Jump to content

User:Bengalski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

`All righty, now that we've kicked that nuisance out, let's open a ladies' clothes shop!'

deja de chupar ese chupito de wiki / desde ahora / chup chup chup / chúpamela sólo a mí



Since EffK's user page was blanked yesterday (20th March 2005) by Sean_Black I have pasted the content from it onto my own page, below. EffK is a user who has been banned for one year, but I believe he is still entitled to make his case on his user page and say why he believes he has been treated unfairly. Rather than get into an edit war on his page I have posted the deleted content here. If Sean Black or anyone else thinks this text is inappropriate (which I dispute), they can now take it up with me.



EffK and Pope Pius XII

[edit]

See also User:Bengalski/PiusXII

I don't have a great deal of time to spend on wikipedia, but it looks like for the moment almost all of it could go on trying to sort out the mess at articles on Pope Pius XII, Reichskonkordat, and related subjects. Before I get accused of being obsessional, I want to make my position on this as clear as I can.

First of all, I didn't come to wikipedia to work on this subject, and frankly there are many areas I am more interested in and perhaps more knowledgeable about. The problem is once I've got my teeth stuck into a problem, and hopefully started to make some progress on righting an injustice, I'm not about to let go of it easily.

I think there has been a major problem of bias, which has at times bordered on whitewash, in articles treating of the role of Pius XII and other clerics with regards to fascism. Also I am not happy with what happened to EffK, now banned, who for some months put up a lonely fight to try and include contrary information on this subject. EffK has been much criticised for his lengthy talk posts, perhaps for sometimes losing his temper etc. But to my mind, as I tried to argue at his arbitration, his supposed 'crimes' were negligible compared to the fact that his 'opponents' succeeded in suppressing his information, and so biased the articles all this time.

I'll admit that at times I too doubted the full extent of what EffK argued: that there was a deal cut by the Catholic hierarchy which got Hitler's Enabling Act passed, giving him the dictatorship. All the Catholic editors working on the page were dismissing this as a loony conspiracy theory - some claiming to speak as historical experts, others just assuming it must be so. And there were so many of them against one EffK it was only natural to think they might have something.

Then I got access to an academic library to read the (unquestionably reputable) historical authorities for myself and lo and behold - mainstream sources say everything EffK argued and more. So I want to apologise to EffK for any doubts I had, and say I will fight for the inclusion of every verifiable claim. I am starting a working page User:Bengalski/PiusXII which I'll use to get thoughts and information in order: including all those raised by EffK and summarised now on his talk page, as well as my own reading.

Now EffK was accused, and found guilty of being 'obsessional' for pursuing this to the end. But if his genuine and verifiable points had been included at the start there would have been no need to embark on any 'quest for justice'. Maybe I'm going to be seen as obsessional too for (hopefully temporarily) focusing my effort on this - but I really hope Catholic editors can treat me with respect and let me get verifiable information into NPOV these articles, then we can all move on to other things.

To be as clear as possible: I am not here on an anti-Catholic mission. I don't want to turn these articles into propaganda skewed the other way. I think my editing history shows I am pretty reasonable. I will assume good faith - I am not accusing anyone of mounting any deliberate conspiracy, I just think it's all too natural for people to edit, consciously or not, in the interests of their strongly held POVs. But I do expect a bit of respect and I do look for a bit of justice.

Note - anyone who wants to reply to any of this please do so on my talk page.


Content from EffK's user page which has been blanked by an admin:

Comment on the EffK Wikiwar

[edit]

I was told by Jimbo in early sepember 2005 to walk away from WP whilst I could with my head held high . i considered that a contradiction , but indeed did do , only returning after A User drew me back with un-acceptable attempts at tracing of my identity he labelled FK research . Jimbo said there was no merit in trying to persuade people who did not wish to hear . Jimbo did not answer my question as which rules in WP, majority of source or majority of users .

A cursory glance through my usernames , or just this present one will show my trajectory, which is ugly and shocking, but somebody had to do it, and it wasn't you , was it , Mr Jones ?. (from the song?)

Wikipedia attracts some very unpleasant people. Some of them think that they are Christians, and some of them hate Christians. Tomorrow (by United States time) I will listen to a priest tell me how to be a better Christian, and will then join with other Christians in the Body of Christ. from Robert McClenon 01:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
When he insisted that he was a native speaker, and presumably writer, I thought that he might instead have some sort of disability. Then someone else said that he seemed paranoid. Clinical paranoia is a form of schizophrenia, and schizophrenia is a thought disorder which manifests itself in difficulty in using language. He really did seem to have a delusion that the Catholic Church was trying to take over Wikipedia, as well as to rewrite history. He always said that he wrote as he thought. If his thoughts were disordered, his language would be disordered. Maybe he seemed crazy because he was crazy. Robert McClenon 02:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

These can be referred to below at 10,2 Indefinitive Submission of the Intellect.

Press the What links here button, and do so for User:Famekeeper, User:Corecticus]],User:Flamekeeper, User:PureSoups etc. Look in the archives and/or look at the User Contributions. The date is the clearest picture.

You will be presnted with no exonerative Verifiable source to have silenced my rationality .To begin to understand the nature of punishment and retribution possible even against my over-whelming Verifiability, I suggest this as a start WP:ACCC. I may well be supported in this verifiability, in which case, a review of the judgement to be made against me at Arbcom, below, may indeed prove necessary, outside of Wikipedia. There has definitely been no resolution of the subject at continuous dispute in Wikipedia. The findings against me as to my use of Wikipedia as propaganda vehicle do not upset the historical realities. I consider any embarrassment for my own Wikipedia "criminality" to be tempered by the clearly un-historical non-resolution of the arbitration committee as proposed or declared. Thus far these are :

Arbcom: Effk proposed Final decisions(implemented as EffK is since banned for one year)

[edit]

1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view, but articles are in inapprpriate place to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

EffK says that as with below, Original Research, no counter argument was ever sourced, thus 'favourite' is an NPOV or majority view.

Neutral point of view 2) Neutral Point of View is one of the pillar principles of Wikipedia. This means that points of view (POVs) should be presented as points of view. The fact that a particular point of view has been stated by a reputable scholarly source does not justify presenting it as fact or NPOV.

EffK says that as there was only historiographical interpretation offered to counter both single and multiple primary and secondary source, that the EffK view was an NPOV throughout.

Obsessional point of view 3)In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area if it becomes disruptive.

EffK says that in the light of the historically parlous state of the all the inter-related historical and biographical Articles prior to his intervention as Editor, Effk has clearly had justified necessity for the resulting directed focus.

No personal attacks 4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

EffK says that the irrationality of disputing un-contested multiple source, with no single contrary source, forced EffK within his rights to the civilly presented charges upon that very irrationality.

Assume good faith 5) Wikipedia editors, as a part of Wikipedia:Civility, are expected to assume good faith - simply, to adopt a cooperative posture rather than an antagonistic one with other editors.

EffK says that that posture was as courteous as the irrational and thus entirely POV contrary had deserved.

Use of talk pages

6) Article talk pages are intended for discussion that is relevant to the proposed content of articles. They should not be used as soapboxes for arguments that are irrelevant to or tangential to article content.

EffK says that the charge of irrelevance is in contradiction of the founding explanation guidelines.

Proposed findings of fact

Focus on Catholic Church

1) EffK has edited with an obsessive focus on the involvement of the Catholic Church with the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler in Germany.

EffK says this was enirely necessitated by absence of fact.

Misuse of article talk pages

2) EffK has established a pattern of using article talk pages as a soapbox for presenting a controversial view about the involvement of the Catholic Church with the Nazi Party, even when this view is tangential to the content of the articles. His voluminous and difficult to comprehend posts have disrupted discussion of article content.

EffK says that there is inherently no POV view, but only explanation of consequences deriving from fact justifiable by the single possible conclusion from multiple un-contested source.

Personal attacks and accusations by EffK

3) EffK has made personal attacks and accusations against several other users, including accusing others of being agents of the Vatican. [1], [2], [3]

EffK says that notice of bad-faith irrationality is no more personal attck than is the note of that agency as cause of that irrationality.

Original research by EffK

4) EffK has repeatedly posted material which draws conclusions not supported by sources he has been asked to cite, much of which appears to be conspiracy theories about the Catholic Church.

EffK says that counter statement was made to EffK classing his conclusions as original research, but EffK was never asked to provide a source for that original conclusion, nor did he interpolate any originality into Articles but only by manner of discursive stimulation towards NPOV acceptance of evidentially undisputed multiple primary and secondary Verifiability.

EffK's writing style

5) EffK's postings on talk pages are generally long and largely incomprehensible, making it difficult for him to communicate effectively with other editors.

EffK says nothing.

Jimbo suggests EffK leave the project

6) In response to a post on his talk page, Jimbo Wales has suggested EffK leave the project with his "head held high, dignity intact". [4]

EffK says that he made it quite plain before this was written exactly what were the responsibilities of Jimbo Wales in respect of the agency and of the dispute.

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

EffK banned from Catholicism articles

1) EffK is banned from all articles relating to the Catholic Church. This restriction shall be interpreted broadly.

Effk says that will lay open the Wikipedia to its on-going corruption by irrational un-sourced POV bias and will, because of the historical realities delineated in detail by the Wikipedia-unacceptibly un-accepted Primary source, Avro Manhattan, be of severe detriment to the veracity of the entire organ.

EffK banned

2) EffK is banned for 1 year for personal attacks, POV-pushing, and general disruption of the encyclopedia.

EffK says that if such proposal is accepted, then the contradiction against the essence of the possible WP:ACCC in reference to punishment, and resolution of (factual historical ) dispute would demand a Judicial review of the Verifiability, the NPOV claimed by the defendant, and of the bad-faith irrationally based harassment persistently levelled against him as User of Wikipedia, the which prevented his ability to even understand the means of enforcing early rational mediation.

Evidence presented by EffK

[edit]

7 August 2005

[edit]
  • 18.32
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XI&diff=20488467&oldid=20372898,[[1]] Shows Wikipdia's own acceptance that Murder is involved in this over-all subject, if not "widely believed". I had nothing to do with this edit, and I place it here in response to the evidence presented here by Musical Linguist, which without this knowledge of Wikipedia and the World, may indeed persuade Arbitration that I am the paranoid schizo etc as called between User:Patsw and the rest of this Cabal. He has not presented evidence, but Musical linguist now has, and I have no more diffs to counter and position her more correctly into her cabal of revisionist fellows, but this makes her a party due for her own scrutiny. I ask you - is JKenny a party ? I could fill another hundred diffs. And as further below, the rumour is a Primary Source, a witness's memoir, insinuating the murder was, even, effected by Cardinal camerlengo Eugenio Pacelli himself. EffK

11 January 2005

[edit]
  • 10.49

User:Musical Linguist presents at Evidence: This post and others also show that he was not "forced to abandon" Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence&diff=34739827&oldid=34738996#11_November_2005,[[2]]. This is an abuse of this User's Administrator capacity, is made in poor faith, is an attempt to lead/insert evidence whilst not becoming a party, and is a dishonestly described edit. This reveals the User's cabal membership and propensity for bad faith attack upon EffK. I request that this edit be adjudged as making of Musical Linguist a Party to this Arbitratation of me / ora Party to the denialist clerical revisionists in Wikipedia.

