User talk:Doright - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drboisclair (talk | contribs) at 23:07, 29 May 2006 (Adding a few things to my response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:07, 29 May 2006 by Drboisclair (talk | contribs) (Adding a few things to my response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello Doright, 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:

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 have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Please do not use article Talk pages for discussing personal issues, no matter how important. For that purpose, we have User Talk pages (like I am doing here) & email. Humus sapiens ну? 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

As a new user to Misplaced Pages, you are feeling your way but here are a couple of things that might help you: (1) By filling in information about yourself and your credentials on your User page, it gives other editors a sense of the credibility of your edits. (2) The Misplaced Pages strives for Neutral Point of View in articles. That is NOT achieved by one side puttiing in a radical position and someone with another point of view moderating it and edits going back and forth. It is expected that every editor will put in NPOV in the first place. This is necessary to keep Misplaced Pages's credibility as a reference source and not a propaganda soapbox. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to help you. Merry Christmas... --StanZegel (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Stan, thank you for your kind words and interest in encouraging my participation. Indeed, it's not hard to imagine that one person's radical position is another moderate. It's a big world out here with lots of points of view. I'm of the school of thought that anyone can claim anything about themselves on the internet. Personally, I find it rather easy to evaluate ones "credentials" based upon the veracity of their arguments. I enjoy when well intended people of differing positions engage in rational discourse leading to a common understanding. I don't enjoy when people are merely pushing an agenda. It's so so boring. We have not yet developed a common understanding on the current project. However, I do invite your participation. Best Regards and Merry Christmas. Doright 05:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Um I think he may be pointing to wikipedia policy that this is an encyclopedia supposedly formed on NPOV writing, rather than POV debate. Reguardless of your enjoyment of POV debate wikipedia (from what i have come to understand) is NPOV only, no POV at all (which would include all aspects of article development) --Alden452 10:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself

Mr. Doright, you need to examine your own passions to push your own POV and view others with the same objective light. Just an observation of your inceptor work. drboisclair 20:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC) And PS this last post: please be more considerate of others. I take exception to the attacks you make against Mr. CTSWyneken, who has been around this website alot longer than you. drboisclair 21:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

drboisclair, typical of your style, you continue to post your slanderous charges, but do so in such a way that lacks the specificity that would allow a person to defend themselves. Thus your attack is purely vicious and punitive. I understand that profound ignorance of a subject (e.g., you agree with StanZegel's comments about antisemitism, there is a difference between antisemitism and antijudaism: the arabs, too, are semites).--StanZegel (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC) and I quote you here, As pointed out by other editors Anti-Semitism comprises prejudice not only against Jewish people but also against other "Semites" like the Arabs. IMHO, drboisclair 17:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)) nor an anti-Judaic and antisemitic POV (e.g., you complain, "Jewish opponents lampooned and libeled Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary") preclude one from pushing their agenda. However, when an editor engages in mischievous plagiarism, ] this kind of intellectual dishonesty must be dealt with by fair-minded colleagues. CTSWyneken lacking the moral courage to apologize at least had the good sense to not respond to the charge since he was caught red-handed. You, on the other hand, as his mate, do so not by addressing the issue of his plagiarism but by attacking me. And PS, please be more considerate of others. I take exception to your attacks. Doright 22:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, sir, it is YOU that are levelling attacks, although, admittedly in your own space here. You here are judging Stan, CTS, and me. To some extent we are limited by the Misplaced Pages rule of "no original research." This is an encyclopedia and we sometimes summarize what we have gleaned from other sources in what we write. I post that to your charge of plagiarism. My caption for this comment still stands a fortiori. The only thing I would find fault with is your rudeness. It is unbecoming of a scholar if that is what you are, and I don't say you aren't. You are making quite a reputation for yourself here. drboisclair 23:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

drboisclair, excuse me, sir, since you attacked me in my "own space here," I responded here. Your repeated prevarications and dissembling are a nuisance. I can see from your reply, that again profound ignorance does not stop you from pressing your POV, even when the facts are handed to you on a platter. The non sequitur that you post, "we sometimes summarize what we have gleaned from other sources in what we write," is pathetic (but typical) since there were no summarizations. What was actually there prior to the improper tampering by your mate was an unambiguous html link ] to the actual true source fully documented footnoted and referenced and completely transparent. Your continued and misguided harassment is not serving the goal of the encyclopedia. I respectfully again ask you to stop.

