User talk:Kevin Baas/Archive4

/scratch

I was looking at your user page and I was curious what the /scratch page was? You will have to forgive me, I don't know anything about math.--The_stuart 18:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

congradulations

way to find sources, but whats the point in posting them in my user talk? do you want a cookie or something?--The_stuart 04:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hope to see you on IRC sometime... -- RyanFreisling @ 18:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

US Electoral rules

Kevin, I don't know whether you've already read the federal election rules - if not, they're not too long. The ones related to the conduct of the presidential election are contained in the US constitution at Article II and Amendments XII [1], and in Title 3 of the United States Code [2]. You will note that at this stage, it is (at least technically) possible to rescind certification of the electoral votes, but not to replace them with other votes, and that if Bush does not receive 271 votes, the issue goes to the House - and there's no doubt what the House would decide here. Kind regards, jguk 11:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Hope is a state of mind, not of the world. Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good." - Vaclav Havel: 1st democratically elected president, Czech Republic

Jguk - just because Bush is assured of a 2nd term does not mean the suppression and manipulation of the vote didn't happen. A lie is a lie, whether you believe the lie or not. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President."

14th amendment: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." Kevin Baas | talk 03:16, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Most of those bolded bits have been amended (mostly amendments 12, 15, 19, and 26). -- Cyrius|✎ 04:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Cyrius.

12th Amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

15th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

19th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'"

26th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

Kevin, you also need to check Title 3 of the United States Code vis-à-vis electors. Kind regards, jguk 08:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I checked it out. Thanks. Kevin Baas | talk 13:18, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

There are two possibilities:

• OH's Electoral votes are thrown out and an alternate set of Electors convened on the grounds that the Electors' votes do not represent the 'will of the people' (it's in the OH State Constitution, but this is astronomically unlikely). Nonetheless, a case was brought Monday before the Electoral vote and is in OH Supreme Court.
• or, more likely but still un-, It's in the hands of the GOP-majority House and Senate. If a Senator and Congressman contest the OH results, then the Senate (I think, or maybe the entire House, I'll check) votes on the eligibility of the OH Electoral votes, and if a majority votes (unlikely in the GOP-majority) they can either choose an alternate set of electors from OH or invalidate OH's Electoral votes (which would leave Bush at 261, less than 270 but still enough to win the Presidency under these special circumstances). -unsigned. was this ryan? Kevin Baas | talk 13:26, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Yep! Sorry for not signing-- RyanFreisling @ 17:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ryan, this info would be usefull for Moss v. Bush, esp. the first bullet. Can you cite the relevant sections of the Ohio Constitution? If alternative electors can be appointed, that would be compatible with the U.S. Constitution. Kevin Baas | talk 17:20, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

I don't have the time to find the legal citation, but the reason for Moss v. Bush is that the Chief Justice, and ultimately on appeal the full OH Supreme Court, has the power to let the election stand, declare another winner, or throw out the result, forcing a recount or even a new vote. The election results can be voided by the judicial if found to be fraudulent, whether prior or after certification in Columbus.

Here's the out-take from the suit: 'The petitioners ask for a hearing and ask the court “to determine that the number of votes affected by the irregularities identified herein are sufficient to declare the Kerry-Edwards ticket the winner of Ohio’s electoral votes” and further that “the certificates of election to the Bush-Cheney electors be canceled” or, “in the alternative, that such irregularities, errors, frauds, and mistakes make the results of the election so uncertain that the Court should order the results of the election be set aside.”

-- RyanFreisling @ 18:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good source Link

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/category.asp?C=49590&nav=0Ra7JXq2

Law resources

However, as late as 1914, Ohio apparently provided for a commission to hear contests involving presidential electors. See Link v. Karb , 104 N.E. 632, 638 (Ohio 1914) (“For instance, the contest of an election of an *elector* of the President of the United States shall be heard before a commission consisting of the Governor and four judges of the circuit courts, to be appointed by the Governor; the judgment of this commission is final. ”). [3]

Outcome Allegation - Because the petition must allege the elements of an election contest, the petition should include allegations that because of the irregularities, enough ballots were affected that the result of the election was incorrect or uncertain. A contest petition fails to state a cause of action for contest of an election if it does not allege that the contestee did not receive the largest number of votes or that there was sufficient error, fraud, or mistake in the tabulation of the ballots to taint the result. See Cooper v. Kosling, 94 N.E.2d 1, 1 (Ohio 1950); cf Thompson v. Redington, 110 N.E.2d 652, 655 (Ohio 1915) (petition sufficient where it avers that the contestor was duly elected to office). Complying with the required outcome allegation could prove problematic for contestors of the 2004 presidential race in Ohio where the Democratic Party is on record as saying the election outcome will not change, although the group planning to file a contest on Wednesday apparently believes that Senator Kerry would have won but for the improprieties. See James Dao & Alberto Salvato, As Questions Keep Coming, Ohio Certifies Its Vote Count, N.Y. Times, Dec. 7, 2004, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/national/07ohio.html?ore=login. - [4]

