User talk:Corleonebrother

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] userspace

I hope you do not mind my additions to User:Corleonebrother/9/11 opinion polls. If you do, my apologies. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks pretty good. Be sure to keep a copy, though !  ;)
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] macro

Hi, this is not what you had in mind, I guess. But I just needed to express myself a bit.

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reporter turned truther

I can't remember his name but he does a column for the Seattle Post. As for international media I didn't mean that they support conspiracy theories but that they do not dismiss them or overtly support the official version. My home town is also the home town of FOX and in the US while they take a very pro government line regardless of facts, here we have laws against the media reporting lies (the US actually has laws supporting the right of the media to knowingly lie) so FOX is much more moderate here (they were actually convicted and fined a few years ago for using an article on Iraq direct from their US news without editing out the "inaccuracies") and so our mainstream media have reported on conspiracy theories without ridiculing them. For myself the only conspiracy I support is that the government is hiding something. Everything else I will fence sit and make up my mind when the evidence is in. I have even made edits supporting the official theory when the evidence is available but these are a minority as I've found editors on the side of the "official theory" are more likely to make POV edits than those supporting conspiracies. Wayne 08:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good job!

Good job on "research supporting." The article indicated that Truthers expressed a goal of encouraging "research supporting." I forget the exact phrase. I'm sure no Truther EVER said that. Wowest 20:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truth Movement Template

What encyclopedic criteria exists to determine what articles are made part of the Truth Movement template? Pdelongchamp 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess any film expressing a view similar to views of members of the movement. Zeitgeist certainly qualifies in my opinion, especially as quite a lot of part 2 is taken