Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence

1346:"systematically revert or delete" everything Krusty has written, since it will all be LaRouche lies. In response to Krusty's comments above, I am not going to bother responding again to all his various lies and misrepresentations. My comments on his personal character were made in response to his disgusting slanders, made from the safety of anonymity, of a person not involved in this debate. I used stronger language than I normally would, but then I don't normally encounter people as contemptible as Krusty. If he doesn't like it he can sue me, since unlike him I edit here under my real name. I should also say that I am working on obtaining more detailed information on LaRouche from sources in the US who specialise in monitoring him and others like him. When I get this material I hope to expand and improve the article. Krusty will of course dislike this material just as much as he dislikes the current article, and for the same reason. 1425:

for disqualifying them from writing encyclopaedia articles. It might conceivably be argued that my role as a gay activist disqualifies me from writing an article on, for example, Fred Phelps, although I would dispute even that. But gay activism is not a cult organisation like LaRouchism, nor does it have a universalist political ideology that dictates what I think about other subjects. In any case, I do not remove Krusty's material from articles merely because he is a LaRouchist. I remove it because it is arrant nonsense. See counterculture and Anti-Defamation League for two obvious examples. Adam 05:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1518:- " A cursory glance over some of the articles that Adam has written, suggests that he may be sympathetic to Free trade and globalism, tenets common to both Neoconservatism, and the so-called "Liberal Imperialism" of Tony Blair and Robert Cooper. If true, this would certainly place Adam squarely in disagreement with LaRouche's actual politics. I may be completely off base here, but I am seeking some explanation for why Adam so frantically attempts to cover up what LaRouche actually does and stands for, preferring to retail Dennis King's zany conspiracy theory. I would like to see a bit more candor from Adam." 1524:- "Actually the political views that Adam has chosen to disclose are not very revealing. But -- On a hunch, I googled "Adam Carr" + "Michael Danby". Bullseye! Danby is one of the most outspoken fascists on the Australian political scene" (and later) "I think it is entirely relevant to note that Adam's employer is Australian M.P. Michael Danby, who routinely outdoes his neoconservative counterparts in the U.S. with blood-curdling demands for war against the Muslim world, and is an ardent supporter for the methods of interrogation which lead to the torture in Iraq, Guantanamo, and other locations". 1367:); I brought this up because I suspect that Adam, who, like his employer has expended a great deal of effort trying to denigrate LaRouche, has a real disagreement with LaRouche on the issue of the Iraq war and the larger context of the "Clash of Civilizations" thesis. However, rather than discuss the real disagreement, they prefer to attack LaRouche indirectly, with pretexts. I find it curiously ironic that Adam brands both LaRouche and myself as "slanderers," when the whole basis of this dispute is in fact Adam's incessant slander of LaRouche. -- 533:,) and the addition of some material on LaRouche's legal case which is in the public domain. Contrary to Adam's assertion, I "inserted" no propaganda to his version of the article, and I am confident that an inspection of my edit will pass muster. This is the sole attempt I have made to edit the article after unprotection -- with one exception. I added the {{TotallyDisputed}} bug on July 4; 11 minutes later Adam removed it; I replaced it later that day, and it remains. 1256:

personally loathe the Von Mises institute and disagree with the article but I didn't allow my personal views to interfere with my editing. This is quite different from editing in order to promote a particular agenda which, if I may say so, seems to be your purpose. It seems to me that you cannot accept any view contrary to LaRouche's.

388:

arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence. In your feverish pursuit of this vendetta, you recently violated procedure by reverting this page while it was protected. I have responded to your posts at Talk:Frankfurt School, but not because I believe that you have any real interest in the topic. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:07, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

409:(though not all) of its attributions. I am not aware that the factual accuracy of King's citations have been challenged by any non-LaRouche writer. If King's book cannot be used to write a LaRouche biographical article, then so such article can be written, because there is no other account from a non-LaRouche source. 1433:

The only comments directed specifically at Herschelkrustofsky is the statement "I do not remove Krusty's material from articles merely because he is a LaRouchist. I remove it because it is arrant nonsense." Which I do not believe fulfills the criteria needed for a statement to be a "personal attack".

1424:

That's because everything you write is driven by your LaRouchist ideology. The analogy between you being a LaRouchist and me being a gay activist is a spurious one. LaRouchism is a cult whose adherents are no longer capable of objective thought or writing on any subject, which should alone be grounds

370:

Frankfurt School - please consider UNPROTECTING. User:Herschelkrustofsky has made no attempt at Talk:Frankfurt School to justify his inclusion of LaRouche as a critic and is the only editor who thinks this inclusion is justified. As well the version currently protected is the more controversial page.

