Historical matters and Kool-Aid

kara...@gmail.com, Thu, 29 May 2008 10:16:10 -0700 (PDT):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad_warship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ironclad_warship#Merrimack_vs_Virginia

One of the reasons I left Wikipedia was the forcing of revisionist
history in the name of political correctness.  I helped to edit the
top link, an article on ironclad warships, and someone named Askari
Mark decided he wanted to be PC.  It was a minor change from "Monitor
and Merrimack" to "Monitor and Virginia"; it was petty; but he claimed
it was factual and we had to accept it.  I had no problem with it
until he said the previous version, "Monitor and Merrimack" was wrong,
and that historians and the public were just plain wrong for using
it.  I had to prove to him that being PC was wrong, that he was wrong,
and I had pulled up documentation from during and after the Civil War
to prove how wrong he was.  The results are on the bottom link.  He
lost, never mind the fact that he was a senior administrator in charge
of history.

Revisionist history is part and parcel to Wikipedia, and it's not
going to be tolerated in Conservapedia.  Revisionist history is
nothing more than lying, period.  The current problem concerns "Kool-
Aid" at Jonestown, a refusal by an editor to read original source
material, and a sysop insisting I'm wrong.  First things first...

"Kool-Aid" as a poison dates from November 18, 1978, at Jonestown.  It
was there on the site; it's mentioned in newspapers and official
reports dated within days of the suicide of Jim Jones' followers.  If
"Flav-or-Aid" was there, then it's expected to be in those reports as
well as photographs taken at that time, or in listings of supplies
Jones had ordered.  Instead, I'm seeing "Flav-or-Aid" only in stories
about Jonestown that were written more than twenty years later.

If a change to "Flav-or-Aid" was a liberal change over the years, then
it's meant to ensure that the easier-to-say "Kool-Aid" is restricted
to "right wing poison."  How many times have we seen the term "right
wing Kool-Aid" over the past few years?  That brings me to the
original rant by user Pineapple10 on the main talk page, which I cited
on my talk page:

"Wow, Conservapedia is even dumber than I thought. It says "Jonestown
Kool-Aid" as one of the top ten skeletons. In fact, Kool-Aid was
'''''NOT''''' used in the Jonestown massacre, and the massacre has
nothing to do with [[liberals]]. In fact, Jim Jones was a radical
[[conservative]].--[[User:Pineapple10|Pineapple10]] 11:49, 18 May 2008
(EDT)"

Pineapple10 is one of many who decided to puch revisionist history on
this site, despite the facts and sources which are readily available.
And further than that, he's turning Jim Jones, who has a history of
Marxism, socialism, liberalism, and communism, into a right-wing,
conservative fanatic.  It's another effort to disgrace conservatism in
general and Conservapedia in particular.

Second thing is the fact that I am not going to tolerate in the least
revisionist history.  If Conservapedia is to be trusted as an
educaational tool, then at no point is a single lie in any article
about anything going to be allowed.  That means when someone writes an
article, that person is going to get the most reliable sources to back
the article up, no exceptions.  Conservapedia is NOT Wikipedia; it's
better than that, and all of us are going to make sure that happens.

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Thu, 29 May 2008 10:44:59 -0700 (PDT):

I agree that we don't want revisionist history on Conservapedia. I
love the way conservatives expose revisionist history and this is even
mentioned in the Conservapedia video.

Dean

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Thu, 29 May 2008 13:44:03 -0500:

I just gave a warning to user TomMoore, and he's going to follow up on it.

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Thu, 29 May 2008 13:57:55 -0700:

I don't know the history as much as you do, but I certainly recall that
reports at the time said "Kool Aid".  I don't know if that was an over
simplification back then, but that was what was reported.

Bill

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Thu, 29 May 2008 15:42:43 -0700 (PDT):

Karajou, I support you 100% on this. I went to the wall on this at
Wikipedia, going against the entire Arbitration Committee by myself
about this - knowing full well that I was going to lose.

I bet my international reputation (such as it is ;-) that I would
either get a ruling allowing me to continue to put the truth into
Wikipedia to balance the incorrect information presented by biased POV-
pushers - or that they would issue a ruling that clearly showed them
as in the wrong.

I've been contacted by the Wall Street Journal; interviewed for "Truth
In Numbers" and other things I don't want to brag about here.

We've got to tell the truth to be trustworthy - and never allow even
one single lie to stand.

Ed Poor

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Thu, 29 May 2008 22:30:41 -0500:

Truth can and does hurt...the opposition!

I'm going to have a complete article on Jonestown within the next few
hours...after I do my kitchen!

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Fri, 30 May 2008 01:33:12 -0500:

Since he complained about not being able to go to the library, I spent just
five minutes finding this document at MTSU's library.  It's a news item from
the Washington Post, dated November 22, 1978, and sent on the wire from
Guyana by UPI:

"...the autopsy showed the ingredients, blended in a huge cauldron filled
with grape-flavored Kool-Aid, included thorazine, a sedative; demerol, a
pain killer; phaerengen, an anti-histimine that promotes absorbtion of
substances into the blood system; thalium, a tranquilizer; haliopareol, an
antipsychotic sedative used to calm violent people; largatil, another
sedative; and two poisons - potassium cyanide, which affects the respiratory
system, and potassium chloride.  The brew contained depressants to minimize
the pain associated with cyanide poisoning, and may have been used to trick
the faithful into believing they were only rehearsing their deaths."

In short, the experts on the scene wanted to know exactly what was inside
that vat, and if they took the time out to read the labels of the medical
ingredients, they took the same amount of time and care to read the label of
a cheap flavored kid's drink.  And this was reported to the news media FIVE
DAYS after the mass suicide took place!

This is also what I mean by good, competant research that anyone can and
should do.

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Fri, 30 May 2008 03:46:12 -0500:

Okay...posted it here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Jonestown_Massacre

Feel free to add to it; I'm bushed!

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Fri, 30 May 2008 19:24:52 +1000:

This message shows a total misunderstanding of the issue.  This is not about
revisionist history, but about the facts.

You say that the current issue is partly about "a sysop insisting I'm
wrong".  THIS IS TOTALLY INCORRECT.

I am not "insisting that you are wrong", but ASKING why some would claim
that it was Flavor-aid if it was really Cool-aid, and vice versa.

So far, you have consistently refused to explain that, instead going off
onto tangents and throwing accusations about.  And setting TomMoore a
ridiculous assignment.

You ask, "How many times have we seen the term "right wing Kool-Aid" over
the past few years?".  Well, actually, my answer is NEVER.  Of course this
might have something to do with me being in Australia, but then you already
knew that, so you should have taken that into account.

But is that what this is about?  Are you objecting to it being called
"Flavor-aid" because of some perceived "liberal" connection?  If so, then
you are putting an anti-liberal agenda ahead of the facts.

Now how about a civil discussion, on your talk page, about /the facts/?

Philip Rayment

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Fri, 30 May 2008 08:12:16 -0700 (PDT):

Now, now, lads, let's not come to blows over this. You both obviously
have strong feelings about this. Heck, so do I, because of my own
church being compared to Jonestown. (We have a strict rule against
suicide, by the way; it's less "forgivable" a sin than murder in our
book.)

There are several issues going here simultaneously. It will help if
each party merely states their position, while trusting that the other
party will understand.

We are all friends here. Let's keep it that way! =^_^=

Uncle Ed

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Fri, 30 May 2008 12:35:19 -0500:

I went using Kool-Aid because that is exactly what investigators on the site
found.  I used Kool-Aid because that is what newspaper reporters saw at the
site.  I am NOT going to use "Flav-or-Aid" because the label appeared very
recently, and until someone produces a photograph of the item at the site,
or a supply manifest showing it being listed as one of the items Jones had
ordered, I'm not going to allow it.

It's the principle of the thing, as well as being HONEST and ACCURATE!

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Fri, 30 May 2008 11:12:58 -0700:

I commend Brian on his strong attention to historical detail and his desire
to see that articles are factually accurate.  I had felt the particular
discipline to be levied against Tom Moore was unwarranted in this case.
While I have had grievances with Tom Moore, I don't feel it should have been
assumed his providing of references was done with malice.  That being said,
I found his follow up comments when Brian said he would not block him, to be
inappropriate.  They were unnecessary and, as such, I have blocked him for a
day to consider his choice of words when the difficulty had passed.

Bill   (Learn Together)

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Fri, 30 May 2008 12:33:33 -0700 (PDT):

Kudos to Bill for the latest Tom Moore block. Tom's comments were
inappropriate and I'm glad Bill explained that on his talk page.

Dean

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Sat, 31 May 2008 08:22:53 +1000:

I think that you are /still/ missing the point, Ed.

I /don't/ have strong feelings over what brand the drink was, if that's what
you mean.

I'm simply trying to find out /why/, if the original reports gave one brand,
all(?) later reports gave another.

I have /suggested/, as has CPAdmin1, that perhaps the /original/ reports
gave the brand that is used generically, and the later reports were more
specific. and accurate.

Essentially Brian's response, when you get past all the diversions about it
supposedly being a liberal/conservative issue, is that he's going with the
/original/ reports simply because they are the original reports.  Which
doesn't explain /why/ later reports would be different.

