Famekeeper Archive

This is an archive of comments posted to my talk page by or about User:Famekeeper and edit wars over articles such as Pope Pius XII, Ludwig Kaas, and Catholic Centre Party. It now also includes comments posted to article talk pages.

RfC

Dear Robert,

Thanks for having a look into the Pius-related articles.

I agree with you on civility and witiquette and am trying to keep my frustration to myself. The dispute between Famekeeper (under this and previous nicks) and myself (mainly, but also fellow historian John Kenney has been involved) is quite manifold:

1) a dispute about historical facts:

He believes in a conspiracy between the Vatican (namely Pius XI and Eugenio Pacelli) and Prelate Kaas of putting Hitler into power in exchange for a concordat. I have challenged this monocausal view and elaborated on the various stages on the Centre Party's policy towards Hitler (I did a big overhaul of the Centre article, as well as Kaas). There is no clear evidence for a Vatican involvement, except for a casual reference in a 1968 book by the journalist Mowrer which speaks of a letter from Pacelli to Kaas. I think that's a very thin basis but eventually, after checking the book, have agreed to include it into the Centre article, though not in the prominent fashion that FK would have it and not in his wording, since he is overinterpreting it (e.g. "making Hitler chancellor" becomes "assist Hitler to power", with the addition "in every way necessary").

2) the question what talk pages are for:

Wiki rules say they are for editing discussions, not for unrelated discussion and certainly not to be used as soapboxes. I agree with that (though I'm no purist on the 'unrelated' bit, but one can go too far). FK however thinks he an use them to spread his message and to appeal to the Vatican. IMHO he should write a letter for that purpose.

3) questions of morality and canonical law

Though this is off-topic to the articles, I have replied to his claims, which in my opinion are no valid. He uses the "canonical law" question to spill the issue over to other pages, e.g. Benedict XVI, Theology of Benedict XVI - this is how I first came across him. If he wants to discuss them - in reasonable limits, not to disturb wiki editing - that's o.k., but IMHO it should be done at one place.

The Hitler's Pope dispute is a bit different. It seems FK has created this page to post his "message" after opposition (not only by me) at Pius XII.

I agree with your assessment of what this article should be about, though I don't agree with Cornwell. But I don't object to an entry about this book, as you described it, rendering Cornwell's line of argument (but clearly marked as his thought, e.g. "Cornwell accuses Pius of anti-semitism in 1917" and not "Pius was an antisemite in 1917" - to name Cornwell's most serious blunder) and then discussion of pros and cons.

Maybe you can contribute to that, since you have read the book.

Thanks for your effort. Str1977 18:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert, thanks for all your efforts trying to find a solution and also for your kind posts.

Though we migh disagree about this and that (and about what is another question - maybe not about that much: we agree that there were moral errors, the disagreement is about which ones) I agree that it is possible to respectfully disagree. I have respectfully disagreed with many people (inside and outside of wiki) and I can and will do the same in your case. I (and others) have also tried to do the same with FK but to no avail. It's hard to even argue with someone who claims his POV is no POV and who claims that his (or rather his sources') interpretation of historical events is no interpretation, but history as such. To rephrase it: We have sources about historical events and we can reconstruct these events (to some extent). These events are dots on a white paper and some historians are connecting these dots this way and other that way and still others a third way. And discussion of these different views is valid and needed. FK draws connections between the dots too, but then he claims that the connecting lines he (or the books he cites, but unfortunately he misquotes them quite often) has drawn was there in the sources.

Yes, we agree about "conspiracy theory". Of course, there were real conspiracies, but there is a reason why we generally are skeptical about those theories. And despite FK's reiterated statement that he is not monocausalistic and only leaves other causes to other people, he definitely overstates his case and he does it everywhere (e.g. on The Holocaust - see his change at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19460820&oldid=19423159 and the following revisions).

I haven't been posting much lately since I'm quite busy on other things, but when I find the time I will look (and write) into the Hitler's Pope entry.

"Famekeeper is making the talk pages of articles with which he has an issue unusable by filling them with his soapboxing."

That's exactly my problem with him. Maybe I never would have run into him if he hadn't posted a section called "The Question of the Law" from the Pius XII talk page over to the Benedict XVI page and the Theology of Benedict XVI page and so on. This post was hardly comprehensible even in its original context, let alone on other pages. After I found out about this cross posting I deleted the post where it was off topic to which FK shouted censorship. If you had witnessed our exchanges you would have noticed that they were hardly on the articles themselves, but on the talk pages and on what they are for and on questions acutally not relating the wiki articles (e.g. the canon law issue).

"I think that this will just continue and expand unless he can be dealt with."

I'm afraid so.

"I think that we are in agreement on far more than we are in disagreement with."

Yes, I think so.

"I know that Famekeeper is misquoting me, so I assume that he is misquoting Cornwell."

He is not only misquoting you, he is also misquoting me, Kaas, Pius XI (encyclical Dilectissima Nobis), wikipedian John Kenney. He also misrepresents some of the books he quotes, e.g. Klemperer, Lewy and even Mowrer.

"I told Famekeeper to drop it about his self-excommunication tirade. He says that he is being told to drop all issues."

Yes, I have experienced that too. He is very liberal in dishing out but very sensitive in receiving. I don't think "It is more blessed to give than to receive." was meant that way.

"Could you please visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper and either sign it or revise it and sign it or indicate what you think needs to be corrected?"

I agree with your summary as it gives the main problems with him and have signed it.

Thank you.

Str1977 09:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famekeeper Meddling

Or Meddling with Famekeeper . Your expertise is being abused , I say run for your life from that argument though I'm holding a rag to take the sweat . If you came in cause of what's on this page , you might have been abused . Str1977 is incredible ... like ? Pius XI is off-topic to Hitler's Pope ? ... Look again at the top line of the discussion . The persuasion that led you to remove Pius XI on 00.48 , 23 July 2005 is regretful and wrong and is cruelly POV . And, Look at 4 May 2005 editing for Pius XII to see self evident massage .

Look , I know you've been had , Str1977's user button perhaps fooled you ,meaning my own stupid excess . I'm sorry and I still think he's an agency .But Kenny POV'd Ludwig Kaas on 23 April and was in error to boot with "centre...was dissolved. " . He fell into Hitler's old trap- what looks legal is legal . Otherwise he's a pretty fine fellow. Never forgave me tho ..

I did actually do what u asked on Kaas, but I get a lot of Microsoft pop ups of error and , it got ate . Also it has to be a pure analysis of adjectival massage and I feel that in the dicussions , my actual sourcing can deserve enough respect from you , to be read and show the real POV problem .

I think I don't want to cause you any more trouble , but I think you have to back out of this as fast as you can . I ain't POV , I just explain deeply and boringly . The attack is completely wrong and because it is wrong , ie I ain't using POV , I can't be other than seen to have been baited and provoked by Str1977's remiss behaviour and insults to me , to the history , to the liberal democrats , to Cornwell. He was vicious about Cornwell .

I mean it , such revisionism as appears with "electoral success" on Holocaust is bordering on a prosecutable crime . I mean I could go to a court and make Jimmy Wales hand over his IP address , maybe , and DO him/her/them - it's literally a crime in Germany to deny or pervert the history . Run for your life , editor, from the revisionist(s) who will besmirch all you wish to stand for . I will/do forgive you what is not yet too aggressive, but already reprehensible . Put back Hitler's Pope to rights, and get wise to what's really being done on WP, help me while you still have life to do so , I'll take an un-civility rap , with extenuating circs, but otherwise it's tough and it'll get tougher still . You should change tactics and support me on Pope's Hitler , if you are fair to yourself and others as you claim . Kenny ought to jump ship too . I'm sorry Famekeeper 15:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famekeeper, it would be best if you did not accuse anyone who disagreed with you of holocaust denial, and threaten wikipedia with prosecution. The role of the Catholic Church in Hitler's rise to power is a matter for historical debate. And my name is spelled "Kenney." john k 19:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that FK (yes you may call me STR) is misinformed about German law. It is a crime to deny that the shoa took place, it is a crime to use the "Hitlergruß" or the swastika or the SS rune or related/adapted symbols in public. That's about it.

I'm in no way in danger of running into conflict with these laws as there is nothing i despise more than Nazism, for moral, political and personal reasons. That's why I am so upset when elements of that despicable ideology are being revived nowadays, though under liberal guise. And hence my insistence on historial accucary in the matter of Pius XII. IMHO, here is someone who, despite all flaws and errors, saw that evil very early and did what he could do to save Jews. But he gets slandered for it ever since that lousy play by Hochhuth (I wonder what he did in 1943?), often by people who advocate the aforementioned elements (why does my Chancellor's name suddenly spring to my mind?).

That's not to say that there shouldn't be historical debate on all this, you're right on this John.

Str1977 19:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You killed off Hochluth at 07.22 on 4 May . I wondered why you didn't feel the need to go back to Pius XII anymore. You did it all on 4 may, gave him a Swedish massage (sorry to Sweden) . I disputed quite openly , etc . Stinks , old man , makes you look like you are old Ratzinger , your bit here . Of course , you could still come clean, on my canonical grounds, and stop helping the excommunicated up there . ----

oye-Str ? Where was it old Mowrer mentions the church investments in heavy industry (Rhenish Magnates? stocks? ) that Hochluth used later, I don't have the time you seem to have to check . I'll get it yet though you could help .

Sorry Robert if this fills up your space.

I didn't delete the Hochhuth (Learn to spell!), that was someone else.

What is this? More kindness from your Royal Kindness?

Unfortunately I am never near the intellectual weight of Benedict XVI.

If you want to help, then pray to God - for me, for them and don't forget yourself. Prayer is never in vain.

I don't know where Mowrer said that or whether he said that and I won't look it up for you.

I don't know about investments - but Industrial Magnates are real guys and there were no priests among them.

Str1977 21:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm follows

I have very little idea what Famekeeper is saying above. I am not sure what he means when he says that my expertise is being abused. I did not claim expertise. He apparently thinks that I am being misled as to people's motives. I am not making judgments about motives. Wikipedia policy says to assume good faith, so that I assume that the primary motive is the search for historical truth, something that can only be found stepwise. I have no idea why he is saying that John Kenney and I should "run" or "jump ship", unless he really thinks that we are about to hauled into German courts. I have not seen any German police driving the Capital Beltway any time recently. Interesting.

Str1977: How much does the Vatican pay you for rewriting history, or do they only pay you in indulgences (of a sort that were anathematized at Trent)? Robert McClenon 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to Trent makes me fear you are another church stooge . How did you come into this- and why didn't you give a straight answer to my straight question about your history starting so soon before you jumped in as mediator-type . Bit fishy , smell coming digitally thru here . Please answer both questions so I can maintain' good faith etc...Famekeeper 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are blind if you still think this, or you don't bother to read the may day history and all to do with it . Whole point is that Str won't allow step-wise good faith. Drives me to the inordinate lengths you notice, but not me, guv, it ain't . He pushed me provocation , breaking good faith .

Dear ol' FK, as always, cannot take a joke!

Inquisting on other editors from day one. Calling for outside help and when it arrives, people are questioned: where are you from, how long have you been here, what is you IP, what is your social security number, etc.

You don't need anything to maintain good faith, you are obliged to good faith by wikipedia law. - But silly me forgot: You are beyond that law.