453:

Krusty complains that "Adam and Andy continually attempt to rig the debate by insisting that any source they prefer, such as the thoroughly disreputable Dennis King, must be accepted as gospel, whereas any source associated with LaRouche is automatically excluded, in their world." In a sense this is

433:

Readers of this controversy need to understand that Krusty is obviously a LaRouche activist of some seniority: he says himself he remembers things LaRouche said in 1978. Given the nature of the LaRouche cult, everything Krusty says and does here must be seen as LaRouche propaganda. It can no more be

1263:

I criticize your inclusion of those two links, because the linked articles were incompetent and preposterous. It was noble of you to overcome your personal loathing of the Von Mises Institute in order to include them, but you seem to have no difficulty in allowing your personal loathing of LaRouche

482:

Hopefully, Adam has gone a long way toward making my case, in his above comments. I would suggest that in order to get an article that conforms to NPOV, it will be necessary to find some thoroughly neutral third parties who can cobble together the relatively unassailable portions of Adam's article,

392:

So you are unilaterally deciding that you do not need to provide any justification or back up to support your inclusion of LaRouche as a serious critic of the Frankfurt School and are simply using the protection as a way of enforcing your opinion and insulating it from others. That is precisely why

383:

Herschel, you need to provide some sort of justification for your version on the Talk pages. You've refused to do so thus far. The point of protection is to allow time for discussion on the Talk page but if you refuse to discuss then there's no point in having the page protected. See Talk:Frankfurt

1354:

If Adam wishes to use the defense that I "made him do it", i.e., I was responsible for his use of personal attacks because I produced "disgusting slanders, made from the safety of anonymity, of a person not involved in this debate," he ought to be more specific. There has been no exchange between

947:

Clearly I have not been systematic in editing Herschell's work as all of the above articles have not been touched by me and as, in fact, the vast, vast majority of articles which Herschell has edited in the past six weeks ALONE have not been touched by me. The list would only grow if I went back

449:

It is of course true that I and others editing here are hostile to LaRouche. But there is no equivalence between that hostility to LaRouche and Krusty's support for LaRouche. I and others are trying to write an encyclopaedia article, as objectively as is humanly possible and using the available,

741:

article disproves Herschel's claims. Had I truly been trying to "systematically revert or delete everything" Herschell has written then I would not have left the article itself almost intact. Herschell is correct that I deleted the external links, one a piece from a LaRouche publication which I

408:

I used as my principal source Dennis King's book, which is the only LaRouche biography in existence. While it is not an academic biography, and has the deficiencies of a book written to prove a case (that LaRouche is a fascist), it is nevertheless adequate, and gives standard citations for most

519:

I did not "announce my intention to respond to any efforts to edit my article by embarking on revert wars." I said I would revert attempts by Krusty to re-insert LaRouche propaganda in the article, as I have done and will continue to do. This was why I reverted Krusty's edit after the page was

429:

1255:

I think here we see how Hershel does not understand how an editor should behave. I did not provide a link to an article on the Von Mises Institute website because I agree or disagree with the article but because it was related to the topic and which provided criticism of the topic. In fact, I

577:

With respect to Adam's use of Dennis King as a source, Adam concedes in his above comments that "it is not an academic biography," but then goes on to say that "Who funded King to write the book is completely irrelevant. Most academic books are funded by someone." In fact, King's "academic"

1429:

There is deliberation on whether the above comments constitute a "personal attack". While the comments are strong I think it is an error to view them as a personal attack. For one thing the strongest comments are directed not at Krusty as an individual but at the "LaRouchist ideology" and

712:

Andy entered the debate somewhat late in the game. Perhaps taking his cue from Adam's demand for "Stalinist rigour", he has commenced a campaign to systematically revert or delete everything I have written, effectively making me a Wikipedian "non-person." Case in point: in an article on

491:

Lyndon LaRouche is a political activist. If no one were paying attention to him, he would not merit an article, nor would he inspire such vituperation from Adam. I think a suitably NPOV article should incorporate LaRouche's consultations with heads of state, such as Mexican President

387:

Andy, as I said at Talk:Frankfurt School, you are not a serious participant in this discussion. The only reason that you wish to edit this page, is that you are carrying out an obsessive vendetta against my work at Knowledge, which has been amply documented at Knowledge:Requests for

1512:- "Adam, your new article is not only work of fiction, it is a plagiarized work of fiction" and " It appears that the purpose of your new article is not so much to present the reader with wild fabrications, as it is to suppress any actually factual account of LaRouche's activity" 755:

Further to Herschell's claims that I have been trying to "systematically revert or delete everything (he has) ever written, effectively making (him) a Wikipedian "non person"" this is a list of articles which Herschell has edited since June 1st which I have *not* subsequently

425:

King does indeed "assert that LaRouche uses a code language to secretly convey a message of anti-Semitism," and I think he is correct, at least when talking about the 1970s, but my article gives due credit to what appears to be LaRouche's recent shift of position on matters

1359:

pages. A thorough inspection of these pages should reveal that I have been more than courteous with Adam. I suspect that he refers to my mention that his employer, Australian M.P. Michael Danby, advocated a piece of legislation which I think most people would find shocking

703:

I give John Kenney full credit for conducting his part of the debate in a relatively civilized manner. My only problem is that he is intransigent with respect to his insistence, shared with Adam and Andy, that the article on LaRouche be an "attack piece."