Doright 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the dialogue. I have no intention of levelling charges nor of engaging in ad hominem attacks. If any of my sentiments can be construed as such, I vacate them. Respectfully, drboisclair 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Luther and the Jews

I have been commenting (if somewhat sporadically) on the Talk: page. The article title was changed because "Martin Luther and anti-Semitism" took the position that he was anti-Semitic, whereas this one doesn't make that assertion. It was seen by those who moved it as more neutral. Jayjg 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Approaches, etc.

Hi there - thanks for the message on my talk page. I wouldn't presume to put words in your mouth, so I'll keep it a bit more superficial and general (but I'll be glad to point out some language choices at other junctures or later along the way). Basically, don't allow the emotion you feel, and the frustration, to be captured by those who oppose you. If your changes are repeatedly reverted, and you have tried RfC and other means of resolution, you may be in the minority and may need to 'choose another angle of approach' to address whatever issues are sticking in your craw. Don't allow yourself to verbalize feelings of being 'ganged up on' (to use a phrase), because in the WIkipedia space, those sorts of comments are often met by an instant 'ignore' by many readers. It's clear you know the material well, and can argue well - be Spock. Stay in the argument, and get past 'it all', and you'll do just fine. :)

Thanks for the encouragment. I can use it. I’m becoming discouraged because it seems that a tiny self defined group can completely control and have total ownership over the content of articles without regard to rational discourse. I believe they are actually in the minority, but are on these articles almost 24/7. So, even when other senior editors like SlimVirgin or Jayjg and others come by for a short period to express their disagreement with them, or make edits in some cases identical to mine, the dedicated minority ends up prevailing. It's starting to seem like a waste of time to me if there is no light at the end of the tunnel.Doright 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please observe Misplaced Pages Policies

Doright, I'm sure you would like to be taken seriously as an editor, but in the past few days discoveries have been made in some of your edits where you have represented words as coming from someone they haven't, and where you have quoted only portions of a statement with the effect of suppressing balancing views that the original author had stated and distorting the thought. Such actions are violations of WP:NPOV. Please read that section and other policies and follow them. Please stop making personal attacks upon other editors. Please stop placing inflammatory statements in edit summaries. Please stop the use of intemperate language in your postings. Please remember that you are expected to make an article balanced, not lop-sided with any POV. Please note that if you continue to infringe upon the rules of good conduct that disciplinary actions (including being banned) may be initiated against you. That would be unfortunate, and I ask you to conduct yourself in such a way that discipline will not become necessary, and that your edits can become a useful part of Misplaced Pages. --StanZegel (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

StanZegel writes to drboisclair:

"Yes, it is a problem, and I think the best way to deal with these high school kids with such bad attitudes is to ignore and not respond to them. Perhaps in a few years they may acquire some maturity, but in the meanwhile they are not worth the time to explain why their edits are reverted and their baiting is ignored. We all have more valuable things to do than allow ourselves to be held hostage by typo terrorists. --StanZegel (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"-Doright 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

StanZegel writes to CTSWyneken:

"An anonymous editor is like a sniper in a tree top, taking pot shots at those trying to do serious work on the ground, and dropping his waste matter into the work in progress. I'm not sure that anything such a person attempts to add is worth verifying but should be summarily deleted on the basis that a responsible person would identify himself. If the material is truly worthy, a responsible scholar will get around to adding it. In the present case, I believe we are dealing with a sock puppet for an editor who has been banned previously for similar activity and may be on probation right now. If so, that probation is being violated, and keeping his edits or wasting time on his "contributions" simply enables continuing violations.--StanZegel (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)"

-Doright 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please consider

Hi Doright, please consider removing your addition of Martin Luther's 1543 pamphlet to the Timeline of Jewish history. Instead, please see if it adequately covered in the History of anti-Semitism. It took us some effort to keep them separate (otherwise Jewish history may be seen as defined by antisemitism). Cheers. ←Humus sapiens 22:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism (people)

Taking a quick glance at Umar II and the Philip II of France, neither of the articles mention anything about them being anti-semites. You can't arbitrarily add categories that defame the article without having any source/reference. Pepsidrinka 21:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow wikipedian, a careful reading of the category explicitly states that the person included may or ‘’’may not’’’ be an antisemite. Please read it. In the case of Omar II, “Caliph Omar II introduces discriminatory regulations against the dhimmi, among them for Jews to wear a special yellow garb.” I also suggest you take a look here ]and here History of anti-Semitism . You will also find “Philip III of France causes mass migration of Jews by forbidding them to live in the small rural localities.”Doright 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's Philip III, nothing in the Philip II article even mentions Jews. And please add that information to the Omar II article. User:Zoe| 22:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Philip II of France, ie, "Philip Augustus of France after four months in power, imprisons all the Jews in his lands and demands a ransom for their release. In 1181 he annuls all loans made by Jews to Christians and takes a percentage for himself. A year later, he confiscates all Jewish property and expels the Jews from Paris. He readmits them in 1198, only after another ransom was paid and a taxation scheme was set up to procure funds for himself." History of anti-Semitism Doright 22:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense if you create a category that finds a loophole around WP:V. How about I change the terrorist category to allow for people who "may or may not" be terrorists, and then start tagging every article, from Ronald McDonald to Celine Dion. No one could fault be because frankly, I gave myself an out with the "may or may not" comment.