Str1977 21:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think you can get away with this (breaking of good faith in your editing by ignorng and reverting references made in good faith )? Str, I checked arbitration, and it is mostly designed for inter-personal disputes, just like us two have . And McClenon , I'm telling you you will regret what you are doing which is to ignore the bad faith visible in the dispute , and your aid to the deeply POV. I still haven't got the will to think Str you are stupid- I can't in all honesty see that , though the english assistant helps. Maybe you are married to a native speaker, or maybe it is the agency , the effect is the agency (May 4 th Pius XII folks..) POV . sant Piu the new . McC , your expertise you wax on yourself- but don't keep POV company is my advice . Turn back and utterly RV your actions out of this POV trap you are in. I can be accused of POV , but not shown to be so , so as you saw , it's really all over bar the apologies and some crawling . I don't mind provocation , continue digging all of you . I claim provocation and un-justified user conduct . Turn back , as we are all known by our mark here . Please have the good faith , Str to simply own up that it is not my POV and not a POV at all but is the history . Or don't , as this helps the world to remember. McC - I could point you to a coupla feet of us two where we deal precisely with why the church cannot turn back , and therein is the real problem . Its FK against the vatican, whether you like it or not . Or I .I bet Mowrer likes it , who left the seed to grow in 1969 .

Outrageous Str- I proved the quote from that encyclical . I'm not giving you the credit to keep you on the holocaust page , either. And you know we are not allowed Jokes here , so no reference to Brian .

McC your self -serving "history and Follow up is out-rageous . You came is a a mediator type(your vaunted expertise) and obviously didnt read why I was stressed . Thats bad faith because you did not do the required minimum . if I am obtuse in my stress , I am provoked by Str . And you are full of mistakes , two you own up to in an inch . turn back ...Pjacobi saw two things strange in his inch ... turn ..Famekeeper 22:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes poor FK, it's all a badfaithbasedconspiracy against you. And BTW, you did not prove anything from that encyclica other than your ability to misrepresent. It was about something completely different. And after I've heard some "oye"s I must ask: Are you Spanish? Sorry to Robert again for filling up his space. Str1977 22:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lost but re-writing . I did and I'll dig it out from where it's at . were talking church sees no difficulty in relation to ..da da, monarchy aristocracy and everything leaning towards un-critical acceptance of Hitlerism .

Yes , correct it was another 24 , it was 24 63 73 25 and came in with your total of eleven edits that night and morning of 4 may , which swiped the slate clean ,said I wondered why you didnt attack it again . I disputed the result publicly as I knew how and ever since take you for the POV wizard . FK SOMETIME SOMEDAY

And I say again: There's nothing wrong with working with the government in existence, no matter what form of government, as long as it respects natural law. Pius XI said and I say so too. If you disagree that's your prerogative but then don't you ever ever ever complain about church interference into politics. You can't have both. Str1977 23:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am gonna upload a "shortest explanation" for the death of democracy , for people to undertand the period 6 Nov to 5 Mar to 23 Mar to clarify the history . I think Str and evceryone should be allowed to agree or disagree preparatory to its acceptance and use of it wherever necessary . McC , I will return specifically to the Kaas /church issue as is needed , and as you remind me . The critique of the article as is , will not lead to much joy , so raher than criticise it , I shall hope to either arrive at a two-sided parallel of dual interpretation with Str , or just trouble . I will explain starting now . I will happily stop analysing editorial motive , if it stops blocking the viwpoint history provides ME . I will not prevent labelled conclusions, justification, or analysis from the church's side , simply require that I represent what is in the books . Since you are perhaps not able to see even where to put this preparatory "shortest explanation " , and since Hitler's Pope only can deal with one of several parties to the democratic history , it is not there . The Pope's Hitler page whatever happens to that is sourced proofs the which ,if I am endlessly dis-believed , need presence . The sources obviously can be placed anywhere : you took Pjacobi's point, and see that even a title is a minefield. I'm thinking I'll re-start on Enabling Act as the central pivot, . Famekeeper 08:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enabling Act

Please go to the discussion page, Enabling Act or my homepage to read the "End or Weimar" Famekeeper Summary. Soon I shall do Kaas , again . Famekeeper 15:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McC, what says Str ?Famekeeper 00:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert, could you please have a look at FK's edits on Pope Pius XII (still unchekced by me) and at my edits (after his) at Ludwig Kaas (There are still minor uncertainties about facts (secretary)). Str1977 11:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, Robert, anytime you need. From a quick glance I though the introduction of a new super-section particuarly peculiar. Str1977 12:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enabling Act summary

What I see there is a reasonable summary of the events, at least if some of the events that are not documented in Wikipedia are doucmented in Shiver, who is the most complete source on the subject.