08 November 2005

[edit]
  • 14.50

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27725732[[3]] Linked outside Source showing contemporary German Party Political (Controversy vector), proves neither EffK POV, nor Cornwell POV, not EffK obsession.

11 November 2005

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27975630,[[4]] typical example EffK good-faith sourceing, similar to sourceing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27975630[[5]], and sourceing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=28016854.[[6]] and culminating in resultant good faith discussion for 3rd party (SamsSpade) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=28029725,[[7]]. Shows EffK good faith adherence to verifiability. Culminates in good faith protest analysis relevant to this Arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=28031804. [[8]] All 11 November prove EffK good faith/ and problem

30 August 2005

[edit]
  • 14.41

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_Kaas&diff=next&oldid=22177511. [[9]] ,Str1977 removes 'Secret Annexe' to Reichskonkordat' and denial of doing so, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=34635854,[[10]], represents denial of denialism (Secret Annexe existed at Reichskonkordat placed earlier by 3rd Party, provocative, no reason ,no talk despite http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principle_of_double_effect&diff=22172799&oldid=21984474,[[11]] , and preceding history of denial

05 September 2005

[edit]
  • 15.09

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=prev&oldid=22623473,[[12]] "no one disputes" in contradiction of 30 August, followed by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=18825393&oldid=18693247,[[13]] where Str1977 admits, confirms secrecy/illegality of Secret Annexe

22 December 2005

[edit]
  • 11.36

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK&diff=32351128&oldid=30496156,[[14]] Third party comment re;Wikipedia denialism :"...There may in fact not be any agents of the vatican here, but looking at a page like that on Pius XII you'd be forgiven for doubting. There is a very strong positive bias on that, and other, pages dedicated to Catholic leaders. If EffK has a POV he is pushing in the other direction, it is more than outweighed......

03 January 2006

[edit]
  • 01.00

Visible 1 1 2006 Impossibility of a Serious Article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=33665937&oldid=33655038,[[15]] . Demonstrates the entire dispute down to the edits of 15 December 2005, and give understanding to the problem.

15 November 2005

[edit]

2 September 2005

[edit]
  • 00:09

26 July 2005

[edit]
  • 15.31


  • 15.42
  • 16.01
  • 22.13

9 August 2005

[edit]
  • 00.13

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=20581981&oldid=20581161,[[25]] Robert McClnon provocationin classing sourced as POV, no attempt at correction towards presentation of sourced NPOV, only accusation of being 'POV' removal

  • 00.18

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=next&oldid=20581981,[[26]] McClenon Ditto, and worse denial sourced (known to accuser/provoker). Denialism.

  • 00.25

Robert McClenon Whitewashes accepted Reichskonkordat secret annexe,to RKKdt,stated as my POV, severe provocation inducing soap-box disputation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=next&oldid=20582400,[[27]] .Removes Euronews ,provocation, denialism NPOV facts . Soap said "This rv however has simply a quality of denial , of going against a very simple wikipedianess . Would you kindly justify your rv of source , as much as Str1977 would have to justify should he have done it ?" Famekeeper 23:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC from: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=20733765&oldid=20720932,[[28]] Kindly= civility

5 April 2005

[edit]

EffK Not obsessional,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pius_XII/Archive1#Dispute_:_The_Concordat,[[29]] following sections shows behaviour prior to provocation/concerted whitewash next evidence

19 April 2005

[edit]

Whitewash of vatican "Document War", Mowrer witness source, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=next&oldid=12507877,[[30]] & succeeding anon provocation by spam ,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=prev&oldid=12526102,[[31]], User:Trodl re- balance http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=next&oldid=12529252.[[32]]

25 April 2005

[edit]
  • 07.00

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=12829675.[[33]] Sourced for Jkenney , shows EffK good faith to verifiability, following shows Samspade attempt achieve to good faith http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=12833942[[34]]

  • 14.40

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=12833942, civil apology attempt to Jkenney by EffK removed by JKenney (as below repeated)

27 April 2005

[edit]
  • 05.44

result of provocation , direct appeal to 'master' :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=12872460,[[35]], Samspade Wikipedianship attempt against self-contradictory User:JKenney refusal of EffK inclusions followed by user:Str1977 admission Thats what Kaas did, he traded in his Party http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=13196342,[[36]], proves continuous Str1977 and general allies intense provocation/self-contradiction culminating 15 December 2005.

03 May 2005

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=13552138,[[37]] Str1977 links to discussions, shows acceptance of inter-related articles/discussions despite off-topic reverts elsewhere. following goodwill Effk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=13704234.[[38]], EffK prediction of this Arbitration removed from discussion where relevant by Str1977,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=13905090[[39]], Str1977 builds cabal reactions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=prev&oldid=13228285,[[40]] in assumption bad faith despite Jkenney source

14 June 2005

[edit]
  • 21.20

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15195243,[[41]], Str1977 denies relevance to centre but admits relevance Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates elsewhere, then reverts his position Oh sillt me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15200432.[[42]], after assumption bad EffK faith by revert, then good faith EffK protest http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15441419,[[43]]

20 June 2005

[edit]
  • 16.42

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15441419.[[44]] Str1977 shows how good faith should try to work, demonstrates problem of off-topicality, and followed by EffK plea for good faith to (verifiable) sources http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15515817,[[45]] , and provoked question:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15517119,[[46]] are you paid. Then clear request Arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15518359,[[47]] followed by good faith appeal and removal of request http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15518729,[[48]].Answer was not being paid ie Str1977 is not a priest/nor professional historian. JKenney was appealed to in good faith http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=28017142&oldid=27969562,[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=28017142&oldid=27969562]] .

12 August 2005

[edit]

18 August 2005

[edit]
  • 22.59

Good faith User:Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=next&oldid=20862383 , [[50]] , supports defendant NPOV

21 December 2005

[edit]
  • 00.53

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&diff=prev&oldid=32175933,[[51]] represents a personal attack and shows User:Patsw to be another cabal member of the bad-faith denialism and clear dishonesty given Lulu of the Lotus Eaters etc and good faith source. This user with user musical Linguist, has joined in attack upon EffK probity, and with this is therefore a party to the general bad faith by co-ordinatated co-religionists. These are User:Str1977, Robert McClenon, Musical Linguist and Patsw. I consider user John K /JohnKenney has more reluctantly joined with the others, who were clearly acting in joint venture cabal against Wikipedia and EffK. All these Users are in my view, now without Wikipedia probity.

18 August 2005

[edit]
  • 23.23

Musical Linguist/ Anne Heneghan/? ,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=next&oldid=21324367,[[52]] is cabal  ? denial provocation


21 April 2005

[edit]
  • 06:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=12601337&oldid=12601151,[[53], original John Kenney reversion of sources

11 May 2005

[edit]
  • 11.09

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=13607731&oldid=13552138,[[54]], Example of Str1977 opinion in talk defeating source in article, provocation[to "soap-box"]

11 November 2005

[edit]
  • 02:27

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=prev&oldid=27985120,[[55]] Cabal(?) group provocation by Kenney support of denial of sourced info, known to reverter from Centre Party Germany sourceing , despite Jkenney knowing of his personal attack on EffK http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=13788679,[[56]]

10 December 2005

[edit]
  • 20.09

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=30850688&oldid=30848368,[[57]] cabal policy JohnKenney provocation by term "garbage" re sourced, reasoned discussion archive. Assumption of bad-faith.

10 May 2005

[edit]
  • 23.27

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=prev&oldid=13579187,[[58]] Reversion of talk ,"Vandalism" provocations,

18 July 2005

[edit]
  • 05.53

Canon request http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=19062928,[[59]]

8 November 2005

[edit]
  • 10.07

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27703162,]]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27703162]] Denialism

16 November 2005

[edit]
  • 10:20

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=28493537&oldid=28478546,[[60]] at bottom ,whitewashed "..Kaas drafted.." to "negotiated draft"...with Papen. In truth , he "drafted" it himself over 3 months in the Vatican ,with assistance . All whitewash pivots over 9 April : whitewash maintains as in this article now :"In April he[Hitler] sent his vice-chancellor .....

I used to call it obfuscation, but this is whitewash- denial of source, repeatedly provided since April (Kenney) amd May (Str1977). This is censorship, and all articles in the dispute/RfA,RfC are related to the one point in time: to remain untainted , the negotiations have to begin in this Papen arrival [secretly, in point of fact , and be separated at all costs from sourced Klemperer, Mowrer, Shirer, Toland, Tallet , Cornwell, Manhattan,Margaret Lambert,Wheeler-Bennett texts provided by EffK. All such reputable published authors estimate the link between the Speech of Midday 23 march by Hitler , with the u-turn in Vatican policy, and the resulting over-turning of it's Hierarchy at the German Bishop's 'Fulda Conference', sourced by Humanitas International and since April , by Megamemex Timebase as from Guenter Lewy. This is the entire and central censorship, read your timelines.

No contrary source has been provided contradicting the historical elision which pivots around 15 March Hitler cabinet,17-22 March meetings with Kaas and Hitler both co-chairman, 23March Enabling Act pro-Christian and Rome referencing Hitler Speech , Kaas 24 disappearance to Rome,"% March cardinal bertram definitions pro-Nazism ,28 March Fulda conference u-turn allowing Catholic membership of NSDAP& etc , Kaas final return to 2 Aprilprivate (v.rare) Hitler interview ,April 8/9 secret meeting and journey with Papen to Rome, 10 April approval of Hitler by Pius XI, 23 April Birthday greeting from Kaas in exile assuring Vatican co-operation with Hitler , all with extras such as Cardinal Faulhaber u-turn, Hitler genocidal anti-semitic reference made to churchmen, anti-semitic pogroms etc .

This is all behind the small variation here at [[Reichskonkordat and excision of source everywhere.The history is widely known.

17 November 2005

[edit]
  • 22.42

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27703162,[[61]] Whitewashes sourced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig_Kaas#Dispute ,[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig_Kaas#Dispute, denialism


16 July 2005

[edit]
  • 18.42

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=18985145,[[62]]Summary ,hard Source justifying NPOV, (same page diff)time 00:00

17 July 2005

[edit]
  • 03.24

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=next&oldid=18985145,[[63]] McClenon POV classification Moral.Canonicals are NPOV fact.Central issue.

17 July 2005

[edit]
  • 03.34

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=next&oldid=18993135,[[64]] Kantean definition goodwill.

1 December 2005

[edit]
  • Current Revision

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts&diff=29900667&oldid=29852980,[[65]] Unexpressed Relationship Vatican Agency to Intellect definition/proof


18 July 2005

[edit]
  • 21.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=19106614,[[66]] McClenon POV contrary sourced.

19 July 2005

[edit]
  • 08.13

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=19138118&oldid=19106614,[[67]] Summary provided, goodfaith question mcCelon

19 July 2005

[edit]
  • 17.54

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=19165962,[[68]]. Answer to last diff : disingenuous, provocative,badfaith.

19 July 2005

[edit]
  • 23:49

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=19188679&oldid=19176634 [[69]] Summary of motive.

26 August 2005

[edit]
  • 15.33

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=next&oldid=21596121,[[70]], Canonical answers

3 November 2005

[edit]
  • 02.01

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Str1977&diff=27212299&oldid=27210352,[[71]], McClenon bad faith against Famekeeper after he acceded to Jimbo's request to leave.Is provocation and harrassment , necessitated return as EffK .