374:

Andy has been pursuing a sort of grand edit war against every article that I have edited, along with his cohort Adam Carr. He generally appeals for page protection as soon as he has deleted my contribution. This matter is presently under arbitration (see

1339: 1211:-- Adam's edit memo on that one speaks for itself. There is a certain Orwellian quality to their attempts to erase particular ideas from Knowledge, and I think that it sheds some light on their motives for the hate-LaRouche campaign. -- 1461:

The above comment was not "lifted" by me. I presume Andy posted it here from Fred's talkpage. It is a comment on why all Krusty's edits need to be vetted, not a personal attack. When I call Krusty a lying, slanderous piece of filth,

990:

Herschell, it is you who claimed I deleted or reverted "everything" you've ever written when in fact I only edited a small percentage of articles you have touched in the past six weeks. Clearly your claim is a wild exaggeration.

40:

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.

446:. Krusty is not interested in writing an encyclopaedia article, he is interested in protecting the LaRouche cult's view of itself and particularly the fantasy biography that LaRouche has spent 30 years creating around himself. 563:"A great deal more will be removed when I get time to tackle this article again. And I agree with 172 (let history note), that Krusty should now be reverted on sight. A bit of stalinist rigour is just what this debate needs. 1387:

Well of course it does. That's the only reason Krusty comes here. If he would like to post an up-to-date list of articles he has "edited" we can start the necessary work of vetting them for LaRouche propaganda and nonsense.

458:

it can be verified from independent sources. The anti-LaRouche material is of varying quality, and must be assessed critically in the way any historian is trained to do, but if it is properly referenced it can be used

1079:

Andy's list of my contributions which he has not yet molested is now hopelessly out of date. He and Adam are busily pursuing their vendetta, as this grid of activity for July 15 illustrates -- and the day is not yet

463:

shown from an independent (ie, non-LaRouche) source to be false. This may seem unfair on Krusty, but it is the price he pays for choosing to become an acolyte of a proved liar, slanderer and fabulist like LaRouche.

742:

thought had no value (I had meant to only delete one link, not both), but the article itself was left intact except for a rewriting of the first sentence in order to make it accord with wikipedia standard (see

691:("It is of course true that I and others editing here are hostile to LaRouche."), leave little doubt that what we have here is a lynch mob of sorts, editing at cross-purposes with Knowledge policy as stated. -- 1218:

Public Works is the more common term. In any case this is the first time anyone's ever called me a neoconservative or any kind of conservative which just goes to show you that you're not very good at spotting

586:: each charge that originates with King should be clearly indentified as such, and as well, the article should expand a bit on King's role in the fascinating "Get LaRouche Task Force," which included the 454:

true, for reasons I have already stated. Material from LaRouche sources is always propaganda, and often untrue. Since truth cannot be separated from myth in LaRouche propaganda, it must all be excluded

613:

There is no prospect of "mutual understanding" with Krusty, because he is (in my humble opinion) a malicious vandal and a lying slanderous piece of filth with whom civilised discourse is not possible.

688: 960:

edit. Or, if you prefer, just the number of articles that you edited. And, it would also be useful if you would indicate those cases where you did something other than simply delete my work. --

1276:, I might well believe that there is such a phenomenon, but that is not the point. The point is that the concept and the term are contested, and an encyclopaedia article must reflect that. 546:. I have almost singlehandedly turned it from a mess of propaganda and outight lies into a reasonably acceptable article, something which no-one has had the persistence to do. Doing this 530: 1430:"LaRouchism". Whether or not the LaRouche movement is a cult is something that has been discussed in various places and, frankly, there is quite a lot of evidence that it is a cult. 948:

before June 1. Therefore his accusation that I have been trying to "systematically revert or delete everything" he has written and make him an "non-person" is untrue and nonsensical.

508:. There should also be mention of the individuals who signed various public calls for the exoneration of LaRouche, following his imprisonment. This latter material is available at 1199:

There is an interesting pattern emerging, as Adam and Andy continue their locust-like ravages of articles to which I have contributed. There are certain ideas, offensive to their

34: 550:

means fighting a revert war with the LaRouchies. If you don't want to help, fine, but kindly don't carp at the methods which are necessary to defeat such malevolent slanderers.

1015:

Note that two of the pages that Andy cites as examples of those that he has not subsequently edited, have not only been edited by Andy, but are now protected due to edit wars:

582:, entitled "They want to take your drugs away." I would be delighted to have the article include King's highly original attacks, provided that there is a sufficient degree of 665: 169:, implying that he would never, in a thousand years, dream of deleting my work on those pages. In fact, he started edit wars leading to the protection of those pages. -- 746:

to compare Herschell's original version with the version after I had finished editing). If this is Herschell's only piece of evidence against me then it's quite weak.

1272:

As I have said several times, I am a moderate social democrat. But unlike Krusty I don't come here to proselytise on behalf of my political views. On the question of

405:

The first version of the article was pure LaRouche propaganda, full of blatant lies and total inventions (such as the mythical Eurasian Land-Bridge), so I rewrote it.

30:

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

1145: 1247:

by the Von Mises Institute. So tell me, was that an expression of your POV, or were you just being spiteful? And which of the two is more helpful to Knowledge? --

1506:- "Adam, clearly you will only be satisfied with a Chip Berlet-style smear you have little interest in the actual LaRouche, preferring a mythological bogeyman." 1474: 484: 1044:

I look forward to Herschel's explanation of how this edit either started an edit war or led to the protection of that page a full thirteen days after my edit.

183:

I look forward to Herschel's explanation of how this edit either started an edit war or led to the protection of that page a full thirteen days after my edit.

595: 509: 1137:(delete paragraph - anything that the LaRouche activist Herschelkrustovsky contributes on this subject cannot be accepted without independent referencing) 656: 683:

as "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person." The deliberations on the

968: 21: 906: 1073: 401:

In case anyone really wants to investigate this absurd complaint, this is my version of events, first posted on the LaRouche Talk page on July 6:

529:), without comment. This edit consisted of removing assertions which I knew to be false, for which no attempt at documentation was made (see my 1029:

I am not challenging Andy's other deletions and reversions, in hopes that the Arbitration Committee will soon intervene on this whole mess. --

1485: 1435: 1381: 1257: 1220: 1190: 1181: 1169: 1160: 1097: 1045: 1008: 992: 972: 949: 747: 379:) that got protected, and it should remain so until arbitration has been given time to work. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) 306: 274: 216: 184: 1165: 628:

Sam should be careful about associating himself in this debate with Krusty, who is clearly a deliberate, calculated liar and slanderer.

967:

My comments above clearly disprove your claim. It's interesting that you want more than that. Let me direct you to my counterclaim at

635: 978:

A burglar could make the same argument, saying, "The charges are obviously false. Look how many homes I haven't burglarized yet!"--

1399:

because it was nothing but LaRouche nonsense and beyond redemption. Someone familiar with the field needs to write a new article.

1408:

Please note that this is not the Talk page, although most of what Adam has contributed could certainly be construed as Evidence.

570: 1264:

to persuade you to delete any external links to LaRouche publications, regardless of how competent and pertinent they may be.--

364: 131: 124: 620: 140:

17:04, 16 Jul 2004 Ambivalenthysteria protected Counterculture (Protecting due to dispute between Adam Carr and Herschel...)

1380:

strikes me as being highly POV and designed to promote a particular LaRouche viewpoint rather than be an objective article.

56: 137:

01:37, 17 Jul 2004 AndyL protected Frankfurt School (My allegation that proper procedure was not followed is incorrect. )

487:), and perhaps even portions of the original article. And then, I fear, it will be necessary to reinstitute protection. 149:

01:05, Jul 27, 2004 Angela unprotected Frankfurt School (protected over 10 days. Unprotected requested on my talk page)

17: 422:

Krusty did not "call me" on using King, and I did not "admit" it (these are standard LaRouche polemical distortions).

1476:

is the edit to this page, by 65.95.225.20, signed by AndyL. I'll check with AndyL that he's not being impersonated.

731: 525:

When the article was unprotected on June 30, Adam reverted my edit (which I invite 3rd parties to inspect, at the

263: 146:

22:56, 19 Jul 2004 UninvitedCompany unprotected Counterculture (protection not appropriate; no sign of an edit war)

47: 1200: 956:

Andy, I think that it might be more illuminating for the arbitrators if you provided a list of articles that you

761: 680: 669: 668:. Each one of these inventions or propagandistic insinuations constitutes a violation of Knowledge policy; see 526: 96: 81: 72: 1449:. And if there is "quite a lot of evidence that is a cult," it has yet to have found its way into either the 1527: 1521: 1515: 1509: 1503: 1446: 1364: 650: 248: 243: 238: 233: 1288:. And how many "moderate social democrats" refer to themselves as supporters of the "liberation of Iraq"? -- 1113:(recasting this article to remove the POV assumption that there is in fact such a thing as "neocolonialism") 891: 718: 472: 1286:

recasting this article to remove the POV assumption that there is in fact such a thing as "neocolonialism"

1042: 326: 181: 1228: 1186: 811: 707: 698: 555: 512:. Adam and Andy apparently do not dispute these facts, but insist that they be excluded from the article. 501: 477: 1441:

I was not aware of any deliberation on the above comments. They are not mentioned in my complaint (see

604: 419:

Who funded King to write the book is completely irrelevant. Most academic books are funded by someone.

743: 253: 347:

critics are not "compotent", I said rather that I regarded two specific schools of criticism of the

335:

on the basis that his critics are not "compotent" and is thus abusing the page protection mechanism

71:- looks to me like a mishmash of pro and anti. Post edits by anons et al, prior to edits by Krusty. 375:

Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence). This time, it was The Wrong Version (

130:

01:10, 17 Jul 2004 AndyL unprotected Frankfurt School (no request to protect this page was made at

120:

15:15, 15 Jul 2004 Ambivalenthysteria protected Leo Strauss (Protection requested due to edit war.)

1454: 1411: 1368: 1289: 1265: 1248: 1212: 1083: 1064: 1030: 1000: 979: 961: 781: 725: 692: 673: 320: 293: 204: 170: 1418: 871: 396: 258: 211:

That's not my responsibility. Your prior claim was deceptive as to the nature of my editing on

931: 450:

admittedly inadequate, sources. Krusty is merely acting as a mouthpiece for the LaRouche cult.

92: 86: 77: 68: 62: 1445:}. They were lifted by Adam, for reasons known only to himself, from their proper context on 1307: 1204: 876: 591: 340: 300: 44:

Be aware that the arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent.

1494: 331:

Hershel is now arbitrarily refusing to provide justification or evidence for his version of

1356: 1207:(which is certainly a more powerful idea, with a richer history, than "Public Works"), and 791: 684: 228: 8: 493: 313: 281: 123:

11:28, 16 Jul 2004 Angela protected Frankfurt School (Edit war. Protection requested on

1240: 1129: 766: 587: 1355:

Adam and myself, public or private, that is not recorded in the record of the various

999:

I said that you had "commenced a campaign." I did not say that you had completed it.--

1232: 911: 826: 1304: 1093: 721:) Note that one of the deleted links was simply a collection of writings by Carey. 332: 268: 1450: 1244: 941: 916: 866: 861: 666:

updated list of wild fabrications and propagandistic slurs in the present version

658: 543: 286: 49: 339:

These comments are 1) a sophistical misrepresentation of what has transpired at

1534: 1477: 1467: 1400: 1396: 1389: 1377: 1347: 1322: 1277: 1273: 1208: 1177: 1133: 1121: 1109: 1105: 1052: 1020: 936: 926: 896: 886: 836: 816: 806: 564: 551: 465: 192: 154: 102: 167:

Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence#AndyL.27s_response

1333: 846: 821: 796: 497: 160: 117:

06:07, 30 Jun 2004 Everyking unprotected Lyndon LaRouche (requested on talk)

901: 435: 1530:- "Adam uses this argument to cover for the fact that he is simply lying." 1156: 1141: 851: 801: 786: 738: 714: 443: 439: 1041:

consisted entirely of substituting the word "currently" for "presently"

180:

consisted entirely of substituting the word "currently" for "presently"

1300: 1236: 1117: 1038: 1024: 881: 841: 776: 212: 177: 724:

I will respond expeditiously to any inquiries left on my talk page. --

343:, and 2) the result of poor reading comprehension: I did not say that 108: 856: 393:

protection is not valid in this case. AndyL 15:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

578:

credentials were limited to the article he wrote about LaRouche for

542:"Do grow up, Everyking. You know perfectly well what is going on at 771: 1203:

sensibilities, that they wish to erase altogether: for example,

376: 921: 679:

My copy of Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines

500:, and other notables, plus his addresses to such bodies as the 412:

I also used various online sources (with due caution) and the

222: 537:

Adam's announcement of his intentions was fairly unambiguous:

114:

17:35, 21 Jun 2004 Mirv protected Lyndon LaRouche (edit war)

1340:

List of articles possibly infected with LaRouche propaganda

1284:...which is, of course, a completely different matter than 505: 1059:, that started the edit war which lead to protection. See 199:, that started the edit war which lead to protection. See 957: 831: 717:, Andy went so far as to delete the external links (see 143:

00:14, 17 Jul 2004 Mirv protected Synarchism (requested)

33:

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see

636:

Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/archive4#Krusty's_talk_archiving

165:

Note that are on the list of pages cited by Andy at

687:pages, in conjunction with Adam's admission on the 594:, various intelligence stringers, and so on -- see 969:Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche 359:critics is a matter for the arbitration committee. 1019:17:05, 16 Jul 2004 Ambivalenthysteria protected 603:Adam has routinely violated Knowledge policy on 571:Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/archive4#Lerner_vs_LaRouche 434:taken as true than what a neo-Nazi would say at 80:- broadly, pro-LaRouche. Post edits by Krusty. 1338:Knowledge owes thanks to Andy for providing a 596:Significant Omissions from the current version 531:list of false and downright bizarre assertions 510:Significant Omissions from the current version 153:No other protections noted in log that I saw. 643:Herschelkrustofsky, proven liar and slanderer 621:Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/archive4#Page_protection 1466:is a personal attack (just so we're clear). 1166:Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up 416:account of LaRouche's trial and conviction. 377:http://meta.wikimedia.org/The_Wrong_Version 664:I have just posted, on the talk page, an 1056: 384:School. AndyL 04:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) 196: 166: 14: 1060: 365:Knowledge:Requests for page protection 200: 132:Knowledge:Requests for page protection 125:Knowledge:Requests for page protection 1447:User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Lyndon_LaRouche 1023:. 00:15, 17 Jul 2004 Mirv protected 1321:Moderate? (sorry, couldn't resist!) 556:User_talk:Everyking#Lyndon_LaRouche 95:- second Adam Carr major revision. 27: 1442: 1074:A Day in the Life of Adam and Andy 28: 18:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration 1549: 89:- Adam Carr rewrite from scratch 355:The matter of the competency of 327:Refusal to provide justification 264:Talk:American System (economics) 762:Neoconservatism (United States) 670:Knowledge:What_Wikipedia_is_not 371:AndyL 17:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1231:to the personal homepage of a 473:Herschelkrustofsky's Statement 13: 1: 1365:Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4 651:Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4 249:Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4 244:Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive3 239:Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive2 234:Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive1 1453:article, or the talk page.-- 1443:Adam's role/personal attacks 1243:, and to a rabid slander of 1125:(removing LaRouche nonsense) 892:List of civil rights leaders 7: 1229:American System (economics) 1187:American System (economics) 812:International Monetary Fund 502:Russian Academy of Sciences 10: 1554: 719:the relevant history page. 554:17:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)" ( 1537:21:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1495:Herschel poor Wikiquette? 1488:03:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1470:04:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1403:08:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1392:07:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1384:22:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1350:04:47, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1280:03:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1223:01:23, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1215:00:23, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1086:00:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1048:21:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1033:20:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1011:07:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 995:02:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 975:04:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 964:01:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 952:21:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 728:20:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 695:15:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) 689:Arbitration Evidence Page 676:21:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) 323:23:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) 309:01:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) 296:19:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 277:14:32, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) 254:Talk:Eurasian_Land-Bridge 219:01:18, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) 187:21:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) 173:20:03, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) 157:18:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) 65:- broadly, anti-LaRouche. 1528:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4 1522:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4 1516:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4 1510:Lyndon LaRouche/archive2 1504:Lyndon LaRouche/archive1 1480:19:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1457:00:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1414:14:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1371:23:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1325:19:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1310:22:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1292:14:43, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1268:12:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1251:00:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1235:activist, who denounces 1067:00:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1003:06:13, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 982:20:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 750:21:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 567:02:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)" 496:, Indian Prime Minister 468:17:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 397:Adam's version of events 207:00:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) 105:21:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1484:The comments are mine. 782:Amelia Boynton Robinson 657:Regarding the article, 872:Anti-Defamation League 259:Talk:Voting_Rights_Act 1205:Internal improvements 877:Internal improvements 592:Richard Mellon Scaife 590:, billionare neo-con 527:relevant history page 485:Lyndon LaRouche/draft 341:Talk:Frankfurt School 301:Talk:Frankfurt_School 48:Key past versions of 1357:Talk:Lyndon LaRouche 1152:(Edit war with Andy) 1051:It was your cohort, 792:Ludwig van Beethoven 685:Talk:Lyndon LaRouche 672:, points 3 and 4. -- 229:Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche 191:It was your cohort, 932:Wilhelm Furtwängler 517:Adam writes above, 494:José Lopez Portillo 314:Talk:Neocolonialism 282:Talk:Counterculture 1455:Herschelkrustofsky 1412:Herschelkrustofsky 1369:Herschelkrustofsky 1290:Herschelkrustofsky 1266:Herschelkrustofsky 1249:Herschelkrustofsky 1241:National Socialist 1213:Herschelkrustofsky 1146:Ambivalenthysteria 1130:Anti-cult movement 1084:Herschelkrustofsky 1065:Herschelkrustofsky 1031:Herschelkrustofsky 1001:Herschelkrustofsky 980:Herschelkrustofsky 962:Herschelkrustofsky 767:Anti-cult movement 726:Herschelkrustofsky 693:Herschelkrustofsky 674:Herschelkrustofsky 588:John Birch Society 321:Herschelkrustofsky 294:Herschelkrustofsky 205:Herschelkrustofsky 171:Herschelkrustofsky 63:7 May 2004 version 1233:Libertarian Party 912:History of Guyana 827:Socratic Dialogue 1545: 1499:Some examples: 1419:Personal Attacks 1194:(External links) 1149:({{protected}} ) 1101:(External Links) 1094:Frankfurt School 1037:My sole edit of 732:AndyL's response 605:personal attacks 349:Frankfurt School 333:Frankfurt School 269:Talk:Leo_Strauss 176:My sole edit of 1553: 1552: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1497: 1451:Lyndon LaRouche 1421: 1395:I have blanked 1336: 1334:Adam's Response 1245:Abraham Lincoln 1201:neoconservative 1189:; 01:17:25 . . 1180:; 02:38:49 . . 1168:; 03:50:25 . . 1159:; 06:15:55 . . 1144:; 15:18:08 . . 1132:; 16:36:24 . . 1120:; 17:07:16 . . 1108:; 18:00:54 . . 1096:; 22:49:41 . . 1076: 1061:Adam's Response 1055:, working your 942:Bedrich Smetana 917:Frederick Wills 867:Robert Schumann 862:Johannes Brahms 734: 710: 701: 662: 659:Lyndon LaRouche 544:Lyndon LaRouche 480: 475: 414:Washington Post 399: 329: 287:Talk:Synarchism 225: 201:Adam's Response 195:, working your 163: 111: 97:diff from prior 82:diff from prior 73:diff from prior 53: 50:Lyndon LaRouche 26: 25: 24: 22:Lyndon LaRouche 12: 11: 5: 1551: 1540: 1532: 1531: 1525: 1519: 1513: 1507: 1496: 1493: 1491: 1482: 1481: 1459: 1458: 1427: 1426: 1420: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1397:Counterculture 1378:Counterculture 1375: 1373: 1372: 1335: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1294: 1293: 1274:neocolonialism 1270: 1269: 1253: 1252: 1209:Neocolonialism 1197: 1196: 1184: 1178:Counterculture 1175: 1163: 1154: 1139: 1127: 1115: 1106:Neocolonialism 1103: 1089: 1075: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1021:Counterculture 1017: 1016: 1007:Weasal words. 1005: 1004: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 945: 944: 939: 937:Antonin Dvorak 934: 929: 927:Heinrich Heine 924: 919: 914: 909: 907:Science driver 904: 899: 897:British Empire 894: 889: 887:Infrastructure 884: 879: 874: 869: 864: 859: 854: 849: 844: 839: 837:Counterculture 834: 829: 824: 819: 817:Fundamentalism 814: 809: 807:Neocolonialism 804: 799: 794: 789: 784: 779: 774: 769: 764: 758: 757: 752: 751: 733: 730: 709: 706: 700: 697: 661: 655: 654: 653: 646: 645: 639: 638: 631: 630: 624: 623: 616: 615: 609: 608: 600: 599: 574: 573: 568: 560: 559: 539: 538: 523: 522: 514: 513: 479: 476: 474: 471: 470: 469: 451: 447: 431: 427: 423: 420: 417: 410: 406: 398: 395: 391: 382: 361: 360: 328: 325: 317: 316: 304: 303: 290: 289: 284: 272: 271: 266: 261: 256: 251: 246: 241: 236: 231: 224: 221: 209: 208: 162: 159: 151: 150: 147: 144: 141: 138: 135: 128: 121: 118: 115: 110: 109:Protection log 107: 100: 99: 90: 87:20 Jun version 84: 78:19 Jun version 75: 69:29 May version 66: 57:last 500 edits 52: 46: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1550: 1541: 1538: 1536: 1529: 1526: 1523: 1520: 1517: 1514: 1511: 1508: 1505: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1492: 1489: 1487: 1479: 1475: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1469: 1465: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1431: 1423: 1422: 1413: 1409: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1402: 1398: 1393: 1391: 1385: 1383: 1379: 1370: 1366: 1363: 1358: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1309: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1279: 1275: 1267: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1222: 1216: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1195: 1192: 1188: 1185: 1183: 1179: 1176: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1164: 1162: 1158: 1155: 1153: 1150: 1147: 1143: 1140: 1138: 1135: 1131: 1128: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1116: 1114: 1111: 1107: 1104: 1102: 1099: 1095: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1087: 1085: 1081: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1047: 1043: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1032: 1027: 1026: 1022: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1010: 1002: 998: 997: 996: 994: 981: 977: 976: 974: 970: 966: 965: 963: 959: 955: 954: 953: 951: 943: 940: 938: 935: 933: 930: 928: 925: 923: 920: 918: 915: 913: 910: 908: 905: 903: 900: 898: 895: 893: 890: 888: 885: 883: 880: 878: 875: 873: 870: 868: 865: 863: 860: 858: 855: 853: 850: 848: 847:Brindley Benn 845: 843: 840: 838: 835: 833: 830: 828: 825: 823: 822:Deprogramming 820: 818: 815: 813: 810: 808: 805: 803: 800: 798: 797:Aldous Huxley 795: 793: 790: 788: 785: 783: 780: 778: 775: 773: 770: 768: 765: 763: 760: 759: 754: 753: 749: 745: 740: 737:Actually the 736: 735: 729: 727: 722: 720: 716: 705: 696: 694: 690: 686: 682: 677: 675: 671: 667: 660: 652: 649:--heading on 648: 647: 644: 641: 640: 637: 633: 632: 629: 626: 625: 622: 618: 617: 614: 611: 610: 606: 602: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 584:caveat emptor 581: 576: 575: 572: 569: 566: 562: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 541: 540: 536: 535: 534: 532: 528: 521: 516: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 498:Indira Gandhi 495: 490: 489: 488: 486: 467: 462: 457: 452: 448: 445: 441: 437: 432: 428: 424: 421: 418: 415: 411: 407: 404: 403: 402: 394: 389: 385: 380: 378: 372: 368: 366: 358: 354: 350: 346: 342: 338: 337: 336: 334: 324: 322: 315: 312: 311: 310: 308: 302: 299: 298: 297: 295: 288: 285: 283: 280: 279: 278: 276: 270: 267: 265: 262: 260: 257: 255: 252: 250: 247: 245: 242: 240: 237: 235: 232: 230: 227: 226: 220: 218: 214: 206: 202: 198: 194: 190: 189: 188: 186: 182: 179: 174: 172: 168: 158: 156: 148: 145: 142: 139: 136: 133: 129: 126: 122: 119: 116: 113: 112: 106: 104: 98: 94: 93:3 Jul version 91: 88: 85: 83: 79: 76: 74: 70: 67: 64: 61: 60: 59: 58: 51: 45: 42: 38: 36: 31: 23: 19: 1539: 1533: 1498: 1490: 1483: 1463: 1460: 1432: 1428: 1407: 1394: 1386: 1376:The article 1374: 1361: 1343: 1342:. I hope he 1337: 1285: 1271: 1254: 1217: 1198: 1193: 1173:(remove POV) 1172: 1151: 1148: 1136: 1124: 1112: 1100: 1088: 1078: 1077: 1028: 1018: 1006: 989: 946: 902:Counterpoint 723: 711: 702: 678: 663: 642: 627: 612: 583: 579: 547: 524: 520:unprotected. 518: 504:and Russian 483:my article ( 481: 460: 455: 436:Adolf Hitler 430:unprotected. 413: 400: 390: 386: 381: 373: 369: 362: 356: 353:incompetent. 352: 348: 344: 330: 318: 305: 291: 273: 210: 175: 164: 152: 101: 54: 43: 39: 32: 29: 1227:You linked 1157:Janice Hart 1142:Leo Strauss 852:Sun Yat-sen 802:Janice Hart 787:Chip Berlet 739:Henry Carey 715:Henry Carey 708:Andy's role 699:John's role 478:Adam's role 444:Khmer Rouge 440:User:Hanpuk 1301:Tony Blair 1237:Henry Clay 1118:Synarchism 1039:Synarchism 1025:Synarchism 882:John Locke 842:Henry Luce 777:Synarchism 681:propaganda 580:High Times 548:inevitably 223:Talk pages 213:Synarchism 178:Synarchism 161:Discussion 1219:patterns. 1134:Adam Carr 1122:Adam Carr 1110:Adam Carr 1053:Adam Carr 857:Globalism 744:this link 193:Adam Carr 55:Over the 35:talk page 772:Metaphor 442:says at 438:or what 20:‎ | 756:edited: 426:Jewish. 1535:Martin 1478:Martin 1323:Martin 922:Beauty 461:unless 456:unless 155:Martin 103:Martin 1486:AndyL 1436:AndyL 1382:AndyL 1258:AndyL 1239:as a 1221:AndyL 1191:AndyL 1182:AndyL 1170:AndyL 1161:AndyL 1098:AndyL 1080:over! 1046:AndyL 1009:AndyL 993:AndyL 973:AndyL 950:AndyL 748:AndyL 363:From 307:AndyL 275:AndyL 217:AndyL 185:AndyL 16:< 1468:Adam 1464:that 1401:Adam 1390:Adam 1348:Adam 1344:does 1305:john 1299:Er, 1278:Adam 1057:list 565:Adam 552:Adam 506:Duma 466:Adam 197:list 1362:see 1063:.-- 958:did 832:LSD 351:as 203:.-- 37:. 1410:-- 1303:? 1082:-- 971:. 634:-- 619:-- 367:: 357:my 345:my 319:-- 292:-- 215:. 1360:( 1308:k 607:: 598:. 558:) 134:) 127:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence - Knowledge

Index