User talk:EffK

Predication

I become increasingly aware that the structures of life and of people's or anyone's or any forces' interest seem to be of circular nature, and appear to traverse forwards away from that which the subjects or forces desire to avoid in a resoundingly circular fashion; thus the effort to avoid or evade consequences, attracts those very consequences; thus the seeking for preservation instlis the destruction; thus those who aim for good fall soon into the filth of some entirely un-foreseen wrong. I think this is less personal, but appears to be inexorable when humans combine.

BBC and Hitler's 'inevitability'

At c4 am c 12 August 2006, Niall Ferguson's interview awoke me. He rightly priotitised WWI as the driving force for subsequent world events. The manner in which the German High Command chose lenin as de-satbilising force for Russia's war effort was indeed worth Ferguson's mention, but he followed this by referring to the inevitability of Hitler's ascent within the Weimar Republic. This seems a dangerous statement. I shall have to watch Ferguson pace the above circularity.

Watching Hitler

AHitler's Wikipedia article begins in 2002 and with less than a 1000 edits reaches 2004, by which time there is reference to the myth of Hitler's legal rise to power.

Hitler's initial election into office and his use of constitutionally enshrined mechanisms to shore up power have led to the myth that his country elected him dictator and that a majority supported his ascent. He was made Chancellor in a legal appointment by President Hindenburg. This was a bit of historical irony, as the mainstream parties had supported Hindenburg as the only viable alternative to Hitler, not realizing that it would be Hindenburg who would bring about the end of the republic.

The reference to Hindenburg is appropriate, but 'wooly'. John Wheeler-Bennett, in his 1936 The Wooden Titan Hindenburg biography leaves no doubt but that the essential von Papen sweetener of January 30 1933, was a restoration of the monarchy under Hitler, thereby returning Hindenburg's acquiescence of 1918 in its dissolution( an American demand) to a 'positive account'. W-B points out that thereafter Hindenburg effectively is retired, and shut off from reality, and that this very withdrawal is the second level sweetener. As London published in 1936 by the ex-Berlin history Proff Arthur Rosenberg, the last four Chancellor's, icluding Hitler had all been 'presidential Dictaorships'. The president had had to constantly read and sign decrees, brought forth to manage even fiscal matters, though decrees brought under specifically 'emergency' measures, hence dictatorship. Important is a reference somewhere that at major use of decree, an appending habeas corpus type juridical rider was also presented and signed, but at the Reichstag Fire Decree, this was omotted, and Hindenburg did not remeber to ask for it, or was senile, or chose not to raise it.

The Reichstag was, during the years from late 1931-to the Enabling Act, solely functioning as a dismissal veto. It's only power or operation was to vote for a dissolution. Post Nuremberg it became known that of vital importance to Hitler prior to his Hindenburg appointment, was his discovery that the general-Chancellor von Schleicher did not himself possess this disssolution power. (in progress)

Re Vatican Pius XII beatification

I'm afraid I can't see the relevance of this article to SourceWatch. It is much more appropriate for Wikipedia (which, after all, are the only sources cited). I'll leave the text on the page for 12 hours to give you a chance to copy it and then I'll delete it. --Bob Burton 05:41, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

The answer is to say that both WP, and the vatican amount to publishing sources, and hence are relevant to this organ. Civility led me to ask this user to account for his threat, and apparent desire for censorship. As to sources cited, the user should ask for sources, if he disputes the essential facts. I will provide them, but cannot be expected to work under instant reversals and open threatsEffK 06:28, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Response

• My point is that the article is rather tangential to the primary purpose of SourceWatch. On the main page we outline that the purpose of SW is to "to produce a directory of the people, organizations and issues shaping the public agenda. A primary purpose of SourceWatch is documenting the PR and propaganda activities of public relations firms and public relations professionals engaged in managing and manipulating public perception, opinion and policy."

• The article you have added is not only off topic for SW but it doesn't meet our referencing standards; (See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:References) Even if the referencing was up to standard, it is more appropriate for Wikipedia (see below);

• Because it is off topic, it is very unlikely that other editors will improve on the article over time. For this reason, it would be far better to create a page on that topic over at Wikipedia (or edit one if it already exists). It is far, far more likely that there will be other editors who will take an interest in the topic there than here. If it were to stay here, I very much doubt that it would be improved an expanded;

• Censorship? No, I'm encouraging you to publish it somewhere more appropriate not preventing you from publishing it altogether. --Bob Burton 06:41, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Exp on Relocation

While noting that you added various citations, I'm still of the view that the article is off-topic for SW and that it is more appropriate for Wikipedia. I note that you are banned there until October this year. Even so, I don't want SW to become the overflow posting place for material that isn't accepted at Wikipedia. Accordingly, I have relocated the Vatican Pius XII beatification article material to the accompanying talk page so that you can copy it and resubmit it to Wikipedia when you ban there expires. --Bob Burton 21:31, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Council etc

Bob, since you want to be pro-active, I'll come straight back to you and say that presumably you, Sir, will not see objection to another page dedicated to the Pontifical Council For Social Communications, another to the actual papal (JPII) instructions concerning Internet information change/war, another to Cardinal Cassidy, another to A-Bishop Renato Boccardo, and lastly another analysing the changes being constantly made to Wikipedia in line with the Council and papal instructions.

I think that you may be repeating within SW an actual slander, by linking to their publishing characterisation of myself , and thus advise you to remove it forthwith. As the legalities of WP decision can be so analysed, I might start with an article containing the legal intricacies supporting that analysis. Thankyou for the encouragement, and please note that your action is actually contrary to the SW guidelines. As to your immediate earlier deletion of my posts to you, I fail to see how that accords with these last. Have a good day, EffK 03:55, 1 June 2007 (EDT) PS you didn't get the point, Sir, that I have been posted a LIFELONG ban from touching, and thus presumably creating, any 'Catholic' articles. The beatification article is the reason. I would have to say that in your actions, you are assuming a great deal, and taking it upon yourself to unilaterally distort the functions of SW. I wonder if other users are so sure that my experiene and knowledge is not rather more important to SW and its purpose than your censorship of the surrounding facts and links. You were of course wrong not to have contacted me as I was sourceing the article, as you were asked, and that point speaks ill of you. EffK 04:02, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Whilst looking for the final defamation, which was the WP 'Signpost's report of the close of the WP EffK case, I discover that Jimbo must have heeded my advice and removed the defamation, as you can rapidly ascertain that whilst the case is on the table for Febuary 2006, it never closes- see for yourself, and take good note , [[1]]. Yep, the Wikipedia Foundation lawyers realised they were publishing a defamation, and really I should thank you Bob, as you see, the link you have placed includes these words, which are more ineradicable! -"has posted..not supported by sources.. conspiracy theories about the Catholic Church". If I had copied that signpost defamation, or if a court were to demand the uncovering of it, there could be an inference of guilt, I imagine. EffK 06:54, 1 June 2007 (EDT) However I found it- and it is still as defamatory, as I sourced everything, down to the 'submission of the intellect' on the part of faith-led (and instructed) users, sourced those instructions, sourced the individual confession of adherence and of obedience of the particular user so instructed etc etc. Who cares about Source though, even in an organ called Sourcewatch? You get the government you deserve.EffK 07:09, 1 June 2007 (EDT)