13 November 2005

[edit]
  • 19.52

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_Scandal&diff=28231255&oldid=28117957,[[72]] Un-hesitating VfD

10 November 2005

[edit]
  • 23:20

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=27969562&oldid=27874522,[[73]] harrassment after reappearance

2 November 2005

[edit]
22:27

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patsw&diff=27195951&oldid=27063356,[[74]] harassment - v.serious attempt un-cover IP , failed . WP and anyone acting through it note well that EffK left instructions to corporate learning depending as to his person. The fact that this user admits to failure does not minimise the effort.

14 November 2005

[edit]
  • 18:36

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=next&oldid=28320331,[[75]] denialism of correction and source {Add re supposed corrective evidence user:Andrew_pmk} :Adolf Hitler removed, not redundant, it is known that Hitler promised eradication of Jews in 1933 to 2 of the Catholic Hierarchy, sourced, it is indisputable that AH was chief(Fuhrer) of all including this longstanding Holocaust policy; IBM turned into un-recognisable German name, accession is misleading, longstanding dispute with Str1977 who defended earlier accession to power following elections http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19460820&oldid=19423159[[76]] and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19460820&oldid=19423159*19:08[[77]] marked dubious,& discussed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19573589&oldid=19573254[[78]] I still discuss objection to accession when it links to German expression saying seizure, therefore is a form of denialism. Any sourceing is known to opposing editor Str1977. (Provocation)EffK 04:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=28325328&oldid=28323126,[[79]] denial source , POV/ denialism in "generally" [add per user:Andrew_pmk Str1977's contradictory reasoning = Certainly Hitler is essential,but here the context is generally on the "country" level.. This is an attempt to present the Holocaust as non-emanating clearly from the "essential" Dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. Historically, this is incorrect. All collaboration was with this Dictator, or was not. No refusal to collaborate could be/was allowed. All authority led to Hitler, all collaboration with authority was therefore to Hitler as Dictatator. It is shameful, and of dubious legality in some European Countries, to argue this point . Provocation through contradiction.EffK 04:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

3 December 2005

[edit]
  • 00.50

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=next&oldid=29968841,[[80]] .Extreme Harrassment -logic infers devil is he(me) . "He is watching us. God is also watching us." . This user is a known bully, I say this after providing earlier RfC proof.This editor warrants immediate RfA for this edit . I prove a Catholic has Laws, but there is no proof that I am the devil . signed :EffK 17:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


14 July 2005

[edit]
  • 23.14

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=18825393&oldid=18693247.[[81]] misleading, and, bad faith edit by Str1977,removes quid pro quo accepted by him , as shown diff 15 December, following , from original Jkenney sourceing diff ditto below .Provocation .

11 June 2005

[edit]

Str1977 - I also know that some books portray it the way FK thinks fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=next&oldid=15026689,[[82]] reveals duplicity, denialism, and bad faith provocation in joining this RfArbitration and continuously using Strawman argument and ad hominem against EffK. UserJKenney following reveals flimsiness of denialism "It's a very general book," http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Str1977&diff=next&oldid=15028516,[[83]], Str1977 shows edited results of his provocation of EffKhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Str1977&diff=prev&oldid=14537260,[[84]], not minorand relates to bad-faith str1977 removals typified by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germany&diff=prev&oldid=14225567,[[85]]

24 July 2005

[edit]
  • 23.09

Robert McClenon building cabal reaction in bad faith http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=19536022&oldid=19421943,[[86]]and follows with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=19731477&oldid=19711181,[[87]] despite 11 June above, both are provocation and case building cabalism , not Article building good faith , repeated later http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=28696024&oldid=28655206,[[88]] ban EffK, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=28700800&oldid=28696024,[[89]]

15 December

[edit]
  • 18.38

Denialism of sectioning esp Letter of Guarantee, bad faith http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=31498074&oldid=31497463,[[90]] counter to link to provided source, known to this editor, [[91] POV obstruction /harassment . removed All parties , Bruning's abuse . admission confronted' argument was brought to the table. Wikipdia waste of space and time , as in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&diff=30092497&oldid=30051908 ,[[92]].

  • 19.06

Denialist removal by editor knowingly in wrong: unlimited bad faith,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=next&oldid=31500520,[[93]] proved/sourced User:JKenney originally http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=prev&oldid=12790003,[[94]],after later followed by User:JKenneyprovocative removal discussionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=12794544,[[95]] Str1977 knows the "quid pro quo" certainly was there in the concordat negotiations http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=28017142&oldid=27969562,[[96]], and "Centre Party's existence on bargaining table" the Kick-back scheme, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=19162910, [[97]]. Str1977 Irrationality, abdication of Intellect, contumate bad-faith re: 19.06.

  • 21.02

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=next&oldid=31506325,[[98]] Massage down-grade in POV , cumulative massage,r after: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=prev&oldid=31501620 ,[[99]]. Shows typical provocative creeping Opus moderandi of POV massage. V.sad 4 WP .NO MORE EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT USER FK CANNOT CONTRIBUTE TO WIKIPEDIA, AND THAT WIKIPEDIA IS CORRUPTED BY CONCERTED INTELLECTUAL /REVISIONIST / GERMAN / CLERICAL DISHONESTY . FK SHALL MAKE NO MORE ATTEMPT TO EDIT TO ANY ARTICLES UNTIL THIS IS SORTED BY WIKIPEDIA. FK RESERVES THE RIGHTS TO HIS OWN CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THEY BE PUBLISHABLE FREELY BY FK HOWSOEVER HE CHOOSES. FK RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO SELF DEFENCE, AND TO EDIT TALK PAGES AND CALL FOR FURTHER ABITRATION. FK'S MESSAGE TO ARBITRATION ENDS WITH THIS TRUTH FROM Adressed to Robert MacLeNon McClenon I remind you that good action must not only conform to moral law , but be done for the sake of moral law . That good will is good not by what it performs but simply by virtue of the volition , and that the function of reason is to produce a will good in itself , for reason recognises the establishment of a good will as its highest practical destination .

18 January

[edit]
  • 15.59

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&diff=35685791&oldid=35685237,[[100]], conclusive statement by Str1977 that he is actively guarding Wikipedia from source presented by EffK.

03 Febuary 2006

[edit]
  • 22.34

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludwig_Kaas&diff=38061777&oldid=38060961[[101]] An Archive of on-topic qualifying source made within 6 minutes , represents clerical denialist harassment from Robert McClenon . Epitomises the activity suffered by EffK throughout.


Assistance Towards Historical Resolution for this Catholic Church problem-Claim Ownership?

[edit]

I am under grievous danger, largely of my own honest making. I call a spape a spade, but nor a bloody shovel. I am being hit by a spade all the way through this Wikipedia, every day I have known it. I really have come to the briefest conclusion: Wkipedia is being colonised by the vatican (from the Pontifical Council for Social Communications through papal instructions from 21 Febuary 2005, and certain Jesuit military internet guidance ). I may not be able to prevent this, nor anybody, but I am able to remark it. To them I say , don't forget that I am right canonically and magisterially, so prepare yourselves for your necessary u-turn. The infallibility could be re-arranged perhaps in a similar way that Mowrer assisted the newly crowned Pius XI out of a hole. Think about it... if your faith is true it shall find you a way to leave behind the errors. If you changed the Canon Code very rapidly, that would help. You yourselves could remove the digging up of burial rights and the losses of priveliges for Pacelli. Let's think of a way for you guys to back out of your self-made infallibility troubles.....Look, Pius XII/Pacelli invoked infallibility long after all this Centre subversion( or direction of the vatican's own Party only). So-there was no subversion, if it was your very own Party. There- I have helped you now already on three things. Now, re-write the entire vatican involvement correctly and fess up as much as ye can, that way it will all ease. This is the way it is done- you don't carry on kicking and screaming to the last, whilst the forces of media over-run you step by step. Save what you can now as I show you. I'm afraid there is probably no way to save Pacelli either here or above. I believe you could save Pius XI, as he was duped by the german vatican putsch of Pacelli. You have to immediately claim the real ownership of the Centre Party in 1933, reveal the confirmation of the primary sourced May 1932 instructions from Pacelli to Kaas. You have to publish them and to determine via revised Canonical code how to censor Pacelli (and Kaas and Papen are not a problem). I am afraid that you will possibly only be able to save yourselves the actual exhumation, but not the excommunication. I think I dealt with Double-Effect, and you have no more ways out there. Re-write it all, publish it all here on-line, is my advice. Stick to Pius XI as duped and blinded.

The Nuremberg Trial precedence and the Wikipedia Charge against User:EffK

[edit]

From The Yale Avalon Project([102] ) we are brought{Fair Use/Educational/Public} such as this Franz von Papen disculpation and inculpation:

DR. KUBUSCHOK(The Defence for Papen): The Prosecution charges that, as a prominent lay member of the Catholic Church, you were particularly able to consolidate the Nazi regime in the field of the churches. We must therefore discuss your attitude regarding the Church Will you give an account of the situation of the German Church at that time?

VON PAPEN: This charge, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, is for me the most serious of the entire Indictment-the charge that I, as a Catholic, contributed to this conspiracy against world peace. May I be permitted, therefore, to discuss my attitude in the Church question quite briefly.

{disculpations follow)

DR.Kubuschok.[Turning to the defendant.] What were the events leading up to the Concordat?

VON PAPEN: I reiterate that I wanted to secure a Christian basis for the Reich at all costs. For that reason, I suggested to Hitler in April 1933 that the rights of the Church should be firmly laid down in a Concordat, and that this Concordat should be followed by an agreement with the Evangelical Church. Hitler agreed, although there was strong opposition in the Party; and thus the Concordat was concluded. The Prosecution has adopted the view that this Concordat was a maneuver intended to deceive. Perhaps I may in this connection point to the facts that the gentlemen with whom I signed this Concordat were Secretary of State Pacelli, the present Pope, who had known Germany personally for 13 years, and Monsignor Kaas, who for years had been the Chairman of the Center Party, and that if these two men were willing to conclude a Concordat, then one can surely not maintain that this was a maneuver intended to deceive.


The Catholics in Germany had organized themselves in the Center Party. Before 1918 the Center Party, as a moderate party, had always endeavored to establish a balance between the left and the right political wings. After the war that picture was altered entirely.

We then find the Center Party mostly in coalition with the left. In Prussia, this coalition was maintained during all the years from 1918 until 1932. Undeniably the Center Party deserves much credit for the maintenance of the life of the State during the years after the collapse; but the coalition with the Social Democrats made co-operation of the Center Party with the right impossible, particularly with regard to Church policy. In political questions and matters of internal party policy the Center Party, therefore, followed a line of compromise which was the result obtained through the concessions of others in the field of Church policy. That this state of affairs...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, to what is this all relevant? DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Prosecution has said:

"Papen used his position of a prominent Catholic to consolidate the Nazi regime. He was double-faced, and that characteristic is especially obvious in this connection and throws light on his personality."

(there follows disculpation of charge that Papen himself undermined the Reichskonkordat )

[Turning to the defendant.] In the summer of 1934 it became obvious that the Party was sabotaging the Concordat, and that Hitler's assurances were not being kept. How do you explain Hitler's behavior in this respect?

283

17 June 46

VON PAPEN: I believe that in those days Hitler himself had been entirely willing to keep peace with the Church, but that the radical elements in his Party did not wish it............Besides, if the Prosecution assumes that on account of the certainly quite justified Encyclical of the Pope I should have left my post, then I must ask what did the Church do? The Church did not recall the Papal Nuncio from Berlin, and Bishop Berning did not leave the State Council in which he represented Catholic interests. No doubt all this was quite justified, because all of us at that time still hoped for inner changes................................. .

(After particular disculpations and in more general disculpation, von Papen justifies all whom the Prosecution considered to have conspired towards elevation of Hitler, through reference to this Bishop and inculpation towards an un-named high authority of some 3 years after that elevation .)

Von Papen: It appeared to me necessary, since the Catholic press had been completely muzzled, to do something to continue public discussion of the struggle against tendencies inimical to the Church. I very often talked about this question with Bishop Hudal, an outstanding churchman in Rome, whose book written in 1936 will be submitted to the Tribunal by my counsel. This book contains my severe criticism of the anti-religious tendencies and contains also an objective appreciation of the positive social ideas of National Socialism; it is all the more notable because a high authority of the Church was then, in 1936, making yet another attempt to create a synthesis between Christian ideas and the healthy doctrines of National Socialism.

(See here Third Party Comment)

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

[edit]

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[103]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005

Third party comment

[edit]

Maybe I shouldn't be making any comment without first reading through the extended history of this dispute, but one thing strikes me so strongly I felt it needed a comment.

EffK is accused of "engaging in an extended effort to use Wikipedia to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler. This effort has involved personal attacks on other editors, accusations of bad faith (including that other editors are acting as agents of the Vatican), and using article talk pages as a soapbox."

There may in fact not be any agents of the vatican here, but looking at a page like that on Pius XII you'd be forgiven for doubting. There is a very strong positive bias on that, and other, pages dedicated to Catholic leaders. If EffK has a POV he is pushing in the other direction, it is more than outweighed.

Just to look at the Pius XII article, which has been one of the scenes of the dispute: in general the 'controversy' over his stance towards the Nazis is indeed acknowledged throughout the article, but there is far more virtual ink spilled to deny it than report it, and the language is one-sided. Eg.:

- the first paragraph kicks off ascribing laudable motives to Pacelli as 'working to promote peace'

- there are various references to Pacelli condemning the Nazis, whilst pro-Nazi comments EffK cites (such as the one he provided from a book by Mowrer, or any of those in John Cornwell's book) are out. Similarly we have Goebbels diary entries attacking the church, and a completely unsourced Hitler quote, but not eg. Ciano praising him as a man the fascists could work with.

- these alleged comments from Pacelli are virtually unsourced. There is no source for the 'private letter' mentioned. Another is from an unconfirmable private conversation mentioned in a 'Catholic League' publication - which doesn't strike me as necessarily too reliable.

- the language is hardly neutral: a critic 'falsely portrayed' him; 'there is no doubt' that jews were 'bravely' saved, while there is no mention of those he is accused of giving up to the Nazis; we're told more than once how the pope has been 'widely praised'

- John Cornwell, the best known critic of Pacelli, gets half a para - immediately followed by 2 1/2 paras of the response from pro-Pacelli historians and the Vatican's own enquiry

- there are references to ODESSA at the bottom of the page, which suggests to me that at some point someone may have included information on the accusations of Pacelli's involvement in sheltering Nazis after the war - but if so these points have also been removed from the page itself. There is a mention of the ODESSA issue, but without any acknowledgement that Pacelli is claimed to have been involved himself, and the case is dismissed as the "almost 'mythic' ratlines".

I don't think there's a Vatican organised conspiracy at work in Wikipedia, but I do think we have a number of conscientious catholic supporters at work on this and other pages who are slanting the entries to favour the church. I think it is important that EffK's case be viewed in this context. It seems that EffK set out to try and redress this balance, and I don't think there's any wrong in that. Without having read through all the discussions I don't know if he's always gone about it the right way, but I can see he was acting from good motivations and from the heart, and it isn't easy fighting that kind of uphill battle. I think the bias being perpetrated by his opponents is a far more serious problem than any alleged misconduct on EffK's part.Bengalski 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The Death Of the Weimar Republic

[edit]

This is the simplest the demise of the Weimar Republic can be assessed by me. *1:Demise is too passive a word as I don't think there is any legal basis for the Hitler conspiracy against Weimar, which is why Papen answered in the negative as to his knowledge of mal-treatment/arrests of deputies at his Trial. *2:Papen (and Kaas and everyone)knew 'political opponents' were being arrested, but did not allow that he knew that this included deputies. *:3The logical inference is that Hindenburg's "Reichstag Fire Decree" did not cover anti-constitutional deputy arrests,*:4 and therefore the seizure of power was initiated by illegal conspiracy at at least 6 March when the arrests were, it appears, effected. This would explain Goering's statement that he/they needed no legality, cared for no legality, in this of 3 March. *:5 However it rather begs the question: If Hitler knew the balance of the Reichstag to be affected by the day after the last free elections, 6 March, then the scenario of the Nazis 'robbing you car anyway', carries backwards to then. Hitler knew that he could rob the car/Reichstag from as early as this. *:6 Papen says he did not understand/know. We do know what Papen and Bruning and the rest of the Centre thought re the EAct vote. We know that Bruning was pushing a saving line re:Inquiry for the Fire/anulment of the 5 March elections:it would perhaps appear that Bruning knew that deputies were in captivity at 6 March. As Bruning himself argued right through to the 23 March against the Enabling vote,as treachery, only caving in to the promised letter negotiated by Ludwig Kaas c 22 or 23 /EAct day itself, presumably he saw the same alternative referred to at that Centre Party Germany 23 meeting by Kaas' words.This sourced: that a rejection of the EAct by the Centre bloc, would fracture the unity of that bloc(fraction' was the word). Bruning claimed that assent to the majority would of itself destroy the future identity of the Centre Party, in opposite to Kaas' analysis. *:7 Either way what is interesting is to relate these two opinions back to the period 6 March-15 March(when Hitler spoke at cabinet to the effect that he had the Centre's assent in the bag).From the Trials it is clear now that the first Coalition Cabinet met on the 30 January and, that the 15 March Cabinet simply gives a date for when Hitler thought he had that assent.In fact the 30 january had a cabinet meeting and the centre vote was recognised as required. It was suggested that the Communists simply be arrested*:8 We do not know why he thought so, but can relate it to Str1977 original interpretation of the car's gonna be stolen anyway : Hitler may have simply suspected that the Centre would fold , but his "breezy confidence" of 15 March came from something more than suspicion. *:9 Vice-Chancellor non-Nazi Papen's activities, while "personally close" to the highest in the Vatican, and, in the absence of determining documentation (required from at least the Vatican Archives) could have determining bearing upon this breeziness as could Kaas's solo attempt to build a solution at 6 March. *:10 It is clear from the Trials that Papen considered accord and integration of Christianity as central to the future composition of the Reich. As the Protestant churches were heavily infiltrated with Nazism, it does not appear that the major problem was Protestantism. Rather it is clear that Papen strove to incorporate the Catholic Church as at least equal "bulwark" against out-right unspecified darker national/spiritual alternatives. It was Catholicism that Hitler had to tame, not German Protestantism. *:11 Catholics always (except in this instance of the eventual Reichskonkordat) retained autonomy of conscience subject completely to the pontiff (often called Rome). *:12 Hitler succeeded in requiring complete reversal of this autonomy, and that every cleric should obey the Government (by the time of the 20 July signing this meant in effect the NSDAP alone).*:13 Again, we know that Papen was building the bulwark from before January 30, and that *:14 Papen had close personal ties to Vatican power.*:15 Vatican power which in two days publicly assented itself to the known-to-be-brutal Nazis. *:16 Papen arrived in Rome on the 9 April, secretly with Ludwig Kaas. *:17 Kaas had the first Cardinal Pacelli audience, odd in itself. So later in the day Papen met with Pacelli. *:18 The following day Goering turns up , and he and Papen have an audience with the pontiff. The pontiff expresses his diplomatic pleasure as to the "un-compromising" strength of the new German Government . (At this later date it was clear that the un-constitutional, or as yet proven otherwise, arrests of the deputies had Enabled this strong man in Germany uncompromisingly opposed to ,well, such as these very KPD Communist Deputies. *:19 With no Reichskonkordat negotiations save a presumably brief Papen/Pacelli meeting the day before, the pontiff welcomes the uncompromising Hitler Government. This clear demonstration of shared motive, anti-communism whatever the means, appears to have been sufficient to over-ride that unconstitutionality of anti-communist KPD arrest and murder, which Papen claimed no knowledge of but which the other present on the 10 March Papal reception, Goering, on 6 March had publicly spoken of as being in-judicial . Negotiations between Papen for the Government and Pacelli for the pontiff suceeded in the one meeting of the 9 March, following his train journey with Kaas, which had seen Papen leave Berlin itself on the 8 March. Were it not for the two other factors, being Kaas , and being the avowed close personal relations Papen had with the highest powers( and there is only one highest power)in Rome, we could say that Papen had really solved the entire likely future of Catholicism in Germany in this one tired meeting, and that he achieved a successful co-ordination to Rome that had eluded both the German catholics and Rome, for centuries back.*:20 Kaas we know met Pacelli first, and Kaas presumably did not hover with Papen in ante-chambers and Hotel but was in fact a party to the out-come of the morrow, being assigned the task of completing the draft ot the Concord.*:21 In contrast to presentation of Kaas as incidental and un-important, is the curious shuttling he made between Rome and Berlin, of which this was the second journey,and being the final, bringing his self-exile. *:22 What makes the shuttle even more interesting to all historians is that Kaas had a mysterious, because totally private, meeting with Hitler after his first shuttle, as still Chairman of the Centre Party. *:23 We know that the Centre Party held meetings at which Kaas as Chair summarises members' positions prior to a vote. We do not know on what basis the Hitler meeting was held. We know that it was secret and we know that prior to it Kaas was in the vatican from 24 March to 31. He may have arrived on the 25 March, and he may not have arrived back in Berlin until the 1 April. *:24 We know that Kaas also had links to the vatican powers, that he too had close personal and Church/ P.A. relations to Cardinal Pacelli,the second highest power, originating in the previous decade . *:25 We know that formally Kaas went to Rome on the first shuttle to concern himself with problems in another matter to do with two towns. *:26 We know that as Centre Chairman, Kaas co-chaired with Hitler meetings that interpose between Hitler's breezy assertion in the Coalition Cabinet on 15 March, and the final handing in of the Centre vote consequent upon these meetings. *:27 We know that Kaas was deputed on 9 April at a Pacelli meeting, to draft the Reichskonkordat, if not at that first meeting , then at another meeting after possibly the Papen/Pacelli meeting of 9 April, but on 9 April. *:28 Of the actual 2 April Kaas meeting with Hitler, there is no account sourced thus far. It is said that this meeting was to have cleared up out-standing issues consequent on the Enabling Act. *:29 Histories mention the meeting, but all that appears in them consequent upon Kaas' vote at the enabling ct of 23 March, is the "Gentleman's Agreement" "most sardonic hypocrisy" of Hindenburg's letter to all the Centre leaders, which arrived somewhere around 24th or 25 March, when Kaas was in the vatican.*:30 We know that historians laugh at this letter and compare it with the peculiar and Kaas negotiated separate promised constitutional guarantee, which Kaas at the last moment of the 23 Reichstag Act did not receive . *:31 We know from histories and documents: record of Hitler's 23 u-turn Speech referencing the Holy See, the 28 March u-turn allowing catholics enter the NSDAP.*:32 Historians do not specify at what point the apparent quid pro quo negotiations open. *:33 The clean answer thus far presented in these Articles, is that Papen and Pacelli opened the negotiations on 9 April. *:34 That Goering appeared for the congratulations on behalf of the NSDAP-Nationalist German Government. *:35 We know that Hitler continued in his policies of conspiracy through-out, adhering to all prior published NSDAP plan, which was to destroy Parliamentary Democracy from within. *:36 Historians say that this is a rolling processs, and the Nuremberg Trials tried exactly this, as a crime of Conspiracy against the State. *:37 Therefrom arose the following fact that Hitler's conspiracy evolved within this co-alition. *:38 The Communists and quickly after the rigged Enabling Act, the Socialists are, in the first quasi- and second, then legally (the SPD) destroyed . *:39 The demise of the Weimar parties does not happen at the 23 Act. *:40 Hitler brilliantly rolls the 30 January opportunity/ process forward. *:41 He negotiates through his policy u-turn of the 23 March 1st session Speech towards the crucial shifting of, if not total allegiance , then utter toleration from, the entire Centre apparatus in both press and representatives. *:42 This is we know effected(viz Margaret Lambert)from 28 March, well before Kaas and Papen visit Rome on 9 April. In fact we see that that catholic Centre co-operation throughout Germany appears at the same u-turn made at the Fulda Bishop's Conference of 28 March . *:43 We see that the Holy See policy itself either allowed or effected a u-turn in its policy prior to the supposed start of negotiations on 9 April. *:44 Thus do historians carefully hint at quid pro quo. *:45 We know that they follow from the Nuremberg Trials, and that these themselves seem to grind to halt at the very edge of the mass or force of the Holy See. *:46 Papen shows that the Trials' Prosecution asserted the Reichskonkordat itself to be a "maneuver intended to deceive" . *:47 We know that in the rolling conspiracy, that the first word of auto-dissolution by the Centre Party, comes from the British Envoy and emanates from within the Vatican. This curious fact predates the first NSDAP formal acceptance of the Concordat, as from 5th to 12 July. *:46 The NSDAP only ratifies the Concordat in early September. *:47 We know that from before 30 January, that Papen worked to institute the fullest Church involvement as "bulwark" against Nazi 'anti-christianity'.*:48 That this process paralleled in time the Nazi destruction of all other parties. *:49 We have witnessed report of the Holy See's own rolling process as far back as May 1932, and we can only imagine as to whether the document referred to for that instruction has originating record within the Vatican Archive for May 1932. *:50 As the Holy See desired the Concordat and,it is claimed, even came to curiously desire the destruction of political catholicism in Germany, then we may see in future more light shed upon this history that so affected the world. *:51 History knows because of the Nuremberg Trials how Hitler effected the separate goal of mastery of the NSDAP, and that this was not complete at these events in time but that its own rolling process continued. *:52 We,lastly, know that in fact the Holy See was, at other linked moments in history, careful to avoid a future paper trail, so, whether even should all Archives be revealed, history will be any the wiser, is unsure. All the above was sourced as Neutral Point of View. *:53 My only conjecture is that Kaas stitched it up over the head of Papen, that he made a private deal with Hitler confirmed c 22 March by telephone. *:54 This was, and I have said this before, Hitler's idea: Kaas would persuade the Centre to vote by referring to the Hitler letter of guarantee, knowing that it would not arrive but equally knowing that the sardonic hypocrisy agreement would arrive later, but that by this means Hitler would finally achieve Kaas' master's bidding through an appearance of good-faith.*:54 As Str1977 always said, the car(the Reichstag) was going to be stolen for sure( by arrests) and it was simply whether you take the option of selling it cheap to the thief beforehand. *:55 To Kaas the car (the Centre) was not the object of concern, to the Holy See the object of concern was not the Centre, to Papen the Centre was not the object of concern, to Hitler the Centre was not the object of much concern (at 15 March he believed/knew it would crumble).*:56 Kaas had many meetings with Hitler prior to the Enabling Act, and opportunity for personal agreement made as to that which not Papen, but Kaas, could deliver from his true allegiance as a Prelate of the Catholic Church.*:57 Really, the Catholic Church seems to have, if you ignore its requirement for an anti-communist tryranny, obtained little else of great significance. Some considerable state recognition in the home of Martin Luther, but loss of autonomy; some continuing financial benefit, but perhaps ruination of its earlier German investments. In all a lot more problems than favours, excepting the 20th Century European defeat of atheistic nihilist Russian Communism. *:58 Kaas is described from es early as 1949, in a book that ran to 50 editions(ie. a lot of books) as being prevailed upon by the Vatican after his arrival on 9 April, to volubly commend Hitler. *:59 This he does by the 23 April, when he produces a Vatican approved declaration of approbation upon Hitler's Birthday, which Vatican stamp is reproduced by the million in the German Press.*60 We know catholic voters in droves join the NSDAP consequent on the quid pro quo ,whatever question remains as to how and when this starts. *:61 Kaas is not only assigned to draft the Concordat but is given the cushy and most convenient vatican position, which makes him the keeper of the keys of the vatican. *:62 Kaas figures later, in documents that are open, as involved in Vatican secret negotiations during the War. *:63 He also obtains a spectacular chance to oversee no less than the un-earthing of, perhaps, the very Tomb of St.Peter. *:64 The Keys are remarked upon whereas the Widerstand secrecy is only recently known.

  • 65 As far as one can tell the Archival position in the vatican now, is that there is not the man-power to catalogue or open the records between c 1923-24 and 1939, so everything pertaining to Kaas, Papen, Hitler and approbation thereto is as mysterious as it is possible to be. *:66 Only at the Cologne Synagogue new-pontiff's visit did public call arise directly to a pontiff that the Archives be opened. *:67 Since the Archive for the War is open, one can presume that the call relates to this earlier period. *:68 Or the call relates to the un-answered 47 questions concerning Pacelli-as-pontiff knowledge of the Holocaust. *:69 The Commission of enquiry into the knowledge of the Holocaust has not attempted to delve into any of the history of papal involvement during the rise of Hitler. *:70 The Commission has collapsed under its editor's inability to resolve its directions of enquiry for the War years. It requested more records and in the lack of them did not reach a conclusion. *:71 The many questions of the totalitarian rise of Hitler and of the Vatican enter completely into what is termed conspiracy-theory with Rolfe Hochhuth and questions of money. *:72 The shadowy figure of Papen here hovers close to the shadowy figure of Pacelli, accused by Hochhuth of having backed the Nazis for the sake of vatican investments in German Heavy Industry . *:73 Papen hovers because of his relationship to the German bankers and theirs to the Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates all of whose part in the rise of Hitler is entirely documented. The theory surmounts what is known by concentration on these financial investments, which existed, and which, presumably theory or not, were invested with the Magnates. *:74 The amounts seem paltry in today's stock-markets, but the accusation repeated by Hochhuth's Play The Deputy characterises the investments as reason for Pacelli-driven papal policy during the rise of Hitler. *:75 In so far as they were real , this is not theory, but the subject of how international capital relates to germany and to its magnates and banks opens a vast multi-national record that dwarfs any vatican Archive, and wherein lie extraordinary connections between people and their interests since. *:76 Herein theories abound which of their own weight, drive back-wards in time to the foundations of the U.S.A and the parts played in it by representatives of European and specifically south-German post-medieval Capital. *:77 It is a very interesting subject, yet could appear idle in its furtherest speculations until the casual reader discovers that not one but two of the three national British Newspapers forming public-opinion in the Thirties , were owned by descendants of precisely such Capital. *:78 At once the mysterious politics of Appeasement invade in their stark reality into the picture of "conspiracies" in a way that demands serious rationality . *:79 Hochhuth's Play , the history of the Thirties and the entirely logically resulting War interlink in manner to alert us to remaining forces materially as important as the Vatican remains spiritually. These forces provide the material day to day comforts that spiritually the remaining Vatican dispenses . The structures of our lives are enabled and so dominated, and as ever the spirituality, as from the Vatican, concedes this domination. Present Vatican counsels belie the essential underlying domination by Capital. *:80 Conspiracy theory on one side confronts secrecy on the other, in impasse. This information is delivered here in the good faith that rational thinking pre-supposes.
    81 There is an question as to whether or not it was constitutional to detain the KPD from 28 Feb-6 March onwards. von Papen answered in the Negative as to knowledge of maltreatment of / possibly even the arrest of.
    82 The section 2 of the later 23 Enabling Act protects all the Institutions of the Reichstag-I consider that a Deputy is a sovereign answerable solely to the people ,and, protected from Fire Act habeas corpus removal from normal citizenry ;protected even from later(too late?) Special Courts Decrees .
    83 I believe Hitler made one mistake -the Fire was laid to justify the arrests before there was a legal Special Courts Decree in force, by Goering against instructions probably to use their half-wit patsy while available. Everything else has "appearance" of legality . *:84 I track that there were possibly 2 x Special Courts Decree up-dates made on 21 March ,one counter-signed Frick with force from 23 day; the other by Hitler in force from 24. If these are one, the force on 24 would 'more' illegitimise the Reichstag sitting on 23, whatever about Fire Act 28th -onward arrest of KPD /constitutionality .*: 85 Old Arthur Rosenberg 1936 History of the Weimar republic is my source that all Decree rule from October 1931 was un-constitutional. *:86 Hindenburg's appointment of AH on 30 Jan was constitutional, but all Decrees except in emergency due to Rebellion of Armed Force were unconstitutional throughout last 4 Governments, all therefore were Presidential-Dictatorships in an already dead Republic. *:87 If the Republic was un-constitutional throughout these, where does the common-plan or conspiracy as Tried ,begin ? *:88 Schleicher rule continued until c 26 January by same un-constitutionality . If Hindenburg was technically abusing the constitution from 1931, how constitutional is the 30 January appointment of AH ? *:89 The Fire that was laid before Hitler was ready, as Goering more or less states to Nuremberg such Fire Decree would be the first constitutional decree since Oct 1931. *:89 At that time , the 6 oct, a Courts Decree was published . If that was not during Emergency for Armed Force, under Bruning' then it may NOT justify the 21 March Hitler signed decree which cites it directly as progenitor in law. *:90 These decrees = birth of the Gestapo . It was Prussia and its Berlin district police who arrested the KPD under the 29 March Fire Act but he Fire Decree speaks of no ability to detain Reichstag Deputies.

Bigotry, History and The Future

[edit]

Someone, quite pleasantly, asks or suggests that EffK is a bigot, so I am going to try and answer this . Firstly, of course any notice or interaction here comes to be pleasant. I am, somewhere minor inside me, gratified to be told that source I bring to explain, is original. Since I don't park it on any articles, I don't feel it's a problem. In fact I only use source to back my editing , however I discuss and source for discussion.I use off-topic source & reason to explain topics, and hope that that explanation will justify my reasoning as to words and description in Articles.

I won't define bigotry but rather define where I am through this user-ship. As editor, I am and have been throughout prevented from straightening a piece of German or European History . This is really a 7 week period from 30 Jan 1933-23 March 1933.I am unsure of what percentage of this obstruction resulte from people now representing historical interest, what stems from bad information, what stems form any national conciousness, or from faith , or from present politics ,or stupidity.To understand this period I personally have accessed a bunch of paper source, going back to 1933 itself, but using paper(books)from 1934 and 1936. I have sourced books from 1941 and 1943 , from then the 1950's and 1960's up until 1992 . All these books are reputable, nay, themselves lay foundations for succeeding books. From the war, these books base themselves on such documents and affidavits as devolved to us from the War Trials. The writers do not source long documents specifying exactitude but rather paint pictures around the weeks under question. Complex depiction of social, political and even personal forces are made. When the person is very important, their statements of view become history. I make reference to personal historical ststements as they are required. Historians do so. The War Trials particularly depend upon statements which themselves are sourced back into the beginnings of the political force of Nazism in the 1920's . These last statements are hair-raising. You have to allow our Jewish brethen to remind us of quite how so consistently hair-raising, as the awful-ness of their character we all really would sooner forget. The whole history is deeply shocking, that we know, but quite how so is our ignorance,is equally shocking.

So, sources speak of this 7 weeks which end in the seizure of complete power by Hitler. Generally ,it is not understood that Hitler's seizure started so early in Germany. The year 1938 is better remembered for the last attempt to forestall his power, because for outsiders the force of Hitler is equated to his War. We do not understand, and we survived anyway, so it is simply a question now of remembering or not. Often it is said that we should remember, so as to not commit ourselves to similar paths ourselves- whoever we be. Yet- we do not understand. No one understands absolutely, as the seizure of power was so rapid and complete and Hitler fed off a series of factors and chance which are numerous and varied. Hitler went specifically along a path that would give him power in such a manner as to persuade people's hearts. The measure of his achievement is that still we imagine him to have risen by the legal will of the German people . However he and his Lieutenants were committing a conspiracy , for which they were hanged.

The sources depict this process of seizure as being within this 7 weeks. Hitler over-turned all that had gone before by way of constitutional and it appears from the histories un-constitutional developement, and we do not understand how he did this.

We all know that Hitler himself was in control of a catastrophic War policy , how he died etc. But this was 12 years later. At the start it is fuzzy in our minds, where it all came from. The results of Hitler were so great that there remains interest in every part of his history. Now, bigotry results from a partial view of history. In the end only understanding of the whole can remove the assumptions upon which bigotry rests. The varied contributory factors, influences and events by themselves require particular focus as they each arise. I have enumerated from source the interests which at the beginning of the seven weeks, and at the end of the seven weeks, seemed to have adjoined in interest with Hitler and his Party, of which he had become chief. The interests is to say forces social, industrial and political, and even religious. This last has been of particular focus to me, largely because the last retains an apparent desire to deny its interest, and unlike other interests, which were sent for Trial both sides of the Atlantic (Pacific apart) has not until recently been the subject of much notice. It may appear bigoted to so have focused, but our lack of understanding of the relationship between this force out-side of Germany with those other forces has only now become more general knowledge. I have not focused on forces within Germany , such as its entirely State within a State army, which was outside of Hitlerism, the Protestant collaboration, the German aristocracy, the landed classes, the Judiciary, the Unions, the small men with money etc.

Publication is, however, given in our day to uncovering all kinds of truths, such as corporate involvement of still-existing lesser forces like IBM . This last should alert us to another little understood part of the seven week history, to forces so far out-side of Germany that they were American or multi-national . To concentrate on this section of history would not be bigotry, either, any more than a focus on say the agricultural realities in Germany at this time. A focus on Communism or upon anti-semitism, indeed any focus, could appear odd.

It is my source that the whole temptation of some deep dark germanity of 'volkism' built up as a mental spring from at least before the out-break of the French Revolution, and that the disaster of the First World War precipitated this which, lying in the gentle heart of philosophically advanced people, descended into a disastrous politics. Argument begins precisely at the close of that War, both without, and within Germany. The very essence of Germany itself was fractured, yet again, as a territory and as a people of that language.

Dispute was made out-side Germany , and dispute and dissatisfaction raged within. Considerable blame rests with the French politicians and through them their people for mis-understanding the results of their interventions, made under force of arms, within Germany and in territories controlled by them. France never recovered its mind from its vast decimation of population in the First War, and was even more, if it is possible to be so, shameful in its self serving appeasement stupidity than the British.

British Imperialist thinking gave insufficient attention to these last forces, and had entered, at the Versailles Treaty close of the War, into it's own mental disputes. The British failed miserably to help the developing situation and slipped further and further towards political stupidity and blindness of their own.

The political hard-left everywhere failed in its own fashion, except that its over-all master, the Russian dictator Stalin, actively chose from the 1936 Spanish war, to profit from a new World War, which he did at the cost of 40 million Russians.

America was essentially, as always, un-interested and only the forces of American Capitalism play any part. This part is considerable, but is not much considered in polite Western society. It relates through to Germany in curious manner and is clearly sourceable from 1933 and before, and stands accused of largely contributing to a German economic bubble in the 1920's, at which end large capital was as irresponsibly withdrawn, as it had earlier been injected. American dead in the new War were relatively minor and tolerable to the capitalist structure, just as they had been with the previous war.

Bigotry call may arise because I do not limit myself as may be fashionable, to the latest 'historiography'. More so it comes because I give sourced report and qualification to another contributory force, the Catholic Church. This force complicates all the other factors as it naturally enters the German body politic. With a third of Germans Catholic, the force is parallel to the 'evangelical' force , and both affect politics. The evangelical protestantism incorporated itself into the Third reich with gust, but the latter force however is remarked rather more than the Capitalist forces or others,even from 1934 by my source, and by the Trials, and then by every historian since who pays attention to the Trials. Almost by it's nature, this force is hazy and social and seemingly by its nature a-political. In briefest it is summarised as having had a noble and durable political Party, which at the last , in a space of about 2 years, had the rug pulled from under this from the top, by its own top, in Rome.

In dealing with this last force, I have encounterd such constant obstruction here, that I have been stimulated to my focus, and to a complete sourced variance with that which even now appears here online. My user-name appears, due to my lack of an office of doppelgangers, to be monocausally focused at this forces summit. Incidental and extra to an analysis of the force through sourced history, I am taken towards a necessary explanation of where we are.Of, why this part of the history is contentious, or more, forbidden and secret. The explantion for this has necessitated source from within the Church itself, which quite quickly explains itself by its own numbered behavioural norms. These are all translated into English , though the previous edition is only available in French (and Latin). They are also clear in both their purpose and their language, and relate to all human activity , including politics and where it stands in relation to it. I was constrained to do this by the nature of contradiction between this force, and Hitler. The historians supply us openly with motive, and discussion here on talk pages,is only required for understanding the nature of the force and its intervention, and the results which it caused to others and to itself.

Historical results were dire all round, and for several forces remain so. I believe the Capitalist forces will come to further deeper account, but only when the world requires sufficient stick to beat it down for ecological necessity. I mean that human consciousness will be still affectible and may need this as extra proof towards solution of ecological un-accountability.

It appears to me that any questions remaining for the Church relate to us too,in so far as the future world will likely need to borrow back from this force, that human truth which it precisely failed to uphold . The Church has profited by the force it brought to these seven weeks, and humanity will indeed take back that which the Church sought to preserve for it. These accounts will equally bear on future human relationships, as we arrive at the holistic politics of our ecological future.

As humans we have not profited as a whole from even the lessons of our mistakes, and it was to be hoped that Wikipedia would help, though I am presently sceptical, as these lesson contain un-acceptible truths . I have to report that instruction made on 21 febuary 2005, orders that purely spiritual reflection should be presented to the intellect, even the intellect on Wikipedia. The church force has organised a path for us which is contrary to our intellect and our history, but otherwise welcoming and beautiful reassurance.

Silencing of EffK

[edit]

At Arbcom the suggestions are being made to silence me by disallowing me from editing any article or discussion which touches on the Church or presumably the history articles that show relations between the Church and peoples. This would extend into my analysis of AIDS issues and teaching and influence therein. It would relate to President Bush's assumption of Church policy. Hence any silencing of me may cost actual human lives, silencing such as this policy's effects in Uganda , as reported by the BBC. At a stroke the Wikipedia will be denied the benefits of such reports, whether to do with Sex Abuse, financial settlements of that, report I made of Jewish request for opening of the Vatican records made directly to the pontiff in Cologne in 2005, and many more issues.

I note that the Arbcom trial does not go so far,yet, as suggesting a ban of me entirely, but just from such subjects. This must be because someone has noticed that, in fact, I have sourced all editing , and thus it would be contrary to Wikipedia practice to do that. In so far as there is at least one project I analyse in Wkipedia that needs to be done, the report of how German philosophy evolved and laid fertile ground for Hitler, I think I could keep off Church articles for rather more than the year ban proposed.(And will the ban be from touching all Church denominations, all religions or simply one, leaving me to help edtors who note existing imbalance as regards evangelical church involvement with pre-war European politics?) The Wikipedia quality will suffer , as any cursory glance at Weimar and Nazi elevation to power will show complete absence of breadth before I entered. In the case of papal involvement in Germany at the end of Weimar, I do not think a ban of little me will effect the silencing of the Jewish calls, nor the rolling on of written history exterior to this organ,evidenced by the plethora of books concerning this subject. Presumably the Wikipedia would be banning these writers, were they to repeat their findings here.

In good faith I have reported the Church's infiltration policy in Wikipedia to the owner of it, Jimbo Wales, who came back with a very diplomatic reply. In all- the Wikipedia is on a cleft stick here: if it bans me ,including and despite my sources, it could appear foolish and biased for the Church; and if it does not, it will likely cause trouble with the church as an immense congregation. I told Jimbo that there had had to be a catch in the otherwise successful encyclopedic attempt, and I note that he has appointed somehow or other, delegated decision making in arbitration.

I shall obviously have to source now the Church Law which justifies my assertion, claimed wrongly to be a personal attack, that a user/users are acting as vatican agents. So that the Wikipedia will firmly understand the legal position requiring their behaviour , and that it is law that threatens its transgressors with much much more than any Wikipedia law of excommunication.

Spring 2005 Media Conference

[edit]
Note:The relevant body asserting the 21 order is the Pontifical Council for Socila Communications, scretary the new Bishop 'best and brightest renato Boccardo, an Italian who is deputy to archbishop John Foley. Boccardo used to organise papal travel and was involved in Toronto's World Youth Day. Another 'organiser' of the Conference which followed the papal order of 21 Febuary before the 24 Febuary Conference was Gunther Lawrence , and this below directly leads to the ICJHC Commission's study of the wartime Vatican:
In April 1999.......reminder of the Holocaust in ..... the Vatican:
The menorah...... was placed in... Rome
The .....idea ... came from Gunther Lawrence....Interreligious Information Center of New York City.... by........Cardinal... Cassidy, president of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.

