Those notorious anti-semitic Israelis have also called out Soros on numerous occasions. Jake's response to this is telling and him telling someone else to see a psychiatrist is laughable. Claiming that saying Soros is a "highly political figure" is something only true in "wingnut imaginations" betrays either a woeful lack of knowledge or a complete break with reality. Soros is one of the top five Democratic donors in the 2018 mid-terms. He was the driving force behind one of the main anti-Bush organizations in 2004. No sane individual who spends more than ten minutes looking into all of his activities could argue he is not a highly political figure. Basically ever major left-wing movement in the past decade in the United States has been something he helped bankroll. There are other wealthy political figures, for sure, but none quite as versatile as Soros. You are talking about a guy who tanks national economies in his day job and topples governments in his spare time. People all across the political spectrum of various ethnicities around the world have legitimate grievances with him. Few billionaires, including other Jews, have that same track record.Renée Bagslint wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:48 amI suppose it's helpful that Midsize Jake lays out the ground rules for WO's political stance so clearly. It was perhaps inevitable that the first rule of WO would be "Everything is Trump's fault" but perhaps a little more surprising that the second is "Only say nice things about George Soros". Paul "Ponzipedia" Bedson is hauled over the coals for suggesting that Soros might be a highly political figure -- after all, that's the sort of right-wing anti-semitic hoax (Jake's words not mine) you only get on unreliable fake encyclopaedias like Wikipedia.
General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
Okay, I've known this for some time, but there was never any point to bring it up until I saw this nonsense thread. Ming has started a thread at WO all about "Mangoe" retiring from Wikipedia. You might be perplexed as to why anyone should care one iota about some lighthouse-obsessed Wikipedian leaving the site. Well, Ming cares because he is that lighthouse-obsessed Wikipedian. What absurdity is this where a Wikipedia "criticism" site is hosting an attention-seeking thread by one of their members? He is basically pulling the equivalent of "Hey, look everybody, I am no longer part of thing that is bad. Praise me!" Difference is that he doesn't explicitly disclose his Wikipedia identity and thus is more just inflating his own ego. Ming has been pretty harsh to me in the past, but I never saw any reason why this was relevant until now. Starting a thread about yourself while hiding behind a pseudonym so you can fish for compliments on the sly, however, is not something I am going to overlook.
Carrite is dancing right around some proof at this moment in the thread. He suggests "Mangoe" retired from Wikipedia because of the "fuck off" civility discussion. The remark "Mangoe" made at the time was as follows:
On WO the same day, Ming made this comment about the same discussion:"Context" is simply "it's OK for me to be rude this time," which means that it's OK to be uncivil, and that's really what the argument is about. Apparently the rule really is that people who have the power to back up their anger get to be nasty to other people (who after all deserve it) and people who lack that power can be chucked out for expressing the same sort of anger
Seems this talking about himself on WO isn't entirely new for him, though this is the first time he started a thread all about himself. He bashed SchuminWeb a couple times on WO referencing an arbitration request filed by "Mangoe" and alluded to it by saying he had taken some player down with an arbitration request in another post. He boasts about his accomplishments many times by talking about himself in the third-person, which makes one wonder if his schtick on WO is just a ruse to conceal the fact he talks about himself in the third-person when people don't realize he is talking about himself."Context" just means that you give yourself permission because, really, the rules don't apply in your case.
Ming really didn't bash me until I was banned from Wikipedia and WO, but his grievance probably has its roots in the dispute over the article on Rupert Sheldrake. I was very much a nuisance to people who wanted to put as many smears into Sheldrake's article as possible and particularly the lede. ScienceApologist and Red Pen of Doom were also involved, the latter having been pushed into an involuntary voluntary topic ban due partly to me calling out his actions on the article. Mangoe was very much on the side bashing Sheldrake and backed most of the moves they made to smear him, but they consistently failed because I highlighted all the problems with them and my arguments won out. No doubt that rankled him to no end. One time he referenced having had prior disputes with me and in other cases ties his attitude towards me to the Sheldrake dispute. Almost like psychologically he can't stop himself from tying his issues with me to his Sheldrake-related grievances.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests