In the week they took hundreds of pounds from people in severe poverty, MPs and Lords claim up to £3,750 each to return from their luxury holidays to spout off in honour of Margaret Thatcher. Meantime the media are busy classifying any potential protest or expression of opinion at the taxpayer funded funeral jamboree as “potential terrorism”.
Whether protest at the funeral is tasteful or not is a fair question. But there is no question it is perfectly lawful. There is virtually no understanding of the very notion of civil liberty in the mainstream media.
The US House of Representatives has passed the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protect Act (CISPA).
Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas) said this week’s deadly terrorist attack in Boston are reason enough to pass a cybersecurity bill, despite lacing evidence that the pair of bombs detonated Monday at the Boston Marathon were acts of cyberterror.
http://rt.com/usa/congress-house-bill-cispa-031/
Hold up wait a minute, y’all.. – is that one of the 7/7 bombers?
http://rt.com/usa/fbi-suspects-boston-bombing-078/
lacing [sic]
Lieutenant Colonel Potter delivers a dire warning to the American people. He points out several key incidents occuring across the United States recently such as the Boston Marathon bombing as well as the recent gold bubble. The Lieutenant Colonel goes so far as to call the Boston bombing a false flag by the American government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWUB4MCLsHg
Just signed in after a long absence. FWIW, my being away is no cause for alarm – I found that the light-touch approach that I think had become expected of mods was unduly preventing me from carrying out moderation duties effectively.
Mary has clearly been significantly bullied (for which I am greatly sorry) but it’s not been our only problem, in my view. Calming the occasional bun-fight down required some deletions, but even very minor such actions were met with abuse from several old hands here. Hopefully there is now an understanding that it is better to have a little moderation that keeps discussions on track, even at the risk of having ones own messages occasionally snipped. The alternative seems to be bullying, spite, and unending cycles of misunderstanding and clique-forming.
So, I will see if we can improve things in this regard. I don’t want to kick off a great meta-discussion, since each comments thread (aside from the meandering conversation as the thread grows) should really be about the topic of the post.
Anon, with regards to your report, I can’t see anything objectionable, so perhaps Craig has now deleted it. Since you ask on the other thread, yes, you did overreact. There is plenty of racism right across the web, and whilst I know Craig would not knowingly host any of it, it is not going to stop the world turning if an offensive comment is left here. Let English Knight bask in his own stupidity! Just use the comment form above, and if it gets missed, don’t worry about it. The attitude that the police should be permitted to deal with it is, in my view, a great deal more worrying. Maybe Craig’s posts should be vetted by them too?
Anyway, hello to everyone here, good people, spammers, provocateurs and disruptors in equal measure: you make it go round! I’ll try to pop back in more frequently.
Mark @ 11:45
Anecdotal at best. He references Alex Jones with great respect. Alex Jone is like a broken clock which may be right twice per day.
I am concerned with the fact that there have apparently been black ops types seen at Boston, but pics of them after the bombs indicates surprise, which would be unusual for a black op. I see no conspiracy like what is described, yet, but I will watch.
And finally Jon before I leave. What I am worried about is that the presence of certain posts could cause trouble to be visited on the blog. I was just making empty threats out of extreme annoyance and the hope it would finally attract a moderator. Maybe someone else might be more malicious if these posts hang about on the site too long.
Or maybe I’m just overly worried. Need a break anyway.
Mary, please continue to contribute. I note that yet again, one of your comments seems to have inspired Craig, the one of yours linked below providing the topic of this thread:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/04/margaret-thatcher/comment-page-2/#comment-402413
A Node, I’ve been watching the Secret of Oz. It says a lot that Wikipedia took it down. It is not economically correct as far as they’re concerned. But it is as far as I’m concerned. And it is factually correct. The banksters manufacture fictitious money that is worthless. Governments add massively year on year to their national debts. This is backed up by government bonds which will not be worth the paper they’re printed on as soon as the world economy collapses. Worth posting again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U71-KsDArFM
One Boston suspect shot – they’re believed to be Chechens. WTF?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-marathon-bombings.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Jon, good to see you.
Yes, please do some snipping. My view is that abuse of other contributors can be replaced with “deleted – abusive”, while retaining the substance of their complaint, if present. If the actual complaint is hard to disentangle from the abuse, just delete the lot; it is the complainant’s responsibility to communicate acceptably.
I also think that contributors who repeatedly offend should have further comments from their name/e-mail combination sent to the moderation queue rather than published.
Yes, John Goss, money is at the root of all evil.
We sometimes see arguments on this blog about who pulls the strings – the military/industrial complex, Zionists, Masons or other secret groups, etc. Some people even think it’s the politicians! 🙂
I believe all of the above are the strings, but bankers are the puppeteers.
Prophetic words, here. For background on Chechnya, the entire cable is well worth study. It’s not quite the picture the UK MSM present us with…it’s a heady mix of Afghanistan and Syria, with added oligarchs.
58. (C) The situation in the North Caucasus is trending towards destabilization, despite the increase in security inside Chechnya. The steps we believe Putin must take are those needed to reverse that trend, and the efforts we have outlined for ourselves are premised on a desire to promote a lasting stabilization built on improved governance, a more active civil society, and steps towards democratization. But we must be realistic about Russia’s willingness and ability to take the necessary steps, with or without our assistance. Real stabilization remains a low probability. Sound policy on Chechnya is likely to continue to founder in the swamp of corruption, Kremlin infighting and succession politics. Much more probable is a new phase of instability that will be felt throughout the North Caucasus and have effects beyond. BURNS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/65802
John Goss and A Node, the film you’re advocating needs support, both at Wikipedia and elsewhere.
John Goss, read the article’s Talk Page. It was deleted under the Wikipedia rule “lack of notability”, not because editors disagreed with its content. However, it is likely that the economic establishment deploys agents to edit Wikipedia, and “lack of notability” is the Wikipedia rule they have found easiest to use in order to suppress the article.
You need to find reviews of the film in popular publications, or comments about it by well-known politicians or economists, or best of all academic analysis of the film and its arguments. Links to such material are what confer “notability” upon a Wikipedia article.
Yes, thanks Clark, for those wise words. What the hell does ‘lack of notability’ mean. It’s not notable? But it is very notable. What you say makes sense, but Wikipedia should have its own policing system to find out who is wrongly taking down something.
Yes, Clark, the excuse of lack of notability is pretty weak, especially when compared with with some of the entries which they have left in (see my comparison with Timmy Mallet http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/04/crass/comment-page-5/#comment-403626).
If you look at the history of deletion, there has been an ongoing battle between supporters of Bill Still and Wikipedia editors for several years. There is a determined campaign to keep him out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Still
I became aware of this when I caught the process mid-stream. 4 weeks ago, there were 3 pages, one each on Bill Stills and his two documentaries. Two weeks ago, the content of the Bill Still page was gone and a deletion notice was in its place, the ‘Secrets of Oz’ page was still there but with a warning of imminent deletion, and the page for ‘The Money Masters’ was untouched. Last week, all trace of the BIll Still page was gone so was the ‘S of O’ page but both still had links from other Wiki articles, and the ‘MM’ page had a deletion imminent warning. Today all 3 pages are gone, and also most of the external links. All reference to them is being systematically erased from the ‘knowledge’ base.
I spent a couple of hours yesterday exploring the relevant ‘talk’ pages, and even started to contact one of the editors, but in the end I couldn’t decide how best to counter their claim that he is not notable. Since their claim is supposedly arrived at after careful consideration, me just disagreeing with it seemed pointless. I aborted the contact until I come up with a strategy.
Any suggestions welcome.