I can't find Link v. Karb. Link v. Karb, anyone? Kevin Baas | talk 20:29, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Nothing online that I found in a quick glance, but I thought you'd like to read this.-- RyanFreisling @ 15:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

dKosopedia

I didn't know about this until you cited it in one of your edits. I've been looking in on Demopedia, which just started. I question whether the world needs two left-leaning political encyclopedias, but I suppose they could never work out a merger. Anyway, thanks for the tip. JamesMLane 04:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Legal precedent concerning electoral college votes

How Kennedy Won Hawaii Kevin Baas^talk 22:44, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

excellent link. Not a direct correlation to Moss v. Bush, but excellent for framing the possibilities of '04. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kudos

And kudos are as always due for your tireless efforts. I'll join the ranks of those awarding you the medal! -- RyanFreisling @ 06:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

senate challenge

what makes you so sure that a senator is going to challenge? If you have a link, show me show me show me :) --kizzle 08:04, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Death on the side

If you're interested in the issue, add a comment here about the positioning and content of the recent deaths section of current events. — Cortonin | Talk 06:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of election controversy, narration

Constructing narration at /timeline_election_controversy. Feel free to cooperate. Kevin Baas^talk 18:10, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Election Irregularities Article and Summary Status

Care to weigh in on the main talk page? -- RyanFreisling @ 03:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Graphic: Update or Remove?

Hey there. What do you think about the graphic [5]? Should it be updated to a summary, or removed from the main Irreg. article? Thanks! -- RyanFreisling @ 18:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way - I created a new version of the main map, using an .eps file of a US Map. Take a look

... let me know if you'd like the raw materials, etc. etc., for the official 'Kevin Basspectacular' version... :) -- RyanFreisling @ 18:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DeLay's Jan 6. speech

Here is the transcript. Note: I do see it in the Congressional Record here, but not in other copies I've seen recently. I will confirm, but we may want to remove that assertion until it's borne out or truly proven false.

I may have been partly right. I will analyse the transcript against the video and report any discreps. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TOM DELAY

Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker, what is
happening here today is amazing but
not surprising. Mr. Speaker, what we
are witnessing here today is a shame. A
shame. The issues at stake in this petition
are gravely, gravely serious. This
is not just having a debate. But the
specific charges, as any objective observer
must acknowledge, are not.
That is because the purpose of this petition
is not justice but noise.
It is a warning to Democrats across
the country, now in the midst of soul
searching after their historic losses in
November, not to moderate their party’s
message.

It is just the second day of the 109th
Congress and the first chance of the
Democrat congressional leadership to
show the American people what they
have learned since President Bush’s
historic reelection, and they can show
that, but they have turned to what
might be called the ‘‘X-Files Wing’’ of
the Democrat Party to make their first
impression.

Rather than substantive debate,
Democrat leaders are still adhering to
a failed strategy of spite, obstruction,
and conspiracy theories. They accuse
the President, who we are told is apparently
a closet computer nerd, of
personally overseeing the development
of vote-stealing software.
We are told, without any evidence,
that unknown Republican agents stole
the Ohio election and that its electoral
votes should be awarded to the winner
of an exit poll instead.

Many observers will discard today’s
petition as a partisan waste of time,
but it is much worse than that. It is an
assault against the institutions of our
representative democracy. It is a
threat to the very ideals it ostensibly
defends. No one is served by this petition,
not in the long run. And in the
short term, its only beneficiaries are
its proponents themselves.
Democrats around the country have
asked since Election Day, and will no
doubt ask again today, how it came to
this. The Democrat Party, the party
that was once an idealistic, forward-
looking, policy colossus. The New Deal,
the Marshall Plan, the Great Society,
the space program, civil rights. And
yet today one is hard pressed to find a
single positive substantive idea coming
from the left.

Instead, the Democrats have replaced
statecraft with stagecraft, substance
with style, and not a very fashionable
style at that. The petitioners claim
that they act on behalf of
disenfranchised voters, but no such
voter disenfranchisement occurred in
this election of 2004 and for that matter
the election of 2000.

Everybody knows it. The voters
know it, the candidates know it, the
courts know it, and the evidence proves
it.
We are not here to debate evidence,
but to act our roles in some scripted,
insincere morality play.
Now, just remember: pre-election
memos revealed that Democrat campaign
operatives around the country
were encouraged by their high command
in Washington to charge voter
fraud and intimidation regardless of
whether any of it occurred. Remember,
neither of the Democrat candidates
supposedly robbed in Ohio endorse this
petition. It is a crime against the dignity
of American democracy, and that
crime is not victimless.
The Democrat leadership came down
to the floor and said this is a good debate;
we ought to be having a debate on
this issue.

