User talk:Cecropia/Archive 3

May 2004

---

Wouldn't people be embarassed to explain that it's important that Kerry is descended from Charlemagne (as someone put in an earlier version of this article) and those people aren't?
yawn. Why do you not try to do something useful with your life? Play with your kid, plant an apple tree, raise money to pay Bush's wars... Get-back-world-respect 23:24, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Thank you

I think I misjudged you; I never expected to log in and see that I had been nominated for adminship, especially from you. I appreciate this. If you ever see anywhere where you think I have been unfair, please step in and say so; I would really appreciate the criticism, especially coming from you. If accepted, I'm going to need to read over all of the guidelines again, just to make sure I do everything right.  ;) --Rei

Smear campaigns

That is cool, you clear the smear campaigns against Kerry and I those against Bush,if we are not a great team... 8^p Get-back-world-respect 19:49, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Must be a full moon. ;=) == Cecropia 22:02, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually pretty dark over here. Reminds me I should go to sleep. Good afternoon. Get-back-world-respect 22:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, then, good night! -- Cecropia 22:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

You were right, it was a full moon, it had only hidden behind a cloud and waited until I was in bed, not expecting anything evil, when it viciously started shining right into my face. Bought some blinds today. Get-back-world-respect 18:08, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I knew it! But now we'll have to see if this starts happening when there isn't a full moon. If so, we might throw the universe out of alignment. -- Cecropia 18:33, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

My shadow was on the moon tonight! But I missed it, was busy dancing... Get-back-world-respect 00:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Hey matey, You changed my edit on war crime from "criticized" to "not participate in". What you should have done is ADD your comment about "not particpating" (although I'm not sure that is true) and put back my factually correct statement about the US criticizing the court. Of course it would have been nice if you had raised it on the Talk page first rather than just changing it. Julianp 04:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi, thanks for fixing the redirect. --Trainspotter 14:54, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Chat

Removed the separate GBWR/Cecropia chat page for lack of interest. See history for its contents. Our discussion page was deleted, but the last thing you had written was you wanted to answer my questions and were also interested in my opinion. I had suggested to continue by email, what do you think? Get-back-world-respect 02:15, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, you can write by email if you like--you can start with the "E-mail this user" link but I would prefer to do it here because (1) I check my personal email irregularly and (2) I can check the back-and-forth better here. Here is the reply I had already written to your last question:

Aristede kidnapped? I haven't followed this since he returned to the Caribbean after he was removed (or deposed). IIRC his word was he "felt like he had been kidnapped." If he had literally been kidnapped I would assume he would still (at the least) be under house arrest. It seems to me that what happened was this: he dissolved the Army (on the basis they were against him) but which left him with no forces to fight a rebellion. In effect he was asking for outside help (the US, France, or others) to keep him in power. France called for him to leave even before the US did. So--I wasn't on the ground to know exactly what transacted between the US forces who removed him from the country and himself, but I believe the reports that he was essentially told, "if you stay here the rebels will kill you. We'll take you out of here if you resign." And Aristede left. Voluntary? Hard to say. I think it was involuntary in the sense that he didn't want to lose power. But I think he would almost certainly have been killed if he stayed. If the US and France had left him to that fate they would have faced the blame when he was killed. I think Aristede was trying to play power politics and lost his job but not his life.

Democrats? The Democratic Party is badly divided except on one point: since 2000 they've decided that Bush must leave. Now this is no great surprise--they want the White House back, but they've taken most of their policy down to "we have to get rid of Bush." This is not a policy--it's a desire. So far, they have no plan on how to defend the US, or the World, or otherwise deal with foreign policy. Kerry's official line seems to have only two aspects (1) I'm going to do the same thing in Iraq that Bush is doing, but better; and (2) I will ask the world to share the burden. The first point begs the question (for the voter): "better how"?. The second point assumes that the world "wants to share the burden"? You're German, so let me ask you: Do you think Germany should "share the burden"? If so, how.

Your last question: "Do you not see how Bush's wars and prisons drove thousands into the arms of violent lunatics?' That's an evaluation. Do you think that, if the US responded differently, that Al Queda would cease attacks? -- Cecropia 04:20, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Concerning Aristide I think he could have been protected if there had been a willingness to do so. But France and US decided to let it escalate until it became dangerous for him. Then they sent troops to get some control back. The hegemonial attitude towards Latin America has a long history, and if I were American I would not feel comfortable in countries where so many people have so much hatred. In Haiti the same holds for the French. I cannot understand this, there have already been such bloody events in that country, why do western countries continue to throw oil into the fire?