And also, showing me links on non-WP sites doesn't help me nor the reader of the article. When they are reading the article, they are reading the text that is on the page, not searching google for various claims of anti-semitism. Furthermore, your WP to the history of anti-semitism does not even link to Special:Whatlinkshere/Umar II. Pepsidrinka 22:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense? That you view the category as a "loophole" and not merely a list of people who scholars have associated with antisemtism belies your POV. Every article page can not recapitulate the contents of all other article pages. Thank you for pointing out Special:Whatlinkshere/Umar II. You will note that if you click on Omar II here ] you are redirected to Umar II. As I am still unfamiliar with much of wikipedia perhaps you would be kind enough to show me how to provide the link you think is missing. If there is a problem with this redirect, perhaps you can fix it. However, I don't have any reason to think that a problem exists. Regards,Doright 22:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. I have reverted your edit to Pope Gregory IX. Don't put that category on articles which do not have any text supporting it. User:Zoe| 22:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. As wikipedians, this category is not for name-calling. It is to identify significant people that have played a role in the history of antisemitism, whehter they are or are not antisemites themselves is not relevant. Collegially, Doright 22:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. Until the article on the individual explains that they are anti-Semites, you cannot include the tag on their article. Just referencing History of anti-Semitism doesn't work. User:Zoe| 23:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a straw man argument, since, as you well know, being an anti-Semite is not a precondition for being in this category. Can you quote me the text of the wikipedia policy that states the rationale for an article being included in a category must be stated on that article's page? Every article page can not recapitulate the contents of all other related article pages.Doright 22:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You might enjoy Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#$Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud in Anti-Semitic category. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens 02:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Humus, but I find it very boring and a big waste of time to argue with antisemites about who is and is not an antisemite, so enjoy yourself. You might also enjoy this ]Doright 07:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Offer of an Apology

Doright, I'm more than willing to let the past go, if I have some assurance that you would stop attacking me and others, as you have done again on the Category: Antisemitic People even in trying to apologize, and would take care to properly cite material. I'm even willing to help you figure out how to do so, if you'd just ask. For example, the poem could be cited on a talk page as "attributed to Martin Niemõller" and, if you wanted to put it in an article, I could hunt down a printed version for you.

You know too little about me to jump to the conclusions about my motives you've made in the past. My motive here is no more and no less that we reflect what scholarly literature says about a subject. This requires that citations be accurate. So, when you say that "Robert Michael wrote" it should be the words of Robert Michael, not an abstactor in a database. If you quote a cited in... this is fine. Often I can bring the source material to me to confirm such quotes. Just ask Humus how his quotes have fared when I've done this.

If you would be less quick to attack, you would see that I have not contested everything you've added. I'm not even against finding a way to define and/or rename the remaining category in a way that Martin Luther could be listed. Your definition under the Antisemitism (People) category went a long way toward that. My objection, you may recall, was to having two categories that carried the same freight.

It is possible to work together. I've done this with several editors that have quite a different background from mine. I'm not asking that you agree with everything or anything I say, nor that you buy my arguments. I am asking that you cease making judgments about my motives, cease attacking me rather than arguing the points at hand, stop running all over the wiki to find points of view I and others have taken and use them to assault us. It is only because you have behaved as you have that I have a hard time accepting the things you add and revert them quickly when I cannot verify them.

Are you willing to give it a go? --CTSWyneken 21:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Saddened

SlRubenstein, I'm saddened that you appear to have been persuaded, perhaps unwittingly, to play an unfortunate role ] in the ongoing crusade against me by a small but well-defined group of editors. Perhaps the insight rendered by another editor ] made after yours regarding User:StanZegel’s and User: CTSWyneken’s current attack was not as obvious at the time you made your comment responding to CTSWyneken’s solicitation. I wonder now that the discussion has ripened if you would take a look at it ] and respond appropriately. Best Regards, Doright 03:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(The above Doright text is copied from ] since Slrubenstein's below reply would otherwise be out of context).