This is not a normal debate. This is a
direct attack to undermine our democracy
by using a procedure to undermine
the constitutional election that
was just held.

If, as now appears likely, Democrats
cry fraud and corruption every election
regardless of the evidence, what will
happen when one day voters are routinely
intimidated, rights are denied,
or, God forbid, an election is robbed?
What will happen? What will happen
when, God forbid, this quadrennial crying
wolf so poisons our democratic
processes that a similarly frivolous petition
in a close election in the future
is actually successful, and the American
people are denied their constitutional
right to choose their own President?

Mr. Speaker, Democrats must find a
way to rise above this self-destructive
and, yes, plain destructive theory of
politics for its own sake. A dangerous
precedent is being set here today, and
it needs to be curbed, because Democrat
leaders are not just hurting themselves.
By their irresponsible tactics,
they hurt the House, they hurt the Nation,
and they hurt rank-and-file
Democrats at kitchen tables all around
this country.

The American people, and their ancestors
who invented our miraculous
system of government, deserve better
than this. This petition is beneath us,
Mr. Speaker; but, more importantly, it
is beneath the men and women that we
serve.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues,
both Democrat and Republican, to do
the right thing. Vote ‘‘no,’’ and let us
get back to the real work that the
American people hired us to do.

FWIW, I do not endorse DeLay's vitriol, offensive language, ridicule, and all that other jazz. Nor do I endorse vitriol or any of the rest, at all, in a professional environment, esp. where responsibility is required, and esp. esp. in any, esp. the highest, offices of government.

Nonetheless, I want people to see these things when they happen.

Read the talk above the excerpt to see why it was posted here. Kevin Baas^talk 00:02, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

New Mathematics Wikiportal

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Exit poll small florida.jpg

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Exit poll small florida.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:47, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

what's up kevin

check email. --kizzle 00:05, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

what's up man, I don't know if you got my e-mail, I tried again to your rockstar account. I wanted to know if you were interested in helping me write a screenplay for the 2004 Election controversies... I don't need help in the commentary part, but I basically want your help in explaining to people who have no idea about any of this in deciding what should be included and in what order. Basically, if you had 2 hours to explain to someone what went wrong in this election, what would you say? Tell me if its something you'd be interested in... the first step i'm taking is to assemble a general outline of issues to be covered in the form of questions that need to be answered, all i have is exit polls done for now....but add any vital questions you think that need to be answered. If you're not interested, just tell me to bugger off :) --kizzle 20:46, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't promise anything, except that I know that I will pitch a completed script to whoever I can get my hands on. My girlfriend's cousin is a 24-year-old ucla grad who's making a movie with willa ford, chevy chase, the dude from road trip, and got bankrolled half a million, he should be done shooting within the month... I'm going to see if he can help out after he's done with his current project. Also, she's family friends with one of the high high mucky-mucks at warner bros studios. The only other person who is into that is one of the main producers of one of those showtime series on TV... also if by any miracle I can get George Soros's media rep's phone # i know he'd be down to help out if we show him the script. Basically, I can't promise you anything except that if we get a script together within the next 2-3 months, I am going to pitch it (and you should too) to a few people. At the very least, we can transform it into an editorial and submit it to various major newspapers around the country, I guarantee SF Chronicle at the very least would pick it up. I just feel like I want, before someone else comes out with a douchebag extremist liberal version of the controversies, to try and come up with an accurate as possible account (including essential, but possibly detrimental to the argument, events, like JML says its better to admit to certain things and be true rather than mislead and leave yourself open in the future).

I personally am having fun with it, its just a way to write up the current article except be free to express your own point of view and draw conclusions through arguments rather than simply offer links and info, and seeing as we're both philosophy buffs that would be fun. But seriously, like I said, I'm only giving you an avenue to express your arguments if you want to, if you edited one word and that's it i'd be happy... I just think 2 heads are better than one :) Mainly I'm going to do the work myself, all the commentary at least and most of the issues, maybe if you see questions I don't have but should have or help fill in sources and citations for the answers, that'd be chill. --kizzle 21:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I like your ideas, I'm still trying to come up with a sense of narrative style, and informationally speaking I completely agree with you about the "Were you born yesterday?" approach. For now, I am simply compiling questions that I would figure the audience would ask... it's a surprisingly efficient way of writing anything, I keep adding questions non-stop that both I and what I view the audience would want to know, from looking at a broad overview of the articles we've worked on. Once I have all my questions together, then maybe we can start answering them in simple, short sentences (and please add any questions you think are vital for the audience if I missed any).... we'll piece them together later when creating the narrative. I feel like if I present the material in a traditional documentary sense, it won't affect as many people. I feel like I had an epiphany recently, in that social progress became this radical thing in the 60's, but like everything else that stays around, became a cliche. By tricking the audience into learning something by making them laugh at the same time, we can rescue the original intent of social progress from the prejudicial reaction of cliche it illicits from most people (hence tree-hugger, leftist, and all those other "slurs" which used to be good things)...that's why I like the Daily Show, except this will be a bit more fact-intensive. Just a thought :) --kizzle 20:22, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, dude your site is awesome. If I lived near you I'd apply for a job there, I primarily work in Flash, I'm a web designer too. Guess we got both web design and philosophy in common, and both our names are Kevin... it's funny, my girlfriend thought you were my sockpuppet when she read your contribs :)--kizzle 20:26, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I definetely want to enable the audience to identify emotionally or personally with the narrative, so I will try to use your ideas when I start drafting the commentary... as for all those I definetely know Blackwell is going in there, and I do want to mention the rest of those as well. Just one thing at a time, I just printed out just the voting machines article so I could underline and take notes, its freakin 37 pages. Also, my knowledge of the Voting Suppression section is a little weak even with reading what we have so far, you might want to start there. --kizzle 01:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

do you have MSN messenger or aim? --kizzle 01:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

k, I didn't get whether or not you actually had an aim account or not, but mine is kdavis2600 on aim and kdavis1911 on msn if you have either... catch me sometime I'm on most of the day, so we can go over some stuff in real-time and discuss your proposals :) --kizzle 01:21, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

i've been going crazy on the exit polls section, i read the edison/mitovsky report, freeman paper, and like 25 other articles on it, there is some seriously crazy shit with the exit polls, and its hard for me to get it all out in a logical order. If you could just look at the commentary I have so far and correct any grammar, obvious stupid errors, I'd appreciate it... I plan to put a little more in-depth to the Ukraine section after commentary is done, but I'm just trying to get onto "paper" as it were all the knowledge i've gained in the last few days, i'll clean it up later. You may know some stuff i'm not putting in yet too, and if you disagree with anything i said please point it out :). --kizzle 07:05, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

You asked, "What's your archive policy?" My policy is pretty much laziness. I have thought, though, that I should archive. Thanks for the reminder. I'll tackle it... uh... soon. JamesMLane 18:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Killian

As you have recently demonstrated interest in this article, please see Talk:Killian_documents#A_poll. Wolfman 18:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dubya

Hi, Kevin. I did initially think that was directed at me and was somewhat puzzled by it. Thanks for clearing things up. As for the intro, I know you're a big contributor to the 2004 election controversies article and I think it's really turned into a good article. I just don't think that there should be so much detail in an introduction to an article. In my opinion, the Ohio irregularities are defintely important enough to be include in the main article, but not the introduction. I view the introduction as what I'd say about a subject if I was limited to about ten statements. Anyway, thanks for clarifying and keep up the good work. Carrp | Talk 22:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Expand it as much as possible elsewhere as I would like to learn more about it as well. We are going to disagree with much, but no doubt your contributions are strong.--MONGO 09:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The link to a description of irregularities in the 2000 election is in the intro. It was decided by consensus that it the irregularities were significant enough to merit this attention. That should not be changed; we should not have revisionist history on wikipedia. If the 2004 irregularities were at least as significant as the 2000 (which they were), then they deserve, at least a link in the intro. Logic, consistency... essential ingredients of NPOV. Kevin Baas^talk 15:24, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

So far, I do not see a concensus of agreement with linking any controversial discussions on Ohio election irregularities or any other state in 2004. I am opposed to revisionist history as well, but isn't that what you are advocating? The irregularities are not as persuasive as you are thinking....I think you forget how much time the media spent bombarding us about Florida in 2000...they did this because there was a definitive question of who won....broken chads, disenfranchisement, realocations, miscounts, recounts, voter fraud, exit polls to actual vote discrepencies, officials being bought off, political favoritisms, brother was governor, Harris....oh the list is endless....Ohio raises questions, but nothing compared to Florida 2000.--MONGO 18:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We are not discussing an article about the media. Kevin Baas^talk 19:00, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Decentralization (postmodern definition)

Hi, I should have informed you beforehand, but for some reason it slipped my mind. I put the article you started Decentralization (postmodern definition) on VfD (you can access it at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Decentralization (postmodern definition)). I'm just letting you know because I generally don't like to see articles deleted, so I wanted to give you a chance to improve it or argue for its inclusion. Basically, I threw it on VfD because I don't think it currently meets wikipedia guidelines for style (the use of "we" and similar constructions), and it reads like original research rather than established knowledge or theory. Cheers! -Seth Mahoney 23:52, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

I choose, without comment or prejudice, to let the community decide these matters. Thanks for the notice. Cheers! Kevin Baas^talk 15:38, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff, just not written in article form, pity it got deleted though. Where can I find more info?--kizzle 19:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Election Incidents Image

Thanks for uploading the image "image:All election incidents.png". I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Bratsche 15:43, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

changes

I don't know if you saw, but I posted on Ryan's page that Freeman is going to look at the exit polls section this weekend, so if you have any changes you might want to make them before then :). --kizzle 18:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