I see many more issues where the Democratic Party is united. Counterproductive wars are less likely to happen under a democratic President, altogether unilateralism should be reduced, Bush's tax cuts are believed to favour the rich, there is a more open attitude to safer sex, abortion, gay rights, and environmental issues, the deficit will be reduced - as long as you do not count candidates who never had a chance - Health Care and a solid education should be accessible to everyone - something we take for granted in Europe. Unfortunately the positions on fair trade are ambiguous, and the reduction of unilateralism will most unlikely lead to major achievements such as a reform of the UN, a US accession to the ICC or signatures to the Kyoto Protocol or the Treaty to ban landmines.

On Iraq I think already exchanging the most hated US President ever and his oil-industry-connected cabinet will improve the image of your country a lot, thereby reducing the risk of terrorism. Cooperation with other countries is easier when you respect each other, and I think international cooperation is vital when fighting terrorism. Two alleged terrorists had to be released in Germany because US intelligence would not hand out protocols of the interrogations with the most important witness. Similar events are currently happening in Spain. But I agree that the problems caused in Iraq and Afghanistan are now so extreme that no one will be able to fix it all in a few years. When talking about "sharing the burden": When there is agreement that the burden is a common problem allied countries have showed their support in numerous occasions. The Kuwait war was financed with a lot of money from Japan and Germany as well, Germany also took the command of the ISAF force in Afghanistan and held the conferences in an effort to rebuild the country, France and Canada participated in the operations, there were and there still are joint efforts in Yugoslavia, there were US-French cooperations in the Ivory Coast, a EU force in Congo, etc. What no one is willing to share is a burden that someone else caused himself arrogantly and ignorantly in spite of warning. Where US troops invade a country that had allowed weapons inspections, using forged documents to accuse it to have non-existent weapons of mass destruction, using cluster bombs on civilians, and torturing prisoners, the willingness to share the burden is limited. Kerry has the advantage here that he cannot be blamed for things he did not decide. But his decisions will be carefully watched. Also regarding the treatment of prisoners at Guantamao, where protests from all over the world started right when the first alleged combatants where deported. (Paul Krugman today wrote Just trust us, Donald Rumsfeld said early in 2002, when he declared that "enemy combatants" - a term that turned out to mean anyone, including American citizens, the administration chose to so designate - don't have rights under the Geneva Convention. [1])

I think a lot could be reached with cooperation. Just today the EU made a new proposal to abolish agricultural subsidies. If the US and the EU could find an agreement about this, hundreds of billions could be saved, and a lot of economicallly less developed countries would get rid of a lot of problems. In the end poverty is one of the major reasons for violence. If proper education and media could be financed for them, a lot of people would lose all interest in anti-western hatespeech. And in return western countries could profit from new trading partners. Get-back-world-respect 03:54, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

In case you decide to answer this please leave me a message at my talk page since I stop watching yours. Get-back-world-respect 14:01, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

---

5-boro Map (thanks)

Thanks. I very much appreciate it, coming from you (not kidding). It took me about three weeks on and off of cobbling together USGS satellite photos and massaging it in a graphics editor to get the underlying template map. It's becoming a bit of an obsession. -- Decumanus | Talk 05:52, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

City Naming

Would you like to "second" my "motion" at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)? john 05:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Bush degree award

Hi there - unversities award degrees to students. There is no implication that it was not earned, I was awarded a degree by the university I attended. It's just a change in wording. Switch it back if you disagree, I won't revert it. Mark Richards 20:28, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Please, I won't take it personally if you want to edit mercilessly! Best wishes, Mark Richards 20:34, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Mercenary Help

Hi Cecropia. I'm looking for some help with a troublesome definition of "mercenary". I've outlined my argument on the "talk" page and I'm looking for some insight. Mercenary Talk:Mercenary --M4-10 22:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Go

Im curious if you have ever played Go. Consider this an invite, if you are interested. -Stevertigo 06:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC) BTW, I have not read your new comment on current topical matters, and dont intend to until tomorrow.

Because I respect your intellect, in most cases. You strike me as someone who might appreciate the art, and its meaning. And one is never too old to learn. -Stevertigo 07:15, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Whenever you like, I would be happy to show you the basics, and you can go with it at your own interest. A good place for beginners is www.kiseido.com; the KGS server has a very nice client program. -Stevertigo 17:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

":::::...hope, and faith in God ...? What's that about. Is it a reference to the murderers shouting "Alahu Akbar!" as they hacked a Jew's head off?" You seem at times to respond too quickly, without actually understanding the gist. My comment had no reference at all to the vain claims the video. Sometimes the context is not limited to particular situation, like my comment above had nothing to do with the previous discussion.-Stevertigo 17:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

""Crusade" is a very loaded word in the Muslim world, referring to events of nearly a millennium ago that are not (to them) easily forgotten, so it is interesting that you use the term." I recently was reading how translators have to consider (in some colloqual cases) the terms Crusade and Jihad as interchangeable, just differenct by POV. :)

"Even Muslims I know (in NY) don't make that assertion." Might be because they are Americans.

