User talk:Sherurcij

Melchoir, not interested.

- Even if Melchoir won't, give me an IM. Yes I'm 15, and I'm a writer and a good student. So don't get all "Dumb kids" on me ([email protected]) MagneticUnderlay 13:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really in the habit of giving my eMail address out to people who I have to sit and argue with whether their "brand new religion" belongs in an encyclopaedia. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, honestly. I had a lot of coffee tonight, with a bunch of friends and got a bit stupid. At least do me the courtesy of looking at my DevArt page. Much of that reflects the person i really am. When i'm not high on Coffee & Atmosphere.MagneticUnderlay 13:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of random interest, since neither you nor your friends had any previous edits on Wikipedia...why stick that stuff here? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something of a test, i guess, we've talked about it before. I'v edited once or twice before, but legitimate ones. and just as my IP address. And really, just send me a message, it's not like i'm always like this. Or just contact me on DevArt. Don't be so violently abhorrant. MagneticUnderlay 14:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all violent, just not in the habit of talking to complete strangers with whom I have nothing in common, no offence meant of course Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Suit yourself, i suppose. Certainly I'd like to talk to Melchoir, but he ignored me completely. For what it's worth. I sincerely apologise for any distress i may have caused. And really, i appreciate your role on Wiki. One last time, I'd really like to 'chat' with you. I think you'll find we have more in common than nothing, at the very least. MagneticUnderlay 14:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read your...

...userpage and I think your reason for being on Wikipedia is admirable and interesting. Thought you might be interested in reading an article I recently started on another interesting but long-forgotten man, Paul Boyton. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing back...

Ironically, I have RotS DVD on the HDTV/Surround Sound as I write this (Surround Sound! Accept no substitute, :o).

Thanks for the considered reply.

Speaking of Shirer, I'm about half-way through RaFotTR. I just ordered a used copy of his similarly massive tome on the collapse of the Third Republic in France under the 1940 Nazi assault. The French just pussed out and, exccepting the Third Army which fought the Germans so hard and effectively that when they surrundered, the Germans rendered them the "honors of war"--which used to mean that officers were allowed to keep their swords, I don't know what it meant in 1940 or if has any meaning now. Basically, the German soldiers treated their gallant enemies with honor because unlike 90% of the French army & gov't, they didn't just run away.

The French almost destroyed themselves and suffered the brunt of deaths and damage in the Great War. Their defeat of the Germans at the Battle of the Marne in 1914 is one of the most inspiring examples in the horrid history of war. Barbara Tuchman's account in "The Guns of August" is as stirring and thrilling as a novel.

I hope you don't mind my asking but are you male or female? By your style, I'd guess male. But one never knows.

AS I said before your erudition is quite impressive. If I wish I'd been HALF as educated as you are at the same age. Though I was more educated than the average--sadly not saying much--back then (1988 was when I graduated hs), its taken me a long time to acquire as much knowledge as I have.

As for My Lai, if 80% of Americans can id Calley, I'll eat my sound card. Perhaps 80% of Americans over 50. But under 30? Like I said, perhaps I'll find out how tasty silicon is, but I doubt it. :o)

We seem to be closer in weltanschauung (trivia note: this was one of Hitler's favorite words!) than the typical Lib/Con divide would suggest.

But I've always felt the distinctions are too rigid. F'r instance: I totally oppose the war on drugs. I say legalize weed and medicalize the hard stuff. All the war on drugs is doing is turning Mexican thugs in billionaires, destabilizing Columbia to the point where the commie rebels could actually defeat the government (we may well have to intervene, something I do NOT want and hope to avoid). Furthermore, the war on drugs is corrupting US law enforcement at every level. In Indiana, for example, state cops start @19K USD a year. If a 22 yr old trooper pulls over a dope dealer and the guy offers him a suitcase with $100,000 in it a lot of them are simply going to take the case, say a prayer the guy isn't an internal affairs plant, and let him go. I grew up in San Diego. The Customs officials were so corrupt it was an open joke. I had a friend whose brother was a major coke dealer. He had corrupted a number of customs agents. They would tell him what lanes they were working and he would go through their lane and get waved through. They never busted him for coke. The got him on money laundering. Apparently he neglected to bribe the FBI guys.

Both Clinton's, imo, are criminals. And it's not just my opinion. One of the Watergate prosecutors (Jawarski I think, sp?) declared when BC was still in office that, in his opinion, both Clintons were felons. A Federal judge declared him a perjurer and fined him $800K for contempt. Yet most Liberals STILL claim, "it was just about sex." They deliberately ignore the crimes in the cover up. I don't care who a president is screwing as long as he or she does the job and implements the policies I support. I mean, they should stick to consenting adults, obviously (we don't want any prez banging sixteen year old boys like the page scandal figure Rep. Gary Studds). Roosevelt moved his mistress, Lucy Rutherford into the White House! As disastrous as so many New Deal policies have been he did give the country something it desperately needed, something Hoover seemed incapable of doing: he gave people hope. He completely failed to end the Depression (unemployment was 17% in 1939). Only one thing stopped the Depression: rearmament for WWII (the same thing that ended it in Nazi Germany).

So many things to talk about with you!

Is there a way to do private msgs? I'll have to check. I'd like to correspond with you in a more private forum but I don't want to put my email address out in public. If you're game, let's exchange email addresses.

Getting back to the Lib/Con divide. I am pro-life but I believe it should be left to the people. Roe v Wade is bad law as many pro-abort lawyers admit. It should be returned to the states. Several states (CA, NY and some others) had already legalized abortion on demand. Ironically enough it was Reagan who signed the bill that legalized abortion on demand in Cali as governor in 1968. The Dem legislature tricked him. The law said that abortions would be permitted to protect the "life, health and mental health of the woman as certified by a doctor." That's paraphrasis of course. But the law was immediately used by abortionists to get around the restrictions. A gynocologist would simply declare that woman Joan X is "mentally unfit to bear this child" and, bingo, the abortion was legal. It was a swindle. Reagan signed in good faith--which was abused.

I support most gay rights. For example, I voted to end discrimination against gays--I've had many gay friends--in housing, employment, loans, adoption, etc. I do oppose gay "marriage." And I really resent being labelled as homophobic because of that. I have no problem with companies giving gays health insurance if they wish to--as a private decision. I don't really like but don't oppose these "domestic partnership" laws. You can already do almost everything these laws do anyway, so I suppose its no real stretch to bundle them into a package so people don't have to spend a lot of money on a lawyer for medical power of attorneys, inheritance, adoptions, etc. However, I do NOT support extending this to men and women just living together. If you want to benefits of marriage, as man and wife, then get married.

Thus the image the Left-Liberal media wishes to paint of Conservatives as monolithic bible-thumping theocrats is just ridiculous. Similarly, many Liberals sincerely believe in the welfare state out of a genuine desire to help people. Yet the kook base has so much power in their party now--its nowhere near the same as the power of religiously inclined conservatives--the idea of a Religiious Right is simple propaganda. Who's the leader of this "Religious Right"? Where is its HQ? What's its website? It's all so much hokum.

Probably the most telling difference between the parties is on abortion. Pro-abort Repubs speak at the conventions, many have great power in the party, they are fully part of the party. The only thing that a pro-abort such as Giuliana can't attain is the presidential nomination. But I have other issues with Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Powell besides abortion. Gun control's a big issue for me. They support it. I detest it. I can't see myself supporting a candidate who supports it. I'd vote for Giuliani before Hillary Clinton, of course, but I'd not be terribly happy about. Giuliani would continue a strong war on the Islamofascists and that would be good. But domestically he so liberal he'd do a lot of damage in the party if he tried to push pro-abort, anti-gun policies. Which is exactly what the Dems want.

Contrast Dem conventions. Fmr PA gov Robert Casey is very pro-life. Pro-lifers are forbidden from speaking at Dem conventions. No one can capture the Dem nomination unless the subscribe to the whole kook/Moveon.Org/Al Franken agenda. As we saw with Kerry that's not possible.

Sorry to have gone on so long. Take care. Good luck with the exams. Happy holidays (simpler than Happy Xmas/Chanukah/Ramadan/Kwanza et al). PainMan 01:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome.

any time, good sir. it appears to be my niche.

Dlayiga 21:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nosharia

Hi Sherurcij! Please take a look at this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nosharia Vs Wikipedia:Username and other possible infringements. Cheers -- Szvest 17:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

My reversion, your cleanup

I have responded on the talk page. I also reverted Cam's last edit, which was bizarre, to your last edit - maybe he is trying to quote the news outlet, but he is wrong. KI 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

We have already taken many photographs. I will start to upload them as soon as I am back here in the US. Wikizach 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year

Hi Sherurcij, it's your partner-in-crime for writing Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings; I saw you're on-line so I decided to stop by and say Happy New Year. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images you tagged for speedy deletion

Please see WP:CSD. There are no criteria that apply to these images. In fact, some of these do not even exist on Wikipedia, but instead are in Wikimedia Commons, so you would have to take it up over there. The remaining ones should be nominated at WP:IFD if you feel they should not be here. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikiproject

Thanks for the invite.

Sorry, I should have replied to your earlier... I had a guy who was following me around, and nominating articles I started for deletion. It felt almost like he was stalking me. He accused me, a number of times, or having a "posse", who reversed his edits. I probably shouldn't have paid any attention to him. -- Geo Swan 02:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Mil-antarctica template

Hi Sherurcij,

Yes, I agree that it would be better if the table was a bit more narrow. My idea was to use references that people recognise, i.e. the popular names of the expeditions, rather than their official names (as most people probably wouldn't associate "The Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition" with Shackleton's Endurance expedition, for instance) and also to show that some expeditions took several years. However, that inevitably means long lines in many cases. One solution would be to only use the expedition leader's name and then number his expeditions if he did more than one, i.e. Scott's first expedition (1901-04), Scott's second expedition (1910-13) etc. Things like "Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition" could easily be shortened by removing the middle (Trans-Antarctic), and the German expeditions could get more popular names ("Drygalski's expedition", "Filchner's expedition" and "New Swabia expedition"). What do you think?

Another thing I would like to do, is to move the privately financed expeditions under respective country. Scott's expeditions were partly privately financed; Shackleton received contributions from both New Zealand and the British government for the Nimrod expedition (albeit retroactively); and I would be surprised if Charcot didn't get any support from the French government as well. The finanancing is rather irrelevant in the table anyway. Do you agree?

Part of the problem is, of course, than the table started as a military operations table, but was later expanded to include all the civilian expeditions (and there are loads more of those to add, not the least Amundsen's), which was just as well, as the only purely military expedition was Operation Tabarin. The three US operations may have been run by the Navy, but can hardly be seen as true military operations. And the New Swabia expedition was national, but not military (unless we believe the moonbase crackpots, of course).

Perhaps we should also change the headline to "Activities in Antarctica During the 20th Century"? Sounds a bit better, I think. Best regards! Thomas Blomberg 02:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now it's done. Have a look! I think it works much better and also serves as a good starting point for adding more articles abourt explorations. In some cases, like Amundsen, I've temporarily linked to the article about the person, but intend to add proper articles about the expeditions.Thomas Blomberg 12:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to merge pages?

Hi, I'm the guy who worked on the Jaddi Singh page... at the moment there are seperate pages for SPHR and solidarity for human rights even though these are identical organizations... can you teach me how to merge pages? Thanks djheart 05:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)