The Cassidy originated ICJHC Commission's resulting 2001 questions relate solely to wartime,and are troubling. The Commission has been in 'failure' since the preliminary 2001 report.

The 24-27 Febuary 2005 Conference Euronews report clearly specified the new-wave Catholic injunctions to confront and work the The Internet. The conference brought high-tech multi-faith B2B Execs to Rome, some on contract . I am sure Mr Lawrence is proud, and I and Euronews noted the success.

Indefinitive Submission of the Intellect

[edit]
Code of Canon Law, Canon 752 – While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine. Fair Use/Educational/Public from http://www.memorare.com/liturgy/atf.html

Trials

[edit]

Finally the long struggle against historical denialism I have on Wikipedia has brought forth a charge against me warranting and resulting in an actual trial. This is entirely karmic given that it is I alone who bring to notice that legality exists today for a different Trial or Judicial finding after-the-fact. I refer to the parallel and hghly defined legal reality applicable to all the Roman Catholic Church, which is Canon Law. Canon law appears to descend by divine revelation and the Holy Bible as constituted by very distant historical synods. This revelation of Law is claimed as the Divine Magisterium, the upholding and truth of which is the central pillar of all Christendom. I believe that there is a very large over-lap or sharing of the derivative canonical laws between the various sects or parts of Christianity .

I understand from Canon Law that a Roman Catholic is a Roman Catholic by faith and by acceptance of the canons of Roman Catholicism and that therefrom derives his/her position within the body of the church, usually described without capitalisation when this refers to the actual living human constituents of a living body of faith. The Church as institution( is capitalised)and upholds this faith, through the divine magisterium and its detailed and seriously legal sounding exegesis in Canon Law, written and ,even up-dated ,by the Church .

The trial to which I referred was the canon law post facto recognition of automatic excommunication for four named catholics, all dead, though all in need of regularisation in canonical legality. The doing so is pre-figured within this law, to the extent of demand within the Law that it be done for the good of the church. The four people are Achille Ratti,Eugenio Pacelli, Franz von Papen and Ludwig Kaas. Sadly these four persons contumately or knowingly of the Law, chose to transgress from the law in such serious manner that they have caused a scandal of historic proportion. The Canon requires that these persons' breaking of the magisterium, even beyond their death require recognition in judgement, for the defence of the church from scandal.

The canon Law claims that these persons incurred automatic excommunication at the moment of their transgression of the magisterium , and in fact any judgement purely is to provide public Church recognition of this canonical situation. Detailed canonical instructions exist to provide the church with sufficient defence from the contumate attack made by these persons upon the magisterial faith and which are required even seventy years after the offences .

The offences are themselves purely canonical and magisterial, so the regularisation too, is purely canonical . The offences exist solely within the parallel international widely instituted law of the church. In international law, the offences do not exist, and the one person amongst them tried as a war criminal was not brought to prosecution on the offence .However the offence was stated and considered and abandoned within 'International Allied Military Law', nascent at the time, which is 1946, at the Nuremburg Trials .The offence that was declared to not be an offence was the assisting of Hitler in his rise to absolute Dictator. The person was not declared innocent but the reverse, however the offence was itself categorised as non-existant .

The four persons conspired together over a period of months from about May 1932 to 23 March 1933.The latter date effected the offence, which was the actual empowering of Adolf Hitler by the Enabling Act. With the help of another Wikipedian ,the contumacy or knowledge of the Law while nevertheless breaking the Law, is entirely clear for Ludwig Kaas, a Monsignor or prelate of the Church. This contumacy appears in his parliamentary record of 23 March in the German Republic.

The following two persons were the highest and the second rank in the Church . The highest would have had to possess the knowledge of the Law he ,personally and canonically embodied, and his contumacy exists from April 10 1933 by public affirmation of canonically proscribed offences. Such offences were very widely reported to this highest rank by numerous low ranking Church representatives in canonical ministry. The offence equally concerns the empowerment of Hitler. The most serious charge is confirmed by the words of a deceased witness as recorded by second hand witness from May 1932, and published to the world in 1968. The papal statement of April 10 itself confirms the desire to effect canonical illegality that is earlier expressed. The desire is historically well known and derives from diplomatic and political temptation: this highest figure desired the installation of a political murderer or tyrant to help in the protection of the Church as an institution from another potential political murderer. Church history clearly defines the former as offensive from prior to the May 1932 allegation of witness as much as the latter .

The fourth person, Eugenio Pacelli,with his second rank in the Church and his proximity to the installation of the murderous Hitler effected by the two other persons, Papen and Kaas, could be isolated as encompassing a colder contumate transgression of the magisterium. This person defined the Church policy for his leader and co-ordinated its implementation downwards to the other two persons. In terms of modern crime against humanity, rank and orders are not considerd legitimising factor. This person himself in his youth had worked to define the Law by his own intellectual design and equally was completely aware of the approved murderer's methods of operation . His contumacy is as utter as his design and impementation of approval for the chosen of the tyrants .

The murder was politico-religious in both perpetrators , and the murder committed was defined mostly by the character of the victims belief. In the former approved murderer there was a central racial element transcending belief, which whilst not absent from the latter, was not its central characteristic. Both murderers , Hitler , and Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Joseph Stalin) are considered by their numbers of victims to be in the first rank of human mass murder. It is notable that the former approved murderer refused any possibility of redemption in this world to those he classed by racial means, whereas the latter more generally defined his victims as transgressors for whom in-human work could hold worldly redemption. Some few returned to tell the tale. In the case of the approved tryrant only rare escape or armed liberation released the victims from death .

The Church which contributed to the success of great murder by its approval and empowerment acted through the person of Ludwig Kaas in a Parliament, the Reichstag of the German Empire called Republic. Recognition of the act of Ludwig Kaas in this democratic parliament as contumate breaking of the magisterium, is not canonically dependent upon non-canonical political evaluation, justification or judgement. The breaking of the magisterium is expressed by this person on the very day that he chose to empower that which he knew to be canonically and magisterially criminal. The action of Ludwig Kaas is even if judgementally un-relateable to the remaining character, von Papen, relateable through the clear definition of Canon Law to the two other high personages. In Canon Law the prelate acted under the overall canonical responsibility administering him as pure agent for the will of the magisterium as pontificated by both persons. His position in political life was canonically defined and accepted as such by all three.

The fourth person, von Papen, at his trial, effectively said that he was obeying orders from the highest person. He countered the prosecutions charge that the Concord he effected between the Church and the approved tyrant was a maneuver designed to deceive, by purely passing such charge to the top, which by then was the previous second rank. Neither then nor now does the Institution which is so embodied accept any exterior temporal sovereignty but that of its Magisterium. Von Papen's contumacy is the least , whereas his political equivalent is the greatest, arising from his crucial manipulation of temporal forces, particularly through arranging banking for the approved tyrant.

The justifications for the contumacy of the highest persons reside,despite the War Trials mentions, in a necessity for the defence of the Institution of the Church (a prime canonical requirement). The publicised charges, made ever since, reside in accusation that the Institution of the Church was placed above the protection of the church as a human group: necessity to preserve the teachings of the faith in the Magisterium took precedence over the human danger from approval towards a murderer . One part of the Magisterium was contumately up-ended to further a lesser canonical requirement. 

               ___________________________________________

In Wikipedia the charge against me is that as member of it as a body or community, I describe the historical temporal reflections of the abstract magisterial transgression. By this, the Wikipedia as a body is relying on its own new type of manageing canonicals or Laws. These are extensive but purely relate to that which is known temporally, and that which is apparent opinion. This is the magisterium of the Wikipedia, thus the characterisation that I own to the latter is the most serious charge possible. The charge is supported by note of my supposed opinion concerning a cross-over of the actual canonical Law into the intellectual magisterium of the Wikipedia: I charged that members of Wikipedia who are members of the Church or church are foremost the members of the latter. I did so in recognition of the primacy for even Wikipedia members of the church Magisterium and Canon Law.

I answer this charge firstly by referring the body of the Wikipedia to the specific definition and requirement upon the body of its members by the church. This as clearly now, as in 1932-3, legally requires its body to that same defence of the Church as Institution. The very reasons publicised clearly only since the War Trials, by being so published, contradict the first part of the Wikipedia charge.

Wikipedia canonicals estimate secondly the assumption and practice of good faith amongst its body . In so far as I have to answer for transgressing this, I counter that this very Wikipedia canonical requires me to take as good faith the claims of adherence to the body of the church made to me by those who so do. Wikipedia may be unaware of the Church's Canon Law, but such a member of the church is not free and centrally must accept that all Law, even in Wikipedia, is supersceded by the Church's Canon Law. In good faith it is accepted by such members, in good faith it was claimed to me and in good faith do I accept the statements of adherence made to me .

A third Wikipedia canonical requires Civility from me . In so far as I have interacted with the body of the church through a representative upon Wikipedia , my notice of the subject's defence of the Church, if that is what it has appeared to me to be, is done through repeated positive congratulation to this subject of the church. My own temporal nature does not reside in any canonical foundations but those that have been normally filtered through classicism and christendom to what are termed Western. The only body to which I have ever tried to accord any type of canonical allegiance is the Wikipedia itself.

The other major canonical-type foundation of Wikipedia is verifiability of information prior to its inclusion, and I seem to have run into most dispute in this canon, which can be qualified by detrimental qualifications made by editors about certain sources. At the very start of my contributions to Wikipedia I warned that the gravity of the witness to this scandalous history would ,if disparaged , need thorough quotation in thereby fair-use of copyrights. A consostent attempt to rubbish the nature of the sources and of the proofs has indeed forced me to so use quotations at a rather greater length than editors who are re-writing already composed ex-Brittanica articles.

In this forthcoming Wikipedia Trial I am threatened with censure and particularly a form of partial or complete excommunication from its body or community. Remarkably this is the exact penalty foreseen under Canonical Law as penalty against the four persons whose trangressions I noted in Wikipedia. Alternatively I can only foresee a difficult situation where the Wikipedia chosen appointed might represent that indeed the notces I have made are justified under Wikipedia canonicals. To do so would inevitably place the Wikipedia in some opposition to continued prevarication in the Church which is still delaying the required censure and Canonical regularisation of its members so noted.|Of course, due to the novelty of attributing Canon Law to past events, the actual subject I speak of here, is considered against another Wikipedia canon, which prohibits original research. However, what is not aceptible is that upon so influential an organ as Wikipedia, that information can rest in contradiction with itself, as it currently does. Qualification as to history on one article can completely negate information on another, and someone who attempts to redress such error when it touches upon a body so central to people's beliefs as the Church, ends in my case with many accusations of, particularly. obsessional behaviour. Unfortunately we all have differeing levels of understanding and knowledge , and I know that none who are set up to judge me , would be likely to spot the contradictions still present as I write.

Consequent on a dismissal of the charge made against me, of presenting a theory as opposed to facts and source, subsequent attention would have to be paid in the so far small Institution of the Wikipedia as to how its membership position their allegiance to the two sets of canonicals so far mentioned. The Wikipedia may have to confront several more such contradictions with other out-side Institutions of humanity, some of whom go further than excommunication by way of censure. In so far as Wikipedia builds a body of adherents to its canonicals, it builds itself laws and that which is notable in Wikipedia is noticed now by probably all organised bodies or Institutions of humanity, whether these are cellular reflection of central Law, as in some human agglomerative bodies, or pyramidal as in the case of the Church.