KB, where you been all my life... haven't seen you around in a while :) --kizzle 21:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Cute. I've got other priorities - like I need a new job or else I die. I have printouts w/corrections a couple miles away. I'll try to get down there tonight. Kevin Baas^talk 23:01, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

good luck with the job search. I'm going to be in the same situation on Monday, paying rent with no job and hardly any savings. --kizzle 01:10, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Images marked for deletion

Images you uploaded, Image:Florida absentee.png and Image:Florida democratic.gif, have been listed for deletion because they does not contain source/copyright information and are not being used by an article. If you do not want the images deleted:

1. Update the image description pages with source/copyright information as well as an Image copyright tag such as {{GFDL}}.
2. Add a comment to their entry on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion explaining that you have provided the requested information.

If no action is taken on your part, the image will be deleted in 7 days. RedWolf 06:39, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Locals & speling

Just thought I ought to drop a little note, I fixed one of the "Fiengold" typos at your open letters to my congressman page. I almost went and fixed the duplicate typos too, but then I realized that you're quoting letters already written, so that should be left as is, perhaps with an optional "(sic)". Anyway, I guess we have a couple of Congressmen in common, though I'd have to move a few blocks to be blessed *cough* by having Sensenbrenner as my Rep. Hi from the East Side, and hope Kennedy can make things happen next year. --John Owens (talk) 00:15, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

New Mathematics Project Participants List

Hi Kevin.

In case you didn't follow the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Reformat of Participants list, I'm writing to you to let you know that I've converted the "WikiProject Mathematics Participants List" into a table. It is now alphabetical, includes links to the participant's talk page and contribution list, and has a field for "Areas of Interest". Since your name is on the list, I thought you might want to check and/or update your entry.

Regards, Paul August ☎ 21:21, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I see that Silverback has posted a lengthy response, though I believe much of what he has to say is simply irrelevant (because I don't dispute it). Preparing my reply would take time. He also seems to be disputing the report itself, which I think is inappropriate because Wikipedia allows for inclusion of things such as the PIPA study provided they have been reported by the news (have become newsworthy) or published in a peer review journal. The PIPA report satisfies both criteria, so I would not allow him to remove it at a later date (he removed it twice before). I also note that he might have committed a few errors with respect to the details of the report. I don't happen to be familiar with the statistical methods of the report (eg. logistc regression analysis), and I'm not sure if Silverback is familiar either. I'll probably need some help with regard to this. Ethereal 09:10, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Fox News

Kevin I have left the temporary header in case it also would make it easier for you to read or edit, the section was getting cumbersome. Please feel free to remove it if that is what you prefer. I think I have responded to your points. take care, --Silverback 06:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, at the moment, I have a problem with uploading a .doc file to Wikipedia. Within it is more statisical data sent by PIPA to me via email on their study. I'm not sure how to upload files to Wikipedia and am hoping you could show me how. Ethereal 04:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll email the .doc file to you. I just need all those who are active on the discussion over at FOX News article to know the real statistics which PIPA did not include (esp Silverback who for some reason keeps claiming without evidence that PIPA is biased) What is your email? Ethereal 15:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Kevin, I saw your "Request for arbitration" regarding User:Haypo. He's already been blocked indefinitely as a vandal. Joyous 00:43, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamaeleon

Sorry to intrude, but if it's not too much trouble, and you have an opinion on the matter, I'd very much appreciate it if you could make a little comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamaeleon.

Sorry again if I've bothered you. Chamaeleon 15:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kevin

I just wanted to pop in and introduce myself since we accidentally banged heads over the Declaration. I took a look at your interests and I am not interested in blog fights, but, I can tell you that I am not on your other side as you might interpret it politically. That being a relief, perhaps we can work on our common interest in the Declaration together? MPLX/MH 22:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

comments on Zen-master talk page

Hi Kevin - just a quick reply to your comments - You say "just powers..." which I completely agree with (as a Lockean). However, the logical conclusion is that Saddam's regime was not sovereign, and that its behaviour towards the people of Iraq constitutes a casus belli by itself. "self-sovereignty & self-determination" does not mean an indigenous tyrant, rather it means a consensual system of government, which is precisely what we are working to set up. "the people of a soviergn nation have the right to erect whatever form of government" - not quite true, in particular they may not erect a government that unjustly deprives some of them of basic human rights. Even if a tyranny (or, as you suggest, a theocracy) is initially set up with popular support (Nazi Germany comes to mind), that does not in any way make it sovereign, because sovereignty always resides in the whole of the people and may not be surrendered, even voluntarily. "as a practical consideration" - that is dangerously close to being racist. It is not a new sentiment, in fact after the surrender of Japan many people including McArthur thought that the "Oriental mind" was too immature for democracy [6]. This kind of thinking is just as wrong now as it was then. On another topic, your comments on the influence of economics on political forms are well taken, however a degree of centralization does not necessarily imply a brutal military dictatorship. Also, have you considered that it works both ways? There are countries which have oil in abundance, yet it is only a small part of their (thriving) economy, precisely because of their political system. Then again there are countries without any oil or other resources that are more prosperous than most of their oil-rich neighbours. ObsidianOrder 02:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i would say rather (rather than "precisely because") that their economic and political systems are mutuallly reinforcing. and economic centralization leads also to "organized crime", but it is not really "crime" from the first-person perspective; it is the normal modus operandi of the system (in part because of the unquestioned and distribution of (self-sustaining) power.) But you missed my point. my point was that the inter-strata dynamics must be considered in order to understand the pliability of the system at different points of it - that a military solution is usually not the best solution, if it indeed is a solution. As Sun Tzu said "the best way to win a war is without fighting", and "deal with large problems when they are small" for instance, the United States shouldn't have given saddam all those tanks and weapons back in the 1980's in the first place. Kevin Baas^talk 14:58, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

