User talk:LtDoc

Use of the word American

Your comment on the article Use of the word American appeared in the article, instead of the talk page. I went ahead and moved it. -Acjelen 20:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. My mistake.LtDoc 22:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page etiquette

Good evening. I was trying to follow the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive ("U.S." or "American"). While I think you might have some interesting points, I have to tell you that when you interweave your comments among the comments of others, it becomes impossibly hard for anyone else to follow the conversation. It disrupts the logical flow of the other person's argument and it destroys the attribution (since you've broken the connection between the comment and the signature). If you feel you must rebut someone's comment point-for-point, the normal protocol is to start below the last comment in that thread, summarize their points and interweave your comments into the summary, leaving the original comments intact.

As a courtesy, I tried to do that with your most recent comments but I finally had to delete my attempt without saving it. I just couldn't be sure I was staying true to the spirit of your argument. Could I ask you to please return to the page and refactor your comments so the rest of us will be able to follow and participate in the discussion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist a cheap shot about my BS tag. Thanks as always for elevating the level of the debate.

As for your intentions for the "argument," feel free. There is no argument, just you personally attacking anyone who disagrees with you (see above). I won't be visiting the page again. it's all yours. John FitzGerald 21:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I posted a long and confused entry here. I realize now it was confused because I posted it shortly after having a medical test for which I was given sedatives. It really wasn't helpful or representative of what I really think. One thing I did say in it which I believe, though, is that I thought we could pursue the issue less acrimoniously by dealing with one issue at a time. Which is what I've set out to do, as you see in the next post.

One thing I will clarify here, though – I wasn't bullshitting about maccarthysme not being offensive regardless of what the first syllable means in French. That's just a fact. There may be a cultural difference here. It reminded me of some of the problem's with baseball player's nicknames. Roberto Clemente used to be called Bob Clemente by sportswriters and announcers until they learned he objected to it because it was too close to bobo. To an English-speaking North American this is unheard of – people named Rick don't object because it's close to prick, for example.

Of course, people started calling him Roberto nevertheless, which raises the question of why we aren't equally accommodating about your request. I think an issue of reciprocity is involved in your request, though, which is the first point I raise back ar the other page. Mr. Clemente was a mensch and would have been as willing to accommodate other people. John FitzGerald 21:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of discussion

Okay – I decided to continue the debate by focussing on one issue at a time. My first question to you is posted. John FitzGerald

Seems to be working, eh?

Compact of Free Association POV claim

I have disagree with your claim that this line in the Compact of Free Association article: "The freely associated states are all dependent on U.S. financial assistance to meet both government operational and capital needs." is POV. Instead, this is a well known fact. In an article that was written after Compact II for RMI and FSM was approved, it was said:

"Compact II," which extends U.S. funding to the two Pacific countries for the next 20 years, provides about US$3.5 billion. The agreement, which also allows the U.S. to continue using Kwajalein Atoll as missile tracking site, is meant to gradually wean the Marshalls and the FSM off of U.S. support over the course of 20 years – a goal that some close observers have called wishful. (the emphasis is mine).

The quote proves that these islands are dependent on Compact cash.

Source: http://archives.pireport.org/archive/2003/December/12-18-01.htm

Here's another article: http://166.122.164.43/archive/1998/August/08-17-01.htm.

This article is an interview with the guy who knows his stuff about these Compacts. He calls them a failure because nothing was done in '86 to make sure FSM and RMI would be able to generate cash for themselves. In summary: Is this line POV? NO! - Thanks, Hoshie | 01:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2003 invasion of Iraq

Could you please take a look at the talk page? 84.59.102.68 14:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki:pt

Olá LtDoc,

Eu reparei que está a contribuir em artigos relacionados com a lusofonia e gostaria de convidá-lo para participar na Wikipédia em português, actualmente temos mais de 135 mil artigos. Sua ajuda será muito bem vinda.

Se por acaso tiver algum problema ou dúvida deixe uma mensagem na minha página de discussão.

Continue com esse bom trabalho,

Rei-artur 22:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]