Thank you.

I do not see any material disagreement between that summary and anything in any existing Wikipedia article. I have no issue with having the summary posted somehow (with some grammatical assistance).

I think Famekeeper for presenting a statement of facts rather than a POV. Robert McClenon 00:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou , I don't mind the barbs , chum, thopugh given your high horse I think you are suggesting bad faith here and now yourself : rather than his usual POV-is what you suggest . Do I need to do what you do and build a case against you for the same trnsgressions . I had this from Str from the start and all the way thru ,. Now, for someone of your experience in electronic communities of 20 ish years , against my real world indignatiion at misrepresentation(Str1977), to do what you do is consciously RILING me , I suppose to make me exceed the boundaries . I note you doing this .AND my sex life is OK today as well, since you were alluding to it and my general miserable personality and lack of a life .

Listen , actually I don't take your word on whether or not it does accord, my Weimar , with your Weimar , so Ill check now on that statement . Nor does this all come from Shirer , and nor do I think you perhaps know whether Shirer is the most authoritative source . How he could still be when publishing in 1959, before the direct accusation by Mowrer , well , I don't know . Shirer is Shirer and it appears still necessary . Are you still accusing me of bad faith and POV? You yourself do your angle/side a disservice . Str could be better off without you . I plan to revisit your arrival -where I asked you a question about your history . Yoiu were not altogether open about that , hence my continuing questioning , I tthink even just this little point could be revealing .

It was Str1977 who needed to accept the timeline and the historical reference to the papacy , that the meetings even before the Enabling Act , the Hitler spech on 23 March 1933 in relation to the Holy See make it fair game to analyse the succeeding events of approbation and accord .

What turns out in fact is that more than I knew , the Enabling Act itself proves me correct in firstly asserting that the Concordat was with Hitler's regime as much as with Germany . Str constantly fought any such suggestion ,in talk even . Cost me extra -what you speciously call -filibuster to try and counter . The Enabling Act specifically allows for the power of "contracts " with foreign Governments ( such being the Holy See) without legislative approval . I see that in fact it does not allow for arrest of Reichstag figures . No . old man , you are quick and too quick to make your own claims . The presentation in the WP is pretty much wrong throughout in claiming there was some legal basis for the arrest of the Communists . These two points are so important that I shall have to repeat this .

Whats says Str?

Facts and dates re:Nazis

I love old Str , but have to recognise that he only goes strictly as far as that which will legally , perhaps , exonerate the vatican . In good faith I simply say that Str sticks at the fact that Kaas only negotiated at all after he met Franz von Papen , the then legal government (?) Foreign Secretary on the train , as if by accident , on 8/9 April 1933 . von Papen just then had been deputed by Hitler to negotiate , officially .

Papen then was vice chancellor in the first Hitler cabinet (the legal government) who could be used for special tasks - Hitler send him to Rome because he (Papen) was Catholic and formerly of the Centre Party and as a nobleman could "do" diplomacy. Foreign minister (already under Brüning and Schleicher) was still Konstantin von Neurath until he was replaced in the 1938 revirement by Ribbentrop. I don't believe Papen joined Kaas by chance, he obviously followed him to Munich to join him - but we don't know whether Kaas knew about that.