"The one person I know who does (not in NY) is Jewish, but I think he's tring to make a political, not a religious point." What's the difference? Both cases are POW and 'eye of the beholder.' In the end it comes down to the communication issue.

"But as to "anger," I can't speak for the Administration's view, but the change I see from 9/11 in the US is that it shattered a belief picked up from the Palestine-Israel conflict—the "cycle of violence" theory: I kill some of your guys, so you retaliate by killing some of mine, so I retaliate [ ... repeat infinitely ... ]." I understand your point. Ironically it's a very Christian notion that one should "forgive seventy times seven times," but much of Christiandom is (somewhat) illiterate and still thinks that Jesus' sword refers to aggression and violence. It does not.

"The core of that belief is that, if someone just doesn't retaliate, the conflict ends. In fact, some in the US called for non-response to 9/11 with exactly that argument." Lets not get our wars mixed up here. Afghanistan was the retaliation for 911. Iraq on the other hand was the beginning of a new "Crusade" (Arab POV term) that used the "pretext" (anger) of 911 to expand the definition of the "War on Terror." which itself was desinged to be amorpheous. Yes, straight outta Orwell. The War on Terror in fact is over, whats left is the residual failures of the typical excessivism that people predicted of Bush long ago. Of course the militarists are clinging to the War - they need war, they live for war... Others are less in love with bloodshed, and the "pretext" (anger) of 911 has diminished such that the attempts to extend it, to talk-up its merits (be they religious, economic, or principled "demockracy," etc) are going to be even more bizaree, in light of reality. One can reasonably predict (based on history - Reichstag Fire, Gulf of Tonkin) hat certain people, 'desperate to keep the magic going' will seek to create a new "catastrophe of opportunity" -- 'All things be known,' but if we can know the who by name, then we will call them "vile," their names will forever be mud. This is why its important for us "liberals" (root word = "Liberty") to capitalize on the abuse scandals. We can see them now for who they are and what they are. They may not like it, but they are all tough and can handle a little criticism, cant they?  :}

The fulcrum Israel, and Jews (perhaps understandably) are under the different pressures of a (perhaps imagined = "fear is the mind-killer") resurrection of "Christian" anti-Semitism, as well as the additional pressures from outside and within, brought about by the obvious outstanding hypocrisies. So, 'support the War on Terror' or people will (again) blame us for not supporting the cause,' or 'support the doomed-to-fail war, and follow Angry America into its predictable self-tarnishment.' This is why the new protests in Israel are important --young "idealistic" (ie: those who actually have to live in the world decades from now) people, getting out and telling the you-know-who to put their stale state idolatry (and all the excuses and crimes that come along in the name of it) where it belongs. The same is happening here. Hyperconnected Humanity is Great (is it not?).

"But the point is that, by such a huge and disproportionate attack, the underlying promise (leave us alone and we'll leave you alone) of non-response disappeared. No one can point to the "tit" that lead to the 9/11 "tat." So there were left only a few choices." I agree that some response was necessary. Im not a freaking pacifist. I'm just echoing the prophetics about tendencies of power to corrupt, and for corrupt people to exploit the political power that a premise (anger) provides.

"Continue what you are doing (arrests, trials), try to hide (revive "Fortress America"), give in to the demands of the perpetrators, or battle them openly. Bush took the latter course, and I don't see the religious implication to it that "crusade" implies." Maya Angelou said that "he may be a man for his time." I agree with that. Im not going to make any (more) predictions -- people must serve their functions, and I have get up early to serve one myself. -Stevertigo 09:09, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Nick Berg photo

Hi Cecropia, I disagree with you about the photo of Nick Berg. That is something different to the soldiers' abuses. There the photos proove something many denied, and by showing them we help to pressurize the occupying forces to improve their treatment of human rights. The Berg photo was taken in order to spread fear and horror, and by showing the photo we just help the terrorists. Get-back-world-respect 14:19, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, and personally I don't think the more horrific Nick Berg pictures or most of the prisoner abuse pictures should be in Wikipedia. Definitely I think they should be referred to and linked to, but not shown inline. Part of this is the issue of an encyclopedia. Let's assume that we don't know the impact of showing the severed head in Wikipedia. Some people will say "look how terrible these people who killed Berg are, we should fight and kill them and their supporters." And other might say "look how ruthless they are; we better not do anything to anger them, I won't approve of my country sending troops or workers or humanitarian relief, in case the same thing would happen to them." Should we (as Wikipedia editors), try to mediate between those ideas, or should we just say "we publish it or not, based on appropriateness." Similarly we can say that the abuse photos might have good effect of forcing reforms. But this is advocacy, even if its good advocacy, and is this consistent with Wikipedia. And if you say it is consistent, then don't we have a responsibility to show people how cruel some of the opposition are, so they can form an opinion on what needs to be done, in the broadest terms?

My bottom line (unless I can see things which convince me otherwise) is that you should have one, maybe two, photos on each of Abu Ghraib and Berg, sufficient to give a feeling of the nature of what happened, and link to more photos, which are available all over the Internet. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that we should restrict ourselves to very few of the prison abuse images since more pictures hardly give more information. But I do not think we should play into the hands of terrorists at all by displaying their photos. Get-back-world-respect 21:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

142.25.110.5

Hi Cecropia, just thought I'd do my first ban on the incorrigible vandal User:142.25.110.5 - turns out you were first by 2 minutes!
Anywayz, do I need to put any messages on his talk page (for the future)? Or make a log somewhere? JFW | T@lk 16:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Merged talk pages

See Wikipedia talk:merged talk pages. --Uncle Ed 16:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Wik

Since you commented on our votes, I'll let you know that I thought Wik's support was unusual enough to be worthy of a comment, but it had no effect on my decision. I use my own standards for voting there (and respect whatever ones you use), but I'm not going to substitute Wik's for mine, since it's pretty hard to tell what possessed him to vote support this time. As you say, maybe it's the moon. --Michael Snow 23:01, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

--- Whoops - sorry about misplacing my comment before. I meant no disrespect. Kevin Baas 17:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

User:Energybone

...has been at Nick Berg conspiracy theories all day--he took a few hours off, and I thought he had left. Don't bother with him; it'll keep your wikistress down. Meelar 03:32, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

me

I was wondering why you advised David Monniaux to "attention où tu met les pieds avec Sam". I'm not trying to be difficult or confrontational, just honestly curious and concerned. Sam [Spade] 03:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

oh ok, sorry. she doesn't sign and I got confused because of that :) I know she thinks I'm a dubious fellow, so I doubt I'll enquire. Thanks, and sorry again. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 03:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

spellyng / spelling

C, Being a writer, I expect that you might find some of the following of interest. There is now a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography, and just recently a discussion page on the TT question cypher v cipher. Our language being as anarchic as it is, I find the whole thing bemusing. You might as well, or perhaps not. In any case, you'll be welcome to look in or participate. There is also a list of articles which may be on their way to featured status, all of which are general enough to qualify for your non-crypto eye.

And finally, on another usage note, there is some discussion at Talk:National Security Agency about an odd point. Once it's been noted, it sticks in the mind as a usage puzzle.

Anyway, I hope all is going well. ww 19:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Text moved from user page

In response to your absolutely riotous claim that I've been making personal attacks, I can only say if you don't understand the difference between criticizing edits and personal attacks then perhaps you shouldn't be here. That kind of cognitive dissonance you are displaying clearly has no place here. Energybone 16:53, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad you liked the article. That made my day! 172 02:12, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Energybone Calls Bluff

What's wrong, Cecropia? I expected you to revert the Nick Berg article by now. Not so brave without a bunch of shills in the mix? I'm not surprised. Please do me a favor and stop editing on wikipedia. We don't need you here. Energybone 05:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

So what are you waiting for, Cecropia? When are you going to "use up" the rest of your reverts? Are you waiting to gather more troops before the assault? Where is your cacophony of whining drooling trolls ready to do me in? Energybone 05:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

What's your problem, Cecropia? Perhaps you'd like to explain why you feel the need to put the death stuff in the intro when it's repeated in a later section? Are you lobbying for removing the redundant material in the "death" section? Death section? Why is there a death section at all? This article is an absolute mess, and it needs to be fixed. If you want to keep breaking it, please do me a favor and go to sleep instead. Energybone 05:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Fraunces Tavern

Very nice (and quick) work on Fraunces Tavern. Thanks for disabusing me of the notion that it was the same building...though I must confess I hope there are still a few beams or maybe a wall incorporated somehow :( - Nunh-huh 02:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I liked the antiquarian walks too though now more in memory than current practice (such is one's lot when one reaches that certain age where the directions one gives are likely to be in terms of where things used to be, generally perplexing the young<G>). I didn't much care for the Disneyfication of Times Square (one can now go there without feeling slightly outré - good probably for business but still something's lost...) but I don't mind it much in other parts of the city, like the Fulton Fish market. On the other hand, it's good to be able to remember things like the old Time's Square and dinner at Windows on the World... I hate to think what people will wax nostalgic about 75 years from now... - Nunh-huh 04:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)