Yes, there are several issues going on simultaneously.  And I have made as
clear as I possibly can what /my/ "issue" is, yet no adequate explanation is
yet forthcoming (although I haven't checked Brian's talk page today yet).

Philip Rayment

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Sat, 31 May 2008 08:37:26 +1000:

Sorry, Bill, but this is a load of rubbish.  Brian gave TomMoore a ridiculous order for an invalid reason, and subsequently, rightly, retracted it.  To say that he "appears to have realized his mistake" can no way be described as "multiple parting shots".

This is the sort of thing that I've mentioned before about us being harsh on editors.  Brian was in the wrong, and TomMoore rightly complained about that, but was gracious in accepting Brian's retraction.  Yet you block TomMoore over it!

This is the sort of thing that gives our detractors legitimate reason to think bad of us, and that encourages (although doesn't legitimise) their harassment and vandalism.

And even if TomMoore's response was not quite perfect, remember that we are the ones who are supposed to be turning the other cheek.

Philip Rayment

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Fri, 30 May 2008 15:43:31 -0700 (PDT):

Philip, are you're saying it would be a wise tactical move to unblock
TomMoore? A bit of old-fashioned Christian "charity"?

Brian, you could save face the way I have done (more times than I care
to count ;-) by simply saying "hasty block" in the unblocking comment.
No more need be said. Or just leave the block in place, because I was
about to give him the old heave-ho for other reasons.

But you know that Andy likes to convert these guys ...

Ed Poor

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Sat, 31 May 2008 09:04:07 +1000:

I'm saying that he should not have been blocked, but of course that implies
that he should now be unblocked.

I'm saying this on the grounds that he did nothing wrong, but even if you
disagree with that, then he should still not have been blocked because (a)
Christian charity, as you put it, given (b) that his "crime" was very minor.

It was Bill, not Brian, who blocked him.

What are your "other reasons" for getting rid of him?

Philip Rayment

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Fri, 30 May 2008 23:28:25 -0500:

I unblocked him, and put my reasons for unblocking him on his talk page, as
well as an apology for my own actions.

He may be a lib that has caused quite a a few (talk page) problems, but he
is doing some substantial edits.

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Philip Rayment <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Fri, 30 May 2008 23:53:26 -0500:

For explanations, what got me angry was the suggestion that Jim Jones was a
right wing conservative fanatic.  What that allegation does in effect is to
label conservatives, as well as Christians, with the same kind of mentality
that Jones possessed; and that we are not to be trusted in the general
public; we are the enemy; we are to be despised; we are to be tossed in an
insane asylum, despite the fact that Jones was a classic socialist liberal,
who hung around liberal politicians while doing liberal things in the most
liberal city in the United States.  Those facts are undeniable and
irrefutable.

Now, you have someone coming into Conservapedia and declaring not just the
Flav-or-Aid bit, but the "right wing conservative" line as well.  This is an
attempt to change a historical event to suit a liberal viewpoint and push a
liberal agenda.  It's exactly like "Rathergate" and the bogus documents that
tried to have Bush lose the 2004 election: "let's lie about something, make
it look real, and make the others look bad."  That's pretty common in
Conservapedia from the trolls who don't like us.

I read the book *White Night* twenty years ago; it said Kool-Aid.  I read
and re-read some of the news stories that came out at that time; they say
Kool-Aid.  I read some of the testimonies of Jonestown survivors; they say
Kool-Aid.  I read the coroner's report, of which an entry from it I posted
on the main talk page; it says Kool-Aid.  I have never seen anything yet
dated from 1978-1979 that even remotely mentions Flav-or-Aid.  All I'm
getting about Flav-or-Aid is from writers who were never there writing more
than twenty years after the incident took place.  It may be minor, but we
cannot afford even the smallest detail to be distorted to suit someone else
fancy.

That is why I got very hot about this, and why I said what I said, and why I
ensured there was an accurate article in Conservapedia about Jonestown.

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Sun, 1 Jun 2008 00:21:13 +1000:

Good on you!

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Sun, 1 Jun 2008 00:37:09 +1000:

Brian,

Although familiar with the basic story, I would have no idea whether Jones was conservative, liberal, or something else.  But I dispute a couple of points in this message of yours.

First, you said that the poster was making "an attempt to change a historical event to suit a liberal viewpoint and push a liberal agenda".  Sorry, I can't see that.  Yes, I guess that he did have a liberal viewpoint, and was pushing a liberal agenda, but he seemed to me to be making two distinct points, not a liberal point based on a historical point.  Because you still haven't explained how claiming that it was Flavor-aid rather than Cool-aid supports a liberal viewpoint.

