[Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Gitmo: And The Invasion of Pearl Harbor?
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 19 08:02:08 PDT 2008
It's my opinion that in many cases (most cases?) Wikipedia can be
trusted *more* than other internet reference material, precisely because
it can be edited by anybody. Sure, you can vandalize pages. For example,
every so often someone gets the bright idea to delete the page for Earth
and replace it with the words "Mostly Harmless". Douglas Adams fans will
know what I'm talking about. However, such changes can be easily
reverted, and are reverted often within minutes. If you do find
incorrect data in a Wikipedia article, why not change it yourself?
The fact that the data is updated right away makes it more useful for
me. It also covers subjects that no self-respecting encyclopedia would
cover, many of them related to popular culture. Politically-charged
articles are less reliable, although after the vandalism edits are
reverted you often find a balanced article that simply annotates the
areas where differences of opinion occur.
I was skeptical at first, but I think that Wikipedia is showing itself
to be a fine example of how the "open collaborative" model can work.
Just the fact that they've been known to block IP ranges from Congress
when staffers have been abusing the system for political purposes is
enough for me to give them some support.
However, I still like the following article from The Onion (some
inappropriate language in the article):
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
Paul
Dan Carscallen wrote:
> Vizzz peeps,
> While I don't really want to get drug into this conversation, and I
> find myself agreeing with our Donovan that Pearl Harbor was attacked
> and not invaded (semantics, really), I must say to Donovan (and anyone
> else) that I'm not sure I'd cite Wikipedia as the be-all, end-all of
> internet reference material, especially since anyone and their dog can
> "contribute" to it.
> your pal,
> DC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Donovan Arnold
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 19, 2008 12:12 AM
> *To:* Chasuk
> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com; Tom Hansen
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Gitmo: And The Invasion of Pearl Harbor?
>
> Chas,
>
> Does this sound familiar:
>
> "December 7th <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_7>, 1941
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941>—/*a date which will live in
> infamy*/—the United States of America
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States> was suddenly and
> deliberately /*attacked*/
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor> by naval
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy> and air
> forces
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_Air_Service>
> of the Empire of Japan
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan>."
>
> It should, because it was said by President Roosevelt.
>
> Notice the word attacked. Japan never invaded, it attacked. Just
> like the Terrorists, terrorist from varies countries in the Middle
> East.
>
> "Attack on Pearl Harbor" is in Wikipedia, and the encyclopedia.
> "Invasion of Pearl Harbor" is not.
>
> So, sorry to say, your statement, "Peral (Pearl) Harbor was an
> invasion, clear and simple. It isn't arguable, though you will
> probably try." Is not supported by the existing facts and opinions
> of those in better know over you and me.
>
> Maybe in your universe, Pearl Harbor was invaded and taken over by
> the Japanese. But in this one where FDR was President and Congress
> declared war on Japan, they attacked.
>
> "following brutal rapes by our soldiers" Do you have any evidence
> of such allegations? Or are you jumping to that conclusions?
>
> "We responded by invading a nation that was not involved in the
> attack. Since that
> time, to use your shameful, morally bankrupt language, hundreds of
> thousands of innocent Iraqis have died."
>
> I didn't say I supported invading Iraq, did I. I was against the
> idea even when Tom Hansen, and half the other go along Marxists on
> this list were gunning for Saddam in place of Bin Laudin. Further,
> this has nothing to do with terrorists being detained and having
> access to civil courts. Many of the innocent deaths which you
> report, are the cause of Terrorists which we once had in custody
> but were let go because of terrorist sympathizers and lawyers in
> this country more concerned for their rights then the survival of
> the nation.
>
> My argument is, that the rights of the victims, soldiers, and
> citizens are denied when unlawful combatants and terrorists are
> released because of US lawyers and terrorist sympathizers fight
> for their rights over the rights of the people they kill and
> victimize.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Donovan
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 6/18/08, Chasuk /<chasuk at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
> From: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gitmo
> To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> Cc: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>, "Tom Hansen"
> <thansen at moscow.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com, "Tom Hansen"
> <idahotom at hotmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 10:43 PM
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 21:47, Donovan Arnold
> <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > No, it wasn't an invasion. It was an attack. Just like Pearl Harbor
> was an
> > attack. How many people that attacked Pearl Harbor or planned the attack,
> > got sympathies and access to Civil Courts in the United States?
>
> Peral Harbor was an invasion, clear and simple. It isn't arguable,
> though you will probably try.
>
> > Andreas, what happened to the rights of all the dead people and their
> > families that were killed on the 9/11? How about those people forced to
> jump
> > from a 100 story building to their death because of actions by the
> > terrorists your sympathize with? How about the rights of the people that
> > were alive with their flesh burnt off as they slowly wait for their death
> > after the 9/11 attack, they have no rights? What happened to their rights,
> > Andreas? I don't see you squawking about the children left without a
> mother
> > or fathers because of these terrorists? Do they get to appeal three, six,
> > eight times, the judgment rendered against them by this monsters? You
> > show no outcry for them. You show more concern and empathy for the 170
> > terrorists that killed our people, then for the sick injustice done
> against
> > their victims. Why is that exactly, Andreas?
>
> How does all of this emotive language help your argument? A group of
> terrorists attacked our nation. We weren't invaded. We responded by
> invading a nation that was not involved in the attack. Since that
> time, to use your shameful, morally bankrupt language, hundreds of
> thousands of innocent Iraqis have died. They have died, women and
> children, by having their flesh seared off, in horrific explosions,
> from starvation, following brutal rapes by our soldiers, or after
> months of hideous torture. What happened to their rights? While that
> is an emotive, interesting question, it hasn't nothing to do with the
> actual subject of this conversation. You show more concern for
> winning an argument than with investigating the truth. Why is that
> exactly, Donovan?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list