User talk:Kwork2: Difference between revisions

When Vespasian sent for Helvidius Priscus and commanded him not to go into the senate, he replied, "It is in your power not to allow me to be a member of the senate, but so long as I am, I must go in." "Well, go in then," says the emperor, "but say nothing." "Do not ask my opinion, and I will be silent." "But I must ask your opinion." "And I must say what I think right." "But if you do, I shall put you to death." "When then did I tell you that I am immortal? You will do your part, and I will do mine: it is your part to kill; it is mine to die, but not in fear: yours to banish me; mine to depart without sorrow." Epictetus, Discourses, 1.2.19-21

If you have come to my user page with a question, or protest, about my editing, you need to know that I have done what I think is right. If it should be that I was in error, I will certainly apologize. But if it should be you want me to change what I think is right to what you think is right, I can not do that. Malcolm Schosha

Archives

Archive 2 (first archive)

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi Malcolm,

I have taken your accusations of "garden variety" anti-Semitism to Arbitration Enforcement (here).

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.04.2009 08:15

I want to add a little to the discussion on logic the thread on Antisemitism [1], and my effort to apply logical argument to the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

• If it is true that the majority of anti-Zionists are antisemitic, then it follows that the majority of WP anti-Zionists are antisemitic. (premise)

• The majority of anti-Zionists are antisemitic [2][3]. (premise)

• The majority of WP anti-Zionists are antisemitic. (conclusion)

This frames the argument in the form of Stoic propositional logic, rather than the more Aristotelian term logic that I used previously. Also, this argument is really an inductive syllogism, rather than the more common deductive argument I first use; and admittedly relies on a statistical probability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is not really sound. It is possibe (though unlikely) that WP anti-Zionists make up a small group of the total set of anti-Zionists, but that they are all non-antisemtic, so while it remains true that the majority of AZ are AS, its possible that it is not true that a majority of WPAZ are AS. From a statistical POV, that is unlikely. LuvGoldStar (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a fairly strong inductive argument. Of course, the objections you have would apply equally to the larger set of all anti-Zionists, and I assumed that objection would be made. It is an inductive argument, but there are sources the support the premises concerning the larger set of anti-Zionists....two of which I have included. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I am speaking of low level (garden variety) antisemitism, which is very common. I have heard of cases of low level antisemites actually put that aside and risking their own lives to save Jews from Nazis. We see the best (or sometimes the worst) in people only in emergency situations. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you, I'm just saying the argument is not locically (in the sense of logical induction) sound. LuvGoldStar (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the argument is sound, within the limits of an inductive argument. For my present purpose, a probability of a percentage is all I want to argue. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it os an argumnet that you probably should not be making on wikipedia. LuvGoldStar (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of administrators who seem think that anti-Zionists are a marginalized minority group, and that I am making biased comments against those sensitive and delicate souls. I got three blocks in a week over that. If I was going to back down on the issue, I would have before now. I do not intend to pursue the issue further, but after the blocks, think it is important to clarify my thinking up to this point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was just trying to help you avoid further blocks. LuvGoldStar (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo Malcolm Schosha,
If a bad source is used to support a better one, then the bad one can clearly be removed without damaging an honorable verifiability of the content (see also: WP:COMMON).
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to care because its just one more worthless WP article that virtually no one will ever read.

It appears that WP:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Proposed decision will be giving out topic bans all around. Since WP:NPOV only works when opposing POVs are argued out, and since it is known that years of topic banning, and blocks, of users have changed nothing for the better, it is impossible to conclude this attempt by the arbitration committee to force users to be nice will work any better than the past efforts. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Jayjg: He has not been here for a month. Considering the treatment he has gotten that is not surprising. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For 3 years I have been here, he has been the target of all attacks. Each time, there is a probmel on an article linked to the I/P conflict, we can read Jayjg, Jayjg, Jayjg... From my point of view, if he was not a Jew, that would not be the same. That is pure antisemitism and disgusting.

But the whole decision is no sense. The message of the Arbcom is : "leave us alone, or we will ban you !". Ceedjee (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree about Jayjg...and about the arbcom decision which will accomplish nothing good. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg would be last person I'd expect to get a virtual death-sentence. What a joke. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg is not blocked, but banned from editing anything in the Israel/Palestine dispute area [4]. He was also "stripped of status and privileges" [5]. The way I see it is that the schmucks on the arbitration committee gave those who initiated this arbcom case the item on the top of their wish list. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Jayjg was most notable for his involvement in the I/P articles, I'd imagine this translates into a virtual death sentence. By striped of his privileges, does that mean is he no longer an admin? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malcolm,

I've left a query for you at the bottom of the thread at User talk:AGK#Exodus from Lydda, regarding neutral word choice.

Hoping to hear your response soon,

AGK 12:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[6] Note, you need to stop while you are ahead. rootology (C)(T) 17:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]