And yes, I hold that there were no concordat negotiations before Papen arrived in Rome. What Kaas discussed in Berlin we cannot know. Your sources don't warrant your claims. Str1977 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What say you as a electric community man to the 'MegaMemex' site , or the Humanitas Foundation , both of whom seem to run the same ever-growing or similar Holocaust Timelines . They quote for 24 march , day after the fateful vote by Kaas , that he travelled to Rome , to be hurriedly recalled for talks with Hitler on 31 March . They source this , as the same source named by Str , one Guenter Lewy as well as another , Bernhard von Bulow .The reading is that Kaas arrives that day and has the talks on April 2 . Elsewhere I have seen claims , records that these were private between Hitler and Kaas, and that this was very rare by then . He came straight from Rome to Hitler . Why would I disbelieve several sources ? Why can't Str who has the book, or had, actually deny my , the , longstanding accusation which runs contrary to his timeline . Look, this is a short little easy question . true or false . he cn maybe then get on to the further more interesting questions , and we can report some of these events and explain them as far as we can . simply to say that I completely mis-read a book , when I repeat to him that it is just a source for dates , I mean this is where its filibuster . Can you see this by any chance ? Would you challenge these other communities if Str calls them wrong ? They are the only types so far actually actively listing the ecclesiastical changes made re the Nazis at the time . Like , am I just the only hood-winked fool ? I have listed a number of books , by naame , and I have by no means relied for all the questions .edits on these timelines.Famekeeper 23:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Thank you for asking me to take comments to your talk page, so that we do not pollute the Holocaust talk page. Thank you for trying to give Famekeeper the links. However, what I think he is saying is that the article is dubious if it puts the blame for the Holocaust on the Nazi Party, and not on the Catholic Church. I think that he maintains that he has proof that is not POV that Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Ludwig Kaas, and the Centre Party (Germany) knowingly allowed Adolf Hitler to take power, knowing that there would then be genocide, because this was a small price to pay for defeating Communism. I think that is what he is trying to say, and I think he is trying to say that any disagreement with him is censorship. I also think that he is claiming that admins are blocking him from posting what he thinks is the truth. I am not sure what he is trying to say, because he can never say anything in three paragraphs. You may follow up on my talk page, or on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper. Robert McClenon 00:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence of connections between the Nazi Party and the Catholic Church. Also, I endorsed the outside view which suggests Famekeeper has some valid points. --AI 00:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weimar Republic

I'll be happy to be an arbitrator in this (the article), keep me posted. Wyss 08:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

belated reply

Gees, I seem to have spaced it for a while there and snapped out of it with a couple of notes on my talk page that I didn't see. Your may have been one of them. Anyway, thanks for the note. By the looks of your talk page, it appears you have attempted to taken a bite out of some problematic editors. All the best. FuelWagon 19:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was intended as a compliment to you specifically, and an observation about wikipedia in general. FuelWagon 04:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Pius XII

No, I'm afraid to say that I do not accept your editing of this article at all . Since you would simply make me repeat all my sourcing , I take this ill as the editing you have done is clearly POV because it does not accept the sources . I am blocked , by you McC .Famekeeper 09:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is my offer to Str on Pius etc: What-say-you to this: You get your strictly ecclesiastical article . We remove controversy out of it completely - but both ways. All Cornwell?Mowrer?Centre whatever OUT.

We remove all defence as exists OUT.

We leave it as strict biographical listing of his life , so it looks like any other Pope. All Concordat politics becomes only v briefest references, with no conclusions whatever either way political . Leaver it Only to cover canon law and that which the Reichskonkordat covered . No refs to Hitler controversy nor Kaas nor no one . No letters of accusation, no defence .

Then we agree between you and me , that you have a [See also: whatever defence page u title it.....

Equally I put a [see also:Hitler's Pope ] link .

Both to be prominently included at the point where the Concordat story is briefly touched upon . Pius X! will need however to have equal see also .How about that ? . I guess you ., McC, could agree to this too ?Famekeeper 11:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon.--Agiantman 19:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McC- I ask you to explain to me why your edit of 00.49 , 19 August upon the Hitler's Pope article is not dishonest ? I see that your description of your edit (rm) is this : removed much biographical material that is copied from Pope Pius XII , very heavy copy editing of very badly edited article . Much more cleanup is needed.