conflicts

Doright, I do not want to get involved in any edit war or conflict. My intention was only to remind you of policies. This is well-intentioned and practical advice for you: disregard what other people think and especially what you thijnk other people know, and focus on complying with our policies. Then, you will practically never had to explain yourself. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, There is simply no justification for participating in mean spirited harassment. Regardless of your intention, you did more than provide a reminder of policies; you supported the harassment by explicitly denying its existence. As a strong adherent to the principle of assuming good faith, I can conceive that you may have been duped by the "good offices" of one of the perpetrators. However, I did expect a different reply, after you had the opportunity to observe what an unsolicited editor called, “one of the most ridiculous, petty, and vindictive things that I've ever seen here on Misplaced Pages,” which “was motivated by some other personal hostility and not by any bona fide concern” ]and another unsolicited editor noting the ad hominem nature of the discussion pointed out, "the requirements for citations in talk pages are not the same as in the articles."] I expected something more akin to an apology from someone of your caliber than a rationalization and what appears to be self-serving advice. As you should now at least suspect, I’ve been the target of ongoing harassment and respectfully request that you review the official policy on Harassment to insure that you do not again inadvertently find yourself contributing to it. You may also find the articles Bully and Cyber-bullying salutary. I will continue to assume good faith on your part and advise that you do the same. I regret that we have met in this unfortunate fashion and look forward to future collaborations on helping Misplaced Pages make the Internet not suck. Best regards, Doright 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Doright, I hate to say this, but I would hate to see an ArbReq or RfC against you even more. Please reread WP:NPA and WP:DR. ←Humus sapiens 03:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Humus, thank you, I guess :) However, I can't decode what "Doright, I hate to say this, but I would hate to see an ArbReq or RfC against you even more" means. Feel free to email me if you like. Regards,Doright 04:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at my talk page. ←Humus sapiens 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society

Demanding a citation for the fact that those who say Jesus never existed are a tiny minority, is really taking things to a ridiculously ugly extreme. It's like demanding a citation that the Flat Earth Society (for whom they are the scholastic equivalent) are a tiny minority. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Codex Sinaiticus, I didn't know asking for a citation for a putative survey of scholarly opinion was thought to be ugly. Yet, I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to. Perhaps if you comment on the relevant talk page, I'd be better able to figure it out. In any case, you seem to be over generalizing, but I'll keep an open mind and I am open to new info. Perhaps you can provide some evidence since you seem to know a lot about this. You refer to a "tiny minority." Perhaps you would be so kind as to give me estimates of both the numerator and denominator of this "tiny" ratio (i.e., approximately how many are in the numerator and how many in the denominator)? Given that Historians are a "tiny minority" of all people, I expect your denominator to be tiny indeed. Regards,Doright 23:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote on the cat Talk:Martin Luther

Your vote is requested. Drboisclair 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of evidence

I left you a comment yesterday at Humus sapien's RFA. I'm just curious what diff links you can provide that demonstrate your concern regarding his "pattern of compromising quality"? --MPerel 23:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Doright: even though you opposed me, I wanted you to know that I appreciate your vote in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me by the community. Regards. ←Humus sapiens 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Humus, congratulations on the overwhelming show of support. Happy admining! Nice graphic and map. Are you familar with its history and context?Doright 04:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know more than the description says? Feel free to update it, or let me know so I'll do it. ←Humus sapiens 10:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As you know, this is a woodcut depicting Jerusalem at the center made in 1581 in Magdeburg, Germany. You may find the following clips of interest: (1) After the banishment (1493) no Jew was allowed the right to settle in Magdeburg (when the woodcut was made), whose magistrate, in a letter to the king dated Sept. 14, 1711, speaks of that right as "a high royal favor." It was not until 1720 that a Jew, Gumpert by name, obtained permission to reside in the Altstadt of Magdeburg, and up to 1806 only one protected Jew at a time enjoyed this privilege. If Jews attempted to remain in the Neustadt, the council of the city was soon forced to expel them, as is seen from the case of Lewin Bauer (see M. Spanier, l.c. pp. 392 et seq.). (2) 1524 Martin Luther is called to Magdeburg, where he preaches and causes the city's defection from Catholicism. The Reformation had found speedy adherents in the city, where Luther had been a schoolboy. (3) In the following years Magdeburg gains a reputation as a stronghold of Protestantism and becomes the first major city to publish the writings of Martin Luther. (4) Antisemitic legends of Magdeburg: In the year 1515, or according to others 1514, on September 13, the Wednesday following Saint Aegidius' Day, at the Jewish cemetery near Moritz Castle, Johann Pfefferkorn, a baptized Jew from Halle, after having been tortured with red-hot pincers, was bound to a column with a chain fastened around his body in such a manner that he could walk around the column. Burning coals were place around him, then raked ever closer to him, until he was roasted and then burned to death. He had confessed (among other things) that: He had poisoned wells; He conspired to poison Archbishop Albrecht of Magdeburg and Elector Joachim of Brandenburg, together with all of their court officials; Likewise, to give poison to all the subjects of the Archbishoprics of Magdeburg and Halberstadt and to persecute them with arson.Doright 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ptmccain SlimVirgin 22:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Ptmccain