"all those tanks and weapons" - actually the vast majority of Saddam's weapons were Soviet, French and Chinese. [7] [8] [9] . "US armed Saddam" is a myth, unfortunately often repeated without checking the facts. [10] A pretty detailed history [11] shows that the US tried to play both sides in the Iraq-Iran war, that there was considerable in-fighting in the US government as to which side to back, and that what the Iraqis utlimately received was intelligence information, and some dual-use items (mostly after the war). ObsidianOrder 06:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point about the U.S. arming Saddam in the 80s and 90s is about chemical weapons mainly. The U.S. at the very least knew gassing was happening and acquiesced (if not supplied directly). zen master T 07:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that some of the items related to bio and chemical weapons that the US provided to Saddam are outrageous [12] (the people who made that decision must have gone seriously Cold-War-crazy), but there isn't any evidence that those were ever successfully developed into useable weapons (not for lack of trying). However, that's even more of a reason to clean up after our own mess. ObsidianOrder 07:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Iraq invasion and occupation doesn't look like any sort of clean up operation to me. zen master T 08:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up after your own mess usually involves admitting that it is your mess. When you defer the blame, it is still a form of cleaning, yes, but more akin to white-washing than atonement. Perhaps, what's more important is that we learn from our mistakes, if we can't, then all the cleaning in the world won't stop things from getting messy. If we can learn from our mistakes, then there will be fewer messes to clean. The first step in the process of learning is acknowledgement, and this requires humbleness. Furthermore, only with humbleness can one choose to not do something when one's feelings and intuition (which arrogance legitimizes) would have them do it. That is more essential. All knowledge and advice is for naught if not used; all action is futile if no knowledge directs it. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:54, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Talk:God

Are you sure that you want to use the word "pimp" in the context of a discussion of the attributes of God? It's gratuitous: You do not go on and discuss sacred prostitution or anything of that sort. It's provocative, yes, but it's a red herring and could derail rational discussion. It also betrays POV on your part, no? Perhaps a different term could make the point you want without introducing extraneous matters and concerns. You are making some interesting claims; but it seems to me that your thinking/perspective/ on and interpretation of the meaning of the "omni-" words is closer to a neo-classical/process theology than it is to the classical theological position. In your discussion of "ontological qualifiers" you also avoid the word that doesn't fit your interpretation "omniscience"... "Omniscience" is not considered to be knowledge "in" all things, but rather knowledge "of" all things. The classical position also asserts all of the "omni-s" of God. Therefore it is only reasonable to understand them in their superlative state: "Omnipotent omniscience" is not some watered-down neoclassical concept. I suggest that you work the position out some more, articulate it fully and connect it with some actual philosophers, perhaps Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, Ray Griffin, John Cobb, Marjorie Suchocki, et al... That would be an interesting addition to our Wikipedia, one that I'd look forward to reading. Emyth 12:58, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well then, if the theologians don't know latin, they shouldn't use latin words. Kevin Baas^talk 15:52, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

And if my allusion to the worship of diety as a displacement of male's desire for sexual potency, the diety epitomizing sexual potency (having created the universre, for instance), as a biological-psychological explanation for the existence of religion, and it's particular manifestation (a question philosopher have puzzled over for centuries), is too much for people, then perhaps they need to step back from it emotionally, until they can take a more objective, critical approach. Kevin Baas^talk 15:57, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

oh, and btw, sacred prostitution.

because censorship makes people smarter.