In the most civil terms I can muster , I ask you to explain how this qualification explains your removal of several important and full non -biographical Cornwell references ? I will expect an answer that addresses this actual question , not an answer to other questions , and not your current suggestion that what you removed now be re-inserted . You plainly were not removing "clearly biographical" information that " belonged in the biography " . It is not enough to say that this was a mistake - I can see no mistake , and I can see no justification for calling this surreptitious because mis-labelled removal a mistake .

You have not answered the short question I once previously asked you , which is how you knew to ask me about grave sin etc . The question I ask you here is very much easier - why should I not qualify your removal referred to as dis-honest ?

If you stick to this policy of it being a mistake , then I think you warrant attention solely as an editor who arrived upon the WP simply to create Rfc's , and not with any view to the designed expansion of the WP . In which case the above Rfc against you is thoroughly justified . People who actually work to create fuller understanding by real contributions are, then ,being abused by your presence ............... Famekeeper 20:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Double Action

I am still very interested in this question of yours McC :

Can you show me a canon that states that errors in dealing with double action (a difficult concept) are grave sins, warranting excommunication? Can you show me how you would address my reasonable doubts that the errors required excommunication.

This does require an answer , and as yet I do not even understand what double-action is . Perhaps you would explain a bit further ?

Oh! - and the bust is pretty (much bordering on the lustful!) Famekeeper 07:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question finally on Theology of Pope Benedict XVI . I wish you would answer questions though, to save me the necessity of behaving in your manner. I note your warnings to users around the place . I don't as yet feel I need to answer in kind , and perhaps if you would desist , I might never have to . I am sorry that you assume me to be somehow evil . Double action is the principle of double effect , and is a rule of conduct . I would like to think that logic would bring you to the position of understanding , and that I do not need to battle when it is unnecessary . Famekeeper 07:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is the list of conditions for when an act with a bad effect may be carried out, that you put on doctrine of double effect, going to present a copyright problem? It comes from [1], does it not? Is there permission to use it? Evercat 18:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should restate it. Thank you. Robert McClenon 18:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no getting away from this central issue of history. It is reckless disregard for falsity to act in this way, and for any other to defend it is equallly so WHOEVER does so. Book 'em, or walk away from social or(external religious) duty. Robert McClenon is not impartial , but only seeks to appear so, as he has consistently acted against EffK verifiability in the issue. There is only Tom Harrison here . You B, have only him to help you at this stage.EffK 17:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)Bengalski do you see good faith operating? bad faith rears its head. Bengalski, do you consider I enjoy this at the time that I am supoposed to be banned for disrupting talk pages? Are you aware yet of the seriousness of the concatentaion of events? It appears to me that , as ever , Robert McClenon is a pure bad faith procateur. This is quite plain for you to note. Harrison is not able to remain focused, Str1977 says I used Leiber as a source, that is incorrect, Leiber was brought in as a player tangentially, to kaas and the 'Vatican exchanges'. Deleted along with all relevant points here there and everywhere. I don't mind if WP wishes to sink itself to this level. I recognise this as desperation , that which is countered here. The Wikipedia project is being sullied, and this is no news to me. The assumption of good faith is remiss once it has been disproved. I am happy to go to WP court, I am happy to be slandered in public as I am being so maligned. I feel that the WP is unable to carry itself with the respect due to its proposed intentions, and that rather it is a negative channel of influence. I do not personally fear being banned, I can take care of this either way, and will. These kids and cronies are not worthy of further persuasion, and should be the banned. I am quite content now for the publishing Foundation to side with this rubbish. You Bengalski, need to watch your back though, or change username when they have silenced me. But it seems that you are not very fearful either, good for you. There is no further sense in communicating with this infantile paralysis of faith here. If you wish to contact me Bengalski , you know where my Userdom thus far resides. I object to the tone of the Adnministrator Tom Harrison and the anon, and , go right ahead, these folks, mcClenon and Str1977. Jimbo too.