Second, while I can't find where you posted the excerpt from the coroner's report, I do recall reading that, and from memory, the claim that it was Cool-aid was not a declaration of the coroner, but merely contained in some of the evidence submitted to the coroner.  So it has the strength of being an original, perhaps hasty, report, not of being the result of an investigation.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Third, you have still not explained how the claims of it being Flavor-Aid came about, if it was not that.  As I've pointed out before, both Tim (CPAdmin1) and I have suggested the possibility that the original reports referred to Cool-Aid because that's the name that tends to get used generically, and that it was actually Flavor-Aid.  Despite this being said or repeated several times, you have yet to address this suggestion, or otherwise explain why Flavor-Aid came to be claimed at all.

Philip Rayment

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Sat, 31 May 2008 13:18:19 -0700:

This may be a special case, but I hope we aren't going to get into the habit
of undoing each other's blocks.  At least to the outside, I would like us to
put on a united front.

Let's not forget as well that the block was for a day, not for a week or a
month.  As many of you also know, I keep up an email correspondence with
anyone I've blocked who wishes to talk with me - and in this case Tom was
one of those people.  He actually accepted his block and understood the
reasoning, although he did want me to give information that I didn't feel
was my place to give.  The text of our correspondence is below.  Of course
it is in opposite order received, with the oldest being on the bottom and
the last correspondence on the top.  I'm not sure if colors come across, but
I've changed my writings to red for clarity.

I don't feel it's appropriate for me to give my personal opinion on a matter
that was discussed in private on the administrative level.  I did feel, and
do feel, it was important for you to know that the situation was brought up
and that when possible we try to deal with matters of importance with the
users on our site.

On a personal note, since it has not been discussed on an administrative
level, I would hope to see you produce more of the quality edits that I am
sure you are capable of.  You are obviously an intelligent man, and could
bring a great deal of positive contributions to the site.  I hope you will
consider this.

From: Tom Moore [mailto:tomm23...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:42 AM
To: bi...@mcwe.com
Subject: RE: Block

Oh, I understand.  But you didn't answer my question... were you one of
those people defending me?  Do you think he was justified in his actions?

Tom

From: bi...@mcwe.com
To: tomm23...@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Block

Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 11:27:17 -0700

You had people who were defending you behind closed doors, but ultimately it
was Karajou's choice whether or not to follow through with his block.

From your perspective he was bully. If a bully has you trapped against a
tree and tells you he's going to hit you, but then thinks better of it and
says he won't and starts to walk away, is it a good idea to come up behind
him and kick him twice?

Please consider that you had other options for how you could have let that
end.

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Sun, 1 Jun 2008 09:13:03 +1000:

You previously expressed the view that we should not undo each other's blocks, and although I didn't reply at the time, I generally agree.  However, I have undone other sysop's blocks on a number of occasions, usually either with their blessing or their reluctant consent, and I usually put in the edit comment something like "discussed with blocking sysop".

This is intended to provide that united front, but it occasionally hides from the critical public (e.g. RationalWiki) that I didn't actually get the other sysop's agreement, or total agreement.

I think this case of TomMoore was a special case, as the block was the result of a dispute with Brian, so that gave Brian a fair right to cancel it.

The block may have only been for a day, but it is yet one more unjustified (or, at best, barely-justified) block that this user now has that will likely be used against him in future as "a known troublemaker with a string of blocks".

As for him accepting his block and understanding, understanding doesn't mean agreeing, and accepting might mean that he sees little point in fighting it, especially given it's short duration.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Sat, 31 May 2008 20:34:25 -0700:

Permission, and even reluctant permission, are still acknowledgement that an
unblock can be performed.  In this case I have no difficulty with the
decision, as the original block was put in place to honor the respect that
Brian should be given as an administrator, and since Brian had no difficulty
with the statements made, I am all in favor of removal.

I have found Tom to be very vocal in expressing his point of view if he
feels he is being slighted.  That he specifically says only , "Oh, I
understand" should be taken at face value.  To try to read anything else
into it, I believe, is disingenuous.

I don't see Tom's detractors using this as any sort of negative
justification.  You should be very pleased Philip.  The situation is closed,
Tom's temporary block was rescinded, and Brian, of his own volition, has
made amends.  There is not much more we could ask for.  Perhaps it is time
to count our blessings in this case which could have taken a very different
turn.

Bill   (Learn Together)

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Sun, 1 Jun 2008 15:58:23 +1000:

"To try to read anything else into it, I believe, is disingenuous".  Exactly.  Including reading into it that he agrees with and/or accepts it.

But yes, this one did turn out well in the end.

Philip Rayment