While we're on the subject of sacred prostitution, did you know that the virgin mary was a slut? "Virgin" back then, did not mean what it meant today. "virgin" meant un-"owned" woman. it had no implication that the women had never had sex. what was surprising about her being a version, is not "immaculate conception", but that her son was a bastard. also, back then, it was much more taboo; socially unacceptable for a woman to have sex out of wedlock. they were unmarriable - they were "ruined". they were stigmatized moreso than they are today. so there's the mystery behind "immaculate conception". the answer lies in etymology, and the church covering up something that was stigmatized. Kevin Baas^talk 16:07, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Whoa, now, calm down Kevin Baas... Latin? Who's using Latin? Every word I wrote is good English. Perhaps some have Latin roots, but it is English. It is a linguistic fact that loan words from Latin may develope and take additional, even different meanings once they are accepted into English. It is sophmoric to restrict English usage based on Latin lexicology. Etymologies, while fascinating, instructive, interesting and informative, are NOT the answer... The Meaning of Life, the Universe and all that is not so simple.

It is important that the interpretations of theological statements do not become distorted by historical shifts, such as changes in etymology regarding "omni-" or "virgin". that is the point that i was trying to make. the point is that the original meaning of these things are what is in question, and it is important to preserve them so that a person or a gropu of people (such as an institution or an establishment) cannot change an argument, premise, or assertion that has been shown to be flawed to avoid acknowledging that flaw. Kevin Baas^talk 18:20, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Your "allusion" calling God a "pimp" doesn't work if you have to write a paragraph of jargon and two-bit words to explain it... No one will know what you are talking about and merely dismiss you as a bore (if they don't revert your work and go on to ban you...) That sort of provocation does not produce thoughtful work on the Wikipedia. I was merely asking you in good faith if that was really what you wanted to do. But you go on and continue in that vein, making apparent your POV.

I am not discussing my POV. I am making a point that avoiding topic areas because they are stigmatized or taboo, is an obstacle to critical thinking and getting at the truth of the matter. The taboo-ness or lack of taboo-ness regarding a pattern of sexual behavior does not affect the antropological probabilities, and so neither should it affect the references to such possibilities in a discussion. So, neither, does the degree to which a particular interpretation of a word such as "omni-" supports or does not support a given argument, affect the validity of that interpretation. Kevin Baas^talk 18:20, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

No, I don't know that Mary the mother of Jesus of Nazareth was a "slut"... I do know that that is one of many divergent theories about her and I recognize your explanation of "Virgin" as just one of the trendy and popular fads going around about Mary - and it doesn't particularly bother me. Scholars know that there is something odd about Jesus' birth/parentage and so your calling him a "bastard" doesn't upset me either. Do you know the theories about Mary being raped by a Roman soldier? That's a real old one... But it's neither here nor there as far as the God article goes. There could be an appropriate spot to go into that stuff...could be interesting...But it's really tangential our discussion.

Actually, the most trendy and popular fad is also the wildest theory: immaculate conception. I won't call scholarly research "fad" insofar as it is scholarly research; records and historical evidence are not ephemereal.

I really thought that you might have had some good ideas that would be useful in the God article: See how I interpreted your thought in neo-classical, process theological terms... However, you have shown that you have an ax to grind against traditional Christianity. I am not a Christian myself, and am interested in the God article from a post-Christian perspective. Your particularizing of God to merely a Christian concept does not interest me and seems to be derailing the discussion. Please reconsider the direction in which this seems to be going. All the best, Emyth 17:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I see that you are reading too much of your own suspicions into what I say, and I do not appreciate being a straw man and a victim of bad faith. Kevin Baas^talk 18:20, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

re:communism vandal

umm, ok? --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 23:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i noticed you gave him a warning, i assumed thus that you could, wanted to make sure you got the vandal. Kevin Baas^talk 23:34, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

i am aware of how to do things, thank you. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 23:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no offense intended. i am not aware of if you were aware of the continued vandalism. there is no way for me to tell if you banned him, or if there is, i don't know. i'm assuming from your response that you did. thanks, we all appreciate it. :) Kevin Baas^talk 23:39, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

none taken, i dont have adminstrative powers btw, i am just a person who is not to privy to yobish activity and such or something like that. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 23:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wondering if maybe people of our persuasion (literate) might form a kind of association - for keeping track of pov debates from a particular perspective. -SV|t 14:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

what was wrong with the 2003 in U.S. Iraq War?

It's more specific as U.S. Iraq War 2003 Why did you revert it? People will confuse it with gulf war I. zen master T 06:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

move isn't workig it says the form won't submit. So I did a manual move. i made it more specific, adding "2003" & "U.S.": 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. I don't think anyone will confuse this, and it's back to the status quo, with the exception of u.s. being added. now we can discuss terms used to describe the war and moving, and build consensus. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 06:43, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

You have to delete the redirect page I think (when moving it back). Note that your manual move lost all the history so we or someone will need to clean that up. Also note that I think there are double redirects in effect, the current root name for the article is 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq (no redirects for this title, though there could be a title fork [duplicated articles] perhaps). zen master T 06:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I made sure there were no forks. and i know there'll be some clean up once whatever was wrong is fixed. The history should be on the U.S. Iraq War 2003 article. What worries me is that I don't know where archive2 went (nor the other archives that were lost when i came here) Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 06:53, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

The history is lost, that is bad. U.S Iraq War 2003 is actually a redirect to 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq (which is where it was for a while so probably should just stay there [but it's there already so everything is ok except for lost history], invasion can mean good or bad I suppose). zen master T 06:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[[13]]

Ok, that history shows up but this one doesn't (and technically U.S. Iraq War 2003 redirects to this article 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq which is confusing) [14] zen master T 07:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

that's because that history is the history i refered to above.

