continuing to follow the work of Leatherstocking at wikipedia
The fascinating lie from Leatherstocking, repeated for the umpteenth time.
The irony is that I am quite ambivalent about LaRouche, but I strongly oppose what I see as the abuse of process that has frequently been employed as a tactic by the team that controls the LaRouche articles. So, I open my mouth (figuratively speaking) and for my troubles I get branded a LaRouchie. —Leatherstocking
A thought experiment for everybody. Let’s pretend that there’s a person making edit attempts and wikipedia arguments at various Star Wars topics, to the exclusion of any other topic — save, perhaps, a tangeantal slash at Gene Roddenbury meant to bolster an argument about George Lucas. Let’s say that his nom de plome was(and this is an essential point) “Wookie”. See how this reads.
The irony is that I am quite ambivalent about Star Wars, but I strongly oppose what I see as the abuse of process that has frequently been employed as a tactic by the team that controls the Star Wars articles. So, I open my mouth (figuratively speaking) and for my troubles I get branded a Star Wars fan. –Wookie
I think JN466 has at the very least developed some degree of plausible deniability in his new found editing attempts. At the very least, his edits have caught Leatherstocking’s eye.
I’d like to encourage you to keep editing the article, because your edits seem carefully neutral, and otherwise the process is dominated by disputes between Mr. Beback and myself over article neutrality. —Leatherstocking
But it looks like JN466 and Leatherstocking have successfully truncated Kronberg from the Larouche wikipedia article, whatever JN466’s motives here. A single sentence which gives JN466 away.:
We have 300 words on Kronberg’s death in 2007. Is that really appropriate in this BLP? I don’t see what the connection is to LaRouche personally. —JN466Â […]
When I get a spare minute, I will go forth and see what the edits here were. Unless someone wants to do that for me.  This strikes me as important in their ongoing Propaganda Offensive.  If someone wants to do my work for me, feel free to leave the alterations in the comments section, on down to 153 words — the words matter more than the quantity.
Curiously enough, Leatherstocking seems intent on pulling the word tic upward.
I have expanded one line, giving a more accurate description of LaRouche’s claims vis-a-vis Molly Kronberg. One possible solution to the problems of this section would be to remove all speculation (from both sides) about the reasons for the suicide, since this seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia.
Disingenuous as always, the “reasons for the suicide” about that which matter here, and that which is important in the history of the twin set of the cult and its cult leader. Mind you, I would not know how to ferret out internal history and external history here, but the internal certainly spilled out to the external — and the four biggest news events of the cult in the past decade are: Jeremiah Duggan’s death, Kenneth Kronberg’s death, Obama Hitler Euthanasia Rahm Emanuel blehdebleh, and Neocon Children of Satan Cheney blehdebleh.
Fun fact about the Fusion Energy Foundation: The entity now bearing that name has nothing to do with the organization. Good luck to Will Beback on that article, though.
Over to the attempt, by both Webster Tarpley fans and Larouchies, to slash Webster Tarpley from the listing of related topics. This is a fascinating convergence of mutual interests. Great moments in Movement argumentation!
I have no problem with leaving Zepp-LaRouche off the template, along with all other individuals other than Lyndon. –Leatherstocking
A Movement of one. A relevant rejoinder.
To my knowledge, those would be Jeremiah Duggan, Webster Tarpley, and Kenneth Kronberg. The latter two were members, but their listing is contentious for other reasons. In the case of Tarpley, Mr. IP believes there is guilt by associating him with LaRouche when he has parted company. In the cases of Duggan and Kronberg, it is violation of WP:NOTSCANDAL.–Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Tarpley was a members for over 20 years, Krongberg a member for at least 30 years. Will we delete Billington when he leaves or dies too? I hope not. “Mr IP” specifically warns, elsewhere, about Orwell’s “memory hole“. There’s no gossip on that template, so I don’t know why you’re referring to them as scandals.  Will Beback talk 01:03, 9 October 2009
Of course, Leatherstocking’s whole editing purpose is to push various items into the Memory Hole, see too:
because LaRouche is first and foremost an economist and those seem to be his core economic policies
Comedy Gold!
In reading through these wikipedia editing attempts, I find myself deliberating with myself whether I should just chunk completely any and all use of wikipedia. Sure, we find the obvious — Leatherstocking is generally called out by the editors here as obvious “ Very clearly a POV-based nomination“ in his ongoing “Scandal Mongering” mongering.
One thing to remember, is that when an editor is trying to combat POV-pushing in a certain subject area it can make that editor look like they’re pushing the other side, when all they’re really trying to do is balance the coverage of the topic. Haven’t you ever felt like you were inadvertently in that position? I have. Cla68
But ultimately, this is always a rearguard action from Leatherstocking, and whatever Krusty the Clown repopup comes forth. We have seen the odd Columbia University professor comment that taps this topic as the poster child for wikipedia’s limitations, why he warns his students against wikipedia. We have, at the same time, seen insta-wikipedia checks that get the necessary guage of their encounter. That some clown can sneak out a reference about anti-semitism, sneak in a reference about predicting cataclysmic economic troubles, and obscure events and names  in the cult’s history becomes immaterial.
In other news, the controversial neoconservative strategist Laurent Murawiec has passed away. A check into the Internet reveasl some French language posts (makes sense) you’d have to check and translate yourself, this item for the National Review, and this for Pajamas Media. This thing to “Britania Radio” is most curious, because in the past what’s washed over to me from that site are these items. One tribute to him is that one can assess his work without reference to his writing for Executive Intelligence Reivew.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
1. Leatherstocking. (Should be Leatherstalking.) His claims of neutrality combined with his frantic efforts to scrub LaRouche’s scandal-ridden bio of any hint of scandal, recall to mind the LaRouche organization’s claim that it had nothing to do with the death of Jeremiah Duggan, at the same time that it’s hiring lawyers to write letters to British MPs violently opposing any reopening of the Duggan case.
If the LaRouche org had nothing to do with the death, what on earth do they care if the case is reopened?
And if Leatherstalking (or maybe Leathertalking would be even better) is so all-fired neutral, why do all his scrubbing efforts tend in only one direction? Has anyone seen him add a soupcon of information that was critical of LaRouche? His “neutrality” claims would certainly be more credible if anyone had.
But, oddly, no one has.
2. Laurent Murawiec–A neocon, with RAND, with Hudson Institute, etc.
He was a delightful guy, highly intelligent, very funny, very incisive. He was also very brave. In other words, he was a lot of things that LaRouche is not.
I have known him for many years. He will be missed.
BTW, he quit the LaRouche org in Europe all those years ago–he and his then-wife–because of its anti-Semitism.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I didn’t take my “Wookie” on wikipedia quite far enough. Wookie would be using citations from a Star Wars fanzine, and maintaining with a straight face “Just trying to keep balance.”
The other part here is that Leatherstocking, and the various incarnations of Herschelkurstofsky, in “balancing” up the view of Larouche’s side in the controversies never get the view right. The stop one sentence short of referencing the grand conspiracy the charges are a part of, which is the only accurate way to relay the Larouche position. I take this to be in part an admission of lunacy on their part.