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I have been on a bit of a Wikibreak. Looks like the issue has been resolved now, but thanks for raising it. Cheers TigerShark 00:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Excerpts

Your very welcome : ) Wikiquote is a better place for it and there's a nice template in Misplaced Pages for linking articles to the quotation collections in Wikiquote, as you can see by how I linked it in On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther). I'm not surprised it took so long to translate it into English, it's quite a dark despicable work, one that many would probably rather forget. --MPerel 02:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology

This is no excuse for the personal attack, but my biliousness was the result of my strong religious convictions. The statement was inappropriate, Doright, and I apologize for it as well as any other ad hominem remarks I have made against you. You were correct to characterize them as "sour grapes" à la Aesop. That said, I would hope that in the future you might reconsider singling people out for accusation by copying and linking things in a bill of particulars. This battle is over. I defer to my Wikipeers who have seen fit to retain this category and to place Martin Luther into it. For Luther it is the consequences of writing such trash as "Von den Juden" and "Vom Schem Hamphoras" among other things. Doright, your cause has prevailed here, so as far as I am concerned the battle is over. Let's make a new beginning, and repair broken Wikirelationships. Humbly and Respectfully, --Drboisclair 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Copied from the talk page of "Category:Antisemitic people" under Chuzpah.--Drboisclair 20:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I accept your apology without reservation as I have in the past. For my part, I'm sorry. And, I regret any ill feelings my participation has engendered. Scholarship and collegial discussion should be a joy, a shared pleasure. While I have no idea which of your religious convictions you refer to, I am pretty sure it's none of my business. I'm just glad you no longer feel you're in a religious battle against "Jews consumed with hatred" perpetrating a vendetta against Martin Luther. I hope you might consider this not a battle lost, but the end of viewing participation as a war. It should always be about rational discourse, not imposing our wills. This is all I ever asked for and will always insist upon. Barely a day goes by where I'm not attacked by someone interested in disassociating Luther from antisemitism. You ask me to reconsider providing links to your/their previous discussions. You characterize this as "singling people out for accusation by copying and linking things in a bill of particulars." I assume this ] is the most recent example of what you are referring to. It was extracted from here. I'm sorry. I hope you can see the difference between merely providing a link to, or text of, what you actually wrote versus the libel of, for example, repeatedly and falsely accussing me of being a "sock puppet for a banned editor." I think it important to not personalize the vote to keep this category, or Luther in it, as "my cause." The "cause" is the cause of scholarship and the Wiki process of creating an encyclopedia. As far as I’m concerned the only thing that should be personal is the personal respect we demonstrate for one another.

I delight in your offer to make a new beginning, and repair broken Wikirelationships. Towards that end, let's try to address one of the issues that concern you. You have argued that, among other reasons, Luther should not be identified with antisemitism because the term is modern, whereas Luther died a half of milenium ago. Regarding Martin Luther, you said, "I believe that On the Jews and Their Lies is Antisemitic," but because his antisemitism was based upon a different theoretical justification (i.e., religious) than that of the Nazi's, he should not be called an antisemite nor he or his writings associated with antisemitism. However, you have been provided with abundant evidence, for example, here,here here here and literally dozens of times elsewhere that your demand to limit the usage of the term to "racial" antisemitism does not comport with the generally accepted definition, usage or meaning. What say you?

Doright 23:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look at my response to your comments on the talk page of the Category:Antisemitic people. I do not mean to be rude or call you any names. I used the word "lone ranger" to characterize the way some newbies begin editing. At least, I used to act in that way. If you believe that you did not act in that way, I am not going to insist on it. There is no reason for you to get your dander up here. I think that you have made your point about the definition in Webster's dictionary. I don't need any persuasion on that score. I wonder, though, as I have posted on the category talk page whether or not retaining the category:Antisemitic people does make a moral judgment about them. I would agree with you that Misplaced Pages does not as a rule make such moral judgments, at least, where the consensus of published authors of history and philosophy have not made such a moral judgment.

I have stated before that I believed On the Jews and Their Lies to be antisemitic

Please do not misinterpret what I am posting. I am dialoguing with you.--Drboisclair 23:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)