Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:51, 27 July 2004

This article appears to be grossly biased. The veracity of the US accounts is extremely doubtful. To debate this in detail would just be a re-play of the main article. I have therefore deleted the US explanation.Refdoc 00:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

K1 - who exactly blamed the captain for blowing his wife up ? Without source this bit sounds too much like character assassination - not saying that the man requires this anymore, but still... Refdoc 00:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Learn to read simple english -- understanding is a little extra. you read it from left to right. slowly, so you can understand simple sentences. NO NO NO, you don't have to move your lips as you read. OK, good. now pay attention that it does NOT say the captain blew up his wife. Good, good. you're doing pretty well. now pay attention to the paragraph where it says "some immediately suspected terrorists..." good good ..... in that same venue, the following paragraph states "on the other hand, some also ..." speculated otherwise. --K1 05:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

k1 - as has happened several times in the last few days you are out of line and make personalised attacks. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks I would really prefer if you would stick to the question asked and provide evidence that anyone else - apart from you obviously - had the idea that the good captain planted the bomb himself to further the pity effect and his career (and is on public record for this suspicion). You have not provided such evidence, while I have for what I wrote. I am getting quite upset for your lack of respect for other people's contributions. Refdoc 08:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Listen you Bible-thumbing retard, I explained it once in simple language that even a retard like you should have understood. There are two paragraphs, the first of which basically says "some speculated terrorists" and the second (which I added) that basically says "some speculated no terrorists". Why THE FUCK don't you ask for evidence about both paragraphs then? Huh? You stupid obnoxious retard. OK I will explicitly add "no terrorists" to the second paragraph so that retards like you don't get so confused. It's hard to believe but apparently some people can be so dumb as to misunderstand something as clear as this simple article. By the way, if you were not completely stupid, you would not have asked for evidence in a "suspected" case, as these two paragraphs CLEARLY use that word. If there was solid evidence one way or the other, then it would have been a FACT not a SPECULATION!! DUH!! --K1 10:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

while I can only continue to advise you of the Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks policy, I repeat - there has been AFAIK no one on public record suggesting Cmdr Rogers planting the thing himself/pulling a stunt. There has been ample reference re terrorists ( a simple google will confirm this to you) and this speculation has not gone away despite the FBI being acc AP quite clear about the lack of evidence for such suggestions. Could you please also provide some references for Cmdr Rogers media career? To be part of a encyclopedia article this speculation should be in more minds than just your own. Refdoc 10:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moron, the article in BOTH cases (terrorists or not terrorists) says "some people suspect such and such" .... well, together with my cousin and the ex-wife of one of my maternal uncle's university friends, I have such a suspicion, and we *ARE* "some people". To call you dumb would be a major understatement. --K1 10:49, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

while you, your "cousin and the ex-wife of one of maternal uncle's university friends" might well hold this among many other suspicions, opinions and speculations, this does not elevate this particular speculation to encyclopaedic heights. Please refer me to a media article, a governmental statement or something of that kind repeating your speculation. Please also provide evidence for Cmdr Rogers media career. Please also leave the dispute notice intact until this matter is satisfactorily resolved. Refdoc 10:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here you go, you motherfucker son of a bitch:

Storm Center: A Personal Account of Tragedy & Terrorism

By Sharon Rogers, Will Rogers, Gene Gregston

Hardcover / Naval Institute Press / June 1992 / 1557507279

List Price $28.95

and if you want to COPY from what I have written, use COPY not CUT, you dumbfuck; I had to restore my own writing after you dizzy retard had altered it. --K1 11:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the reference on Cmdr Rogers book. This is indeed a significant point. Please though provide now evidence of a media article, a governmental statement or something of that kind repeating your speculation re "pulling a stunt". Refdoc 11:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself. I am done with you. You are a piece of shit. --K1 11:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To avoid a further "revert" I will leave this page now in peace, despite your unwarrented removal of teh dispute notice. K1 you are grossly out of line, for reasons unknown to me. I would like to refer you again to Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Refdoc 11:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have raised the behaviour above at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/--K1 Refdoc 15:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks User:JBOC, but there remains so far actually no evidence that anyone involved in the investigation or otherwise of significance (apart from User:K1, his cousin, auntie and ex-wife) have speculated in this or another form. So I think rather than toning down, there should be a some simple evidence for others speculating apart from our fellow user/editor. Refdoc 16:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Cmdr Rogers got media contracts over and above his book publication?Refdoc 16:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After removing the allegation of putting the device there himself I feel the dispute notice can come down as this is the only bit under question. I have searched the internet and usenet using various search engines to find any support for K1's allegation but I guess he is alone in this matter. However, I believe the character and integrity of the captain is any way so much in tatters simply by the facts reported that this particular bit of further suspicion should stay out. The gall to write a book and try and earn money out of 290 dead civilians! Refdoc 09:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:k1 please stop reverting without comment for what you do. Have look at the comment Stan made on Iran Air Flight 655 : Something like "According to Joe Blow of Newsrag Daily, who cited several anonymous military officials, the plane was on a suicide mission.", then add any evidence he might have included. The only verifiable fact may be that Joe Blow made the claim, so we carefully attribute it to him, not to ourselves. Also, I would only bother with the whole thing if Newsrag Daily was sufficiently reputable and/or well-known as to merit its own article. Stan 16:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) A similar note wrt to your suspicions here might just do the job fine Refdoc 10:55, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected the page until the dispute can be solved here. Markalexander100 12:14, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Epopt's edit

I have removed again this sentence :There has been no evidence for the speculation some Iranians have made that this was not an act of terrorism, rather that this incident was a deliberate act to generate publicity for his future career as a writer. THis sentecne was something I had put in during the last throws of the above well documented revert war in order to stop K1 reverting. He did not and was clearly not happy with it in this form either.. I feel acutely embarrassed by the sentence as it basically says nothing and is a torteous way of avoiding narrowly slander. It should not remain in this form. I still think K1 or someone else should bring some form of evidence that this speculation was aired somewhere (outwith the choice circle of K1, his cousin and his ex-wife) Refdoc 14:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing it -- I was trying to simply fix the mechanics of the article, such as linking to the ship, and apparently included some old stuff inadvertently. I have no desire to get into condemning the commander. --the Epopt 15:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)