I meant to add this page from 2010, referring to the problem originating in 2007:
http://s6.zetaboards.com/Bill_Still_Reforum/topic/1177232/1/
The conversation reveals that in the past, Wiki editors have used advertising and copyright violation as excuses to remove it. These Bill Still supporters succeeded till last week, so they are obviously more wiki-savvy than me. I’ll re-double my efforts to contact them.
A Node, I just discovered this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prius_2/The_Money_Masters
Interesting, John. Have you got any idea what the link means?
Apparently when Wiki ‘delete’ pages, they aren’t actually deleted, they’re saved somewhere for possible future discussion. I’m wondering wehether Prius_2 may be an editor, and the link is using his username as part of the url to where the ‘deleted’ page is saved. This page seems to be a ‘hidden’ page, not intended to be accessible to the public. Certainly if you search Wikipedia for “Money Masters”, it comes up blank.
I’ve tried substituting “Bill_Still” for “The_Money_Masters” in your link … no luck.
John, I think perhaps Prius_2 is the person who last posted ‘The Money Masters’ onto Wiki. His other interests make this seem possible.
I will write to him and ask.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prius_2
OK, it looks like Prius_2 wrote a ‘Money Masters’ page that was deleted in 2010. I’m struggling to follow the conventions of Wikispeak but I think Prius_2 has also been barred from being an editor. There is no way of getting in touch with him through Wikipedia.
I need to find out who posted the most recent pages on Bill Still and his docs, and ask if there’s any way I can help to get them re-instated.
Must go and do some work now. I’ll check in later.
A Node, you need to find references in the mainstream. This is a known problem with Wikipedia; its referencing rules bias it towards “mainstream” positions, and against self-published sources. If the corporate media ignore something, it can be difficult to find references from “reliable sources” from which to build a Wikipedia article.
Things like Jstor and paywalls make the problem even worse. Academic references carry much weight on Wikipedia, but many research papers are unavailable to the public, or are too expensive, or most search results just lead to an abstract and a request for payment thus wasting much time, etc.
There are various pages like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Still_%283rd_nomination%29
Clark 19 Apr, 2013 – 1:21 pm
You say “read the article’s Talk Page”. Can you give me a specific link to get me started, please? I can access the deletion log and see the various editors who have contributed to the article’s deletion, but when I click on their ‘talk’ pages I can’t find reference to the article. I think I must be missing something. The obvious, probably 🙂
Clark, our last posts crossed. Your link has given me the starting point I needed, thanks.
A Node, Prius_2 is a current editor of Wikipedia. Anyone with an account is an “editor”. You can contact Prius_2 by posting on his/her Talk Page; just click the “edit” button:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prius_2
Prius_2 created the page The Money Masters, and apparently saved a copy of it in his user space before it got deleted. From John Goss’ link, you can see the problem with the article – it is supported by only two references, one very minor, and the other to the film’s own website, which obviously isn’t independent.
Short of changing the rules at Wikipedia, you can’t really help Prius_2 without finding some independent sources which are widely read or academic. So you could try hassling someone at The Guardian or somewhere, and see if you can get them to review the film. Then the Guardian article could be used as a suitable “secondary source”.
Clark,
I understand what you’re saying. However, the deletion of ‘The Money Masters’ is a sideline – Bill Still himself surely is worthy of inclusion.
I don’t suppose you know a way of digging up an archived version of his deleted Wiki page … ?
Jon, jolly good show!
It looks like Spring might just descend here, after a rather long extended cold winter of discontent.
Good weekend to you and all!
Clark and A Node, I’m a bit busy at the moment but I would be happy to write an article to try and raise awareness. If you can get in touch with the author can you ask him to get in touch with me please. Thanks.
Clark, I’m not sure the Guardian would do anything. Better chances of creating a source would be News Junkie Post, Huffington Post, Global Research, Russia Today, Press TV. Most MSM outlets are owned by people who would not like this truth to be widely available.
A Node. This is a Swedish version of Bill Still’s Wikipedia article. Whether the English version is longer or not I don’t know. You can translate it.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Still
I have to go. Speak later