I believe the only solution for the Wikipedia is to elevate rational Kantian Truth beyond that which is considered a neutral good faith civil point of view . That, Wikipedia has to place itself legally into the same construction of law that humanity is in the process of designing, and certainly not in contradiction with rationality. However one further canon of Wikipedia concerns the proscription of Legal threats. This is a canon of Wikipedia that I am guilty of breaking , even if in good faith. I did this by remarking that such and such an opinion would be classed as proscribed in certain western countries , and by here repeating the canonical threat against actual persons, even dead ones,that they are are, by Canon Law, to be declared post factoas having made themselves guilty at the offence . This I have always referred to in Wikipedia under the title The Question of the Law . continues

Trial,Pseudonymity,Reckless Disregard, Kant and Law

[edit]
  • 1)"The state court accepted the company's explanation that it was not in a position to reveal its identity without risking "irreparable harm," and allowed it to proceed anonymously until the defendants had been found out.
"With this preliminary victory the company then proceeded to get an official sub poena against America Online (AOL) to reveal the names of four defendants who had AOL accounts. AOL refuted the anonymous plaintiff's right and after losing in the Virginia trial court approached the Supreme Court of Virginia where it got a favourable ruling.
"The AOL lawyers successfully argued that sub poena powers of a party to a suit must be subject to public scrutiny except in rare circumstances." from http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020204/login/main7.htm,[[104]] (fair use)


  • "(6) Doe made the statement with actual malice (he either knew it was false or acted in reckless disregard of the truth).
The last architecture integrates the previous two by assigning the default liability to ISPs but allowing users to digitally sign their content to assume liability. With this combination, ISPs are able to partition the burden of liability between themselves and the users by instituting policies that require their users to sign. from http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/classes/6.805/admin/admin-1998/conf-details/topic8-libel.html,[[105]]
cont."A basic tenet of the law is that liability should be assigned to the party who is the least-cost-avoider of a particular harm. In fact liability should be assigned to the party best able to ensure the maximum benefit, while avoiding the harm at least cost. In this context harm is the defamatory speech and the magnitude of the harm is measured partly by the audience the speech reaches. The total cost of the speech is the mitigated harm plus the sum of the cost of the mitigation, publication, and research necessary to ensure accuracy of the speech. The total benefit of the speech is the value to the consumer (what they are willing to pay).
"The overall benefit to society is the total benefit minus the total cost.

Real space defamation law has molded itself around these costs and benefits and designed rules which maximize the overall benefit to society. The law has taken a two-pronged approach to designing these rules. The first prong is the least-cost-avoider. ....Therefore the publisher is assigned liability.......... This dynamic changes in cyberspace as the publisher may no longer be the least-cost-avoider......... Distributors (whether they be ISPs or others) now have electronic versions of the content they distribute. These can be manipulated and searched to quickly and efficiently find offending material............There is a tension between the knowledge of the author (how much research he did, what he believes the accuracy of the information to be) and the great resources of the ISP, which are difficult to apply individually to every author. The Internet public may also be able to mitigate the harm. If a PICS-like system were implemented to rate the reliability of certain sites, defamatory speech could quickly be labeled as such and ignored. [fair use] Any discussions are on talk page ....

  • "Although defamation in the United States has changed substantially over the years, it is now fairly well-established. For today?s plaintiff to prevail in a defamation action, he must prove publication of the defamatory statement, identification of the plaintiff, falsity, defamatory content, injury and fault.12 If the plaintiff is a public official or public figure and the subject matter is a matter of public concern, or if the plaintiff is a private individual seeking punitive damages for a statement involving a matter of public concern, he must prove actual malice to establish the fault element."

[cont.]"They must prove the defendant publisher acted with actual malice, which it defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.........In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court extended the actual malice standard to public figures,10 and held that private individuals must prove actual malice only when trying to obtain punitive damages in a case dealing with a matter of public concern..........Actual malice is a subjective determination of the publisher's state of mind with regard to the falsity of his statement at the time of publication, and the Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff has a right to inquire into that state of mind. [by Allison Styles http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0004.html,[[106]]:Fair Use

  • "....Clarke (1997b) summarises the importance of personal identification as follows:
...Pseudonymity is the use of a false name. "...anonymity and pseudonymity are not inherently linked to antisocial behaviour.
"3) Untraceable pseudonymity: a continuous identity or persona allows communication with a correspondent but there is no way to link the pseudonym to the correspondent's real-world identity.
4) Traceable pseudonymity: someone, somewhere has the information required to complete the link between a pseudonym and a real-world identity.
"...In discussions of whether society ought to restrict anonymity and pseudonymity, a common argument is that these modes of communication are necessary to fight tyrannical corporate and political institutions. Anonymity and pseudonymity are, in this view, expressions of the right to privacy.
"...At an intellectual level, stripping the authors of published materials of all details of their age, sex, race, national origin and other attributes can reduce the effects of prejudice and focus discussion on substance. Absent such details, correspondents must perforce focus on the texts rather than on personalities (Froomkin, 1996).
"...In a legal sense, anonymity and pseudonymity are analogous to limited liability
"...We therefore see that anonymity and pseudonymity cannot reasonably be forbidden without the loss of important benefits to individuals, corporations and society at large.

"...Returning to [omitted]our example of the benefits of having a professor communicate with a student because of anonymity, one can point out that misrepresentation of identity by such an undergraduate manipulates a professor into a decision based on a falsehood (Detweiler, 1993).

"...Jurisprudence in the United States has generally supported claims to a right of anonymity in political speech. However, there have been several precedents where anonymity used to cloak socially harmful acts has been stripped from the perpetrators. Perfect (untraceable) anonymity prevents society from bringing sanctions to bear on malefactors (Post, 1995).
"...Without the consent of the governed, state power fades insensibly into state tyranny. In their requirements analysis of possible systems of governance of cyberspace, they [ David Post and David Johnson] add that wherever possible, those affected by the conduct to be regulated have some say in framing the regulations.
"...Research on self-organisation of complex systems suggests that optimum configurations of constraints (regulations) can evolve when there is some degree of aggregation (they refer to "patches") in the population. These aggregates represent groups where individuals sacrifice some of their preferences in return for overall improvement in the way the whole society works. Members of a patch share responsibility for governing their behaviour.
"..., a balance between bringing consequences to bear on individuals in a "patch" and allowing effects to propagate through the larger population leads to more optimal results in the system.
"...Access for communication becomes a form of currency in such a model

[cont.]

"Approaches to Ethical Decision Making
Is there something you or others would prefer to keep quiet?
Are there "shushers" in the situation? Who wants to keep things quiet?
Does it pass the Mom Test: Would you tell her? Would she do it?
Does it pass the TV Test: Would you tell a nationwide audience?
Does it pass the Market Test: Could you advertise the activity to gain a market edge?
Does your instinct tell you that something is wrong?
Does it pass the Smell Test: Does the situation "smell"?
Ethical Principles
Rights and Duties (deontology)
Are any rights abridged?

[selection:]

The right to know
The right to privacy

[cont.]

For information professionals in particular:
Maintain confidentiality
Maintain impartiality
Kant's Categorical Imperative
The principle of consistency: What if everyone acted this way?
The principle of respect: Are people treated as ends rather than means?

[cont.]

Does the act violate the Golden Rule? This question refers to a principle sometimes expressed as, "Do not do to others what you would not have done to you."
..One approach to evaluating the ethical dimensions of a proposed act is to look at the possible consequences of the act. Does the action minimise actual and potential harm?
...Utilitarianism views decisions in terms of what is good for the group or does the least harm for the group. The question here is the inclusivity of the "group." If the group includes all users and potential users of the defective product, then posting the information serves a good purpose;
...An altruistic approach to decisions accepts that what is good for all may be worth doing even if there is some harm to me. By this yardstick, posting a warning with full attribution is definitely the preferred way of communicating information about a problem.

[Cont.] Kant's Categorical Imperative

...The principle of consistency asks, "What if everyone acted this way?" ...In contrast, an empathic and ethical person remembers that every group consists of individual human beings with pretty much the same range of feelings as anyone else.
...a recent Supreme Court case, McIntyre v. Ohio, in which the justices ruled that the right to anonymity extends beyond political speech; that requiring someone to add their name to a leaflet is unconstitutional; that writing can be more effective if the speaker's identity is unknown.
Concluding remarks [selected]
There are circumstances where anonymity and pseudonymity are useful tools in the defence of liberty and justice.
Corporations and other organisations ought to integrate ethical decision-making into their management procedures.
Finally, a new discussion group has recently been established for discussions of anonymity and pseudonymity. For more information, see < http://www.well.com/~declan/nym/ >. To join, send the message "subscribe nym" to < email:majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu >.

From:by M. E. Kabay, PhD, CISSP Assoc. Prof. Information Assurance Division of Business and Management Norwich University, Northfield VT

Copyright (c) 1998, 2004

M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved.

http://www2.norwich.edu/mkabay/overviews/anonpseudo.htm[[107]]{fair use/eductional)

When I quoted this I had no idea that there was a class Action Suit against Wikipedia.

The End

[edit]

`All righty, now that we've kicked that nuisance out, let's open a ladies' clothes shop!' (un-sourced , out of the considerable respect it deserves. Bye bye from EffK etc(as I may not even be allowed to edit this page. They want to hang on to my POV mind elsewhere too-so all I could possibly come back to do , is further evidence the malicious defamations which will doubtless re-appear. I may well have to itemise them on my User discussion page, where I may well be allowed to so do). EffK 16:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

==

Wikipedian Bengalski

[edit]

I would like to thank you for coming to help me. Demiurge is a known censor on issues as diverse as

  • American domestic terrorism which he demolished even after it was run by him for his own approval because of the negative implications for Irish-Americans in the 1863 Draft Riots, the 1910 bombing of the Los Angeles Times Building, and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 3 worst incidents of domestic terrorism in U.S. history, all of which were carried out or spearheaded by Irish-Americans.
  • pre-Code Hollywood movies and the R.C. censorship of same for more than 30 years, which he attempted to gut because of the negative publicity for the Catholic church, and was only stopped by another third-party Wikipedian, who caught him at the time.

Demiurge's associates always back him up, but he carries censorship in his very DNA, and it is always his first instinct.

He is an automatic censor and it bodes very ill for Wikipedia that he continues to get away with his relentless censorship and mindless reverting of "blocked" (who are not blocked) alleged unproven "sockpuppet vandals".

Thanks again for having my back.

Please advise all Wikipedians you can about this menace to our free speech.

Brandubh Blathmac 16:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth Griffith

[edit]

Help!! Censor Demiurge is at it again, gutting my work for ludicrous reasons. Please help and bring this matter to the attention of some one in power!! This censor must be stopped.

Just compare his and my versions.

THANKS!!

Brandubh Blathmac 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just got your comment.

Fair enough, but I think there are more than sufficient citations/sources (newspaper name and date of edition); IMDb, etc.

It's just that this guy won't stop censoring; he is out of control, and the less he is challenged the more censoring and manipulating of data he is going to do!! It's as simple as that. I don't know if he is a paid censor from an outside source, or what.

Thanks anyway for listening. Brandubh Blathmac 18:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bengalski&oldid=68194344"