaganda out of Misplaced Pages, I hereby award you the ancient Defender of reason barnstar, which is given to those who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to stop Misplaced Pages being used for synarchist purposes. Cognition 5 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)
Archives:
User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky/archive1
User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky/archive2
User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky/threats and insults
User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky/The Third Trial of Lyndon LaRouche
ArbCom enforcement
Your insistence on adding LaRouche material to American System (economics) has violated the prohibition placed on your editing by the ArbCom in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. In keeping with their enforcement plan and after copnsultation with other administrators, I am blocking you from editing for one week. That block for cause also resets the expiration date of the ArbCom prohibitions to one year from today, September 30, 2006. Once your temporary block has expired you are welcome to edit Misplaced Pages so long as you adhere to our policies and ArbCom decisions. Regretfully, -Willmcw 05:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Copy of my post to the incident board regarding this action: Given that there appears to be some debate at the American System article as to whether HK has inserted LaRouche material, and given that Willmcw has a lengthy history of animosity with HK dating back to and including the Arbcom case that is being cited as a basis for the ban but also including numerous other disputes, it would probably be better for this case, and any related blocking penalty, to be reviewed by a more neutral administrator than Willmcw. I state this without taking a position on the merits (or lack thereof) in this case regarding whether the LaRouche block was violated. If it is deemed that the block was violated, however, this judgment should be made in a transparent manner by a party who is NOT simultaneously involved in historical and current ongoing disputes with the editor being accused of violating the Arbcom block. Rangerdude 05:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Greetings from User:Cognition
It's great to see that you're back fighting the good fight against propaganda. On a related note, I have come across some information that may be worthy of further research. Perhaps you might want to look into it or pass it on to your associates... Anyway, it seems like the New School for Social Research is now avowedly professing fascism-- moving away from its long tradition of hiding behind the same cloaks and veils used by its founders. They are now opening eulogizing their intellectual founder Nazi crown jurist and Holocaust criminal Carl Schmitt.
See their "course description" on Schmitt: Carl Schmitt (1888–1984) has become a modern classic in political theory and has been called the Thomas Hobbes of the twentieth century. Most of his main texts are now available in English and will be discussed in class (e.g., The Concept of the Political, Political Romanticism, Political Theology, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy). In addition to these primary sources, we will read some critiques by his contemporaries (Kirchheimer, Fraenkel, Kelsen) and put his thinking into its historical context. In the second part of the course, we will turn our interest to the current renaissance of Schmitt in different fields of modern political theory such as democracy, pluralism, liberalism, international justice, and political power. On the reading list are books and articles by Habermas, Sartori, McCormick, Scheuerman, Dyzenhaus, Mouffe, Agamben, and Kalyvas.
This leads me to suspect that they have recently shifted strategies in their promotion of fascist thought. By removing the cloaks and veils, perhaps they are signalling that they are ready to lead an intellectual offensive to explicitly rehabilitate fascist politics. Cognition
If you can, please take a look at Physical economics, where I am being stalked by that Chip Berlet and Adam Carr underlying Slimvirgin. Cognition 03:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)