User talk:Leon Ehrlich

Proposal pending at 9/11 conspiracy theories
I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories. Thank you. Blackcats 05:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Siege of Waco (was: Not censorship)
I would like to discuss with you the contents of that link you keep re-adding to the Waco Siege page. That site is full of dreck and adds no factual information to the topic. Please justify that link somehow. It isn't censorship, just good sense. DoomBringer 07:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One man's "good sense" is another man's "censorship". Rather than discuss whether removal of the link would be censorship it would be more productive to discuss your view of the page linked to.  It is not enough to assert that it is "full of dreck".  That just means that you don't like it for some reason.  And you're wrong that it "adds no factual information".  For example, it asserts that the guns that the Davidians had were legal.  This is a fact -- or at least claims to the contrary have no good basis.  See http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/waco.massacre.html#1.2  Actually the whole of the Preface should be thrown away or rewritten.  Compare it to this: http://www.cesnur.org/2004/waco_wessinger.htm  In fact, I'll add those links now, since I don't have time to rewrite the Preface.  And if you wish to discuss this further it probably should be done on the Branch Davidian talk page, and if you have criticisms of a page linked to then please specify exactly what you are criticising and why, rather than throw out mere personal opinions telling us how you feel about something. Leon Ehrlich 00:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)\
 * I removed a link that didn't work. Try re-adding it after checking the URL.

The problem I had at first glance with the links was the title of the pages. Instead of a neutral tone, they outright declare the thing a "holocaust" or massace". Such terms are emotionally loaded.  The one page uses graphic photos to shock the user into agreeing with their extremist point of view.  The one page even goes so far to make a thinly veiled attempt to make it sound like certain webpages it cited were "disappeared" by the government.  Hardly a fair treatment of the subject.  0 I fail to see the point of section 1.2 you cited.  The guns might have not been illegal -- so what?  I fail to see the point.DoomBringer 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The link was easy to correct: htm -> html.
 * If the violent deaths of 75-80 people by military-type assault and burning alive was not a "massacre" then what is? Is there a minimum number of deaths required?  How many people died in the My Lai Massacre? (Or, since it was carried out by U.S. soldiers, must we now no longer call that a "massacre"?)
 * You misrepresent the "Waco Holocaust" site, firstly by labelling it "extremist" (which is itself an emotionally loaded term -- ever hear of "hypocrisy"?), and secondly by asserting that it employs psy-op techniques (which is, rather, what the BATF did by playing tapes of rabbits being slaughtered through the night so as do deprive those under siege of sleep). Graphic photos constitute evidence.  You seem to be afraid of what the evidence might suggest.
 * "So what?" First those who want to whitewash the massacre assert that the Davidians' guns were illegal (thus the BATF raid was justified) and then when it is shown that they were not (or probably were not) they say: "So what?"  If the BATF knew that the guns were probably not illegal then it raises the question of why they mounted the raid at all.  Perhaps it was so they could cast themselves as an effective, indeed heroic, law enforcement agency, and thus justify an increase in their budget for the next year.  Far-fetched?  You think they wouldn't do it?  If so, you'd better learn how the real world works. Leon Ehrlich 15:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to fiddle around with your mistakes, just remove them outright. Sorry.
 * By any standard, such a page takes the extremist position, if you can't accept this, then tough, I'm trying to apply the average joe test to the thing, would an average person find the page extremist? Yes.  I'm not saying it uses "psy-ops," don't put words in my mouth.  I'm accusing it of using an emotional appeal by yanking the old heart strings through shock value.  Yes, it is ultimately evidence, but of what?  That the building burned down?  We all know that.  Heck, if anything, it is evidence of the fire the BDs set.
 * There is no bodycount necessary for a massacre. However, as above, using the word "massacre" is loaded emotionally, and as an encyclopedia, we should avoid such things.  Moreover, I don't think it qualifies as a massacre, because the BDs fought back and killed several ATF agents.  Should we call that a massacre as well?  Heck, the BDs pretty much killed themselves with the fire they set, so maybe "mass suicide" fits better.
 * I say "So what?" because, at the time, the ATF had reasonable suspicion to go in. If you think the ATF had some kind of ulterior motives and knew the claims were trumped up, prove it.  There isn't evidence that 'at the time', they knew for certain if the firearms were illegal or whatever.
 * I get the feeling that you are heavily emotionally involved in this. I know very well how the real world works, and I suspect better than you.  DoomBringer 06:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)