For the record I had made two attempts to contact an administrator before copying and pasting: (1)(2).

the current pages can be copied to a buffer and deleted, the page with the history) moved to it, and the buffer copied back in. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 07:17, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

This is an absolute shambles. Please don't move things by cutting and pasting them. I'm going to attempt to fix it all now. violet/riga (t) 10:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I can tell you were trying to undo a move by Stevertigo. You were certainly correct to do so, but not by copy/paste moves. I think it's sorted now. violet/riga (t) 11:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:34, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

"Conquest of Iraq"

Conquest of Iraq has 21,500 google matches yet you claimed the term is insignificant? (you errantly mentioned google as justification too) [15] zen master T 18:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

please compare with google matches of other terms. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 21:25, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

But you claimed it wasn't notable, 21,500 is notable. zen master T 22:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush purportedly won the popular vote by over 3.5 million votes. Do you think that this is notable? Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:30, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I don't watch television, so I don't understand your point about Fox News. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

From what I can tell, they're all pretty biased. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

But I haven't been referring to press, you brought them up. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

You said the following on zen's talk page: As for what is "encyclopedic", I simply note that Encarta refers to the Protocols of the Elders of Zions as an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory". and ...with noting which views are majority and which are minority. Conspiracy theories fall into the latter group, and can (and should) be characterized as such.. From this, and the fact that zen already told you that the theory is one of complicity not conspiracy, i gathered that you wanted to call it a "conspiracy theory" because you believed it was a minority view, and this was the right thing to characterize (in contrast to note) that, because that's what encarta did with a different article (which may be a theory about a conspiracy, rather than a complicity). Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 07:43, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

It is a conspiracy theory (actually a series of conspiracy theories) about domestic complicity. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

don't you think that that's a little convoluted? Is it a theory of conspiracy to be complicit? Because then it would just be a theory of conspiracy. Is it a theory of complicity in a conspiracy? Because then it would just be a theory of complicity. 19:14, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Actually, the meaning is pretty obvious. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The literal meaning is not. the social, derogatory meaning, canalyzed, by right-wing "active public perception influencers", is inapproriate. ad hominem attacks and appeal to ridicule do not belong in titles of wikipedia articles. "radical left-wing conspiracy theorists" who belong in the "x-filed" according to people like Tom DeLay (User_talk:Kevin_baas#DeLay.27s_Jan_6._speech), like senator Barbara Boxer, senator Russ Fiengold, congressman John Conyers, congresswoman and former Judge Stephanie Tubbs Jones, congressman and Civil Rights leader Jessie Jackson, and thousands more, have, unlike the people who use those tersm, valid arguments. I've already discussed all of this before. Please read back over what I have written to you already more carefully. I don't feel I should have to repeat myself. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 19:42, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

The term used as much to describe conspiracy theories on the left as it is on the right, and many other conspiracy theories which cannot be characterized as either right wing or left wing. Your attempt to criticize it as a term defined by right-wing "active public perception influencers" simply doesn't hold water. As for the literal meaning, this has been gone through before; the literal and social meanings are pretty much the same. As for your arguments, I've read them, they hold no more water than your claim that right-wingers have hijacked the term. Your intimation that if only I had read them more carefully I would have understood them is insulting and false; I understood them, but they were simply wrong. Oh, and when I say "doesn't hold water", I don't mean that literally, of course; I hope that doesn't make the phrase troubling for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I stand by everything that I have said, and do not appreciate your personal attack. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 20:01, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Saying someone should re-read what you've writed "more carefully" is a personal attack. Saying that someone's arguments are wrong is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Neither is a personal attack. As you have noticed, you did need to reread what I said. For example, i was responding in the last comment to arguments that i have already responded to in on of my first arguments. this is evidence that the conversation is not being productive. This is a problem. Furthermore, saying that someone's arguments are wrong is inappropriate, and is not an argument, and it is not productive. repeating "you're wrong" "you're wrong" "your argumetn doesn't hold water", without making any logical argument is childish and unproductive. pointing out logical fallacies in the other persons arguments is appropriate and productive. For instance, your last comment included fallacies such as reductio ad absurdum, appeal to ridicule & ("i dont mean that literally, ofcourse") argument ad nasueam (repetition), and statements that are outright false, such as "the literal and social meanings are pretty much the same". Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:23, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

vote notice

for all who care: Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory#Title_vote_.28conspiracy_theory_vs_complicity_theory.29 Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 08:40, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Netoholic Arbitration Results

Thought you'd like to know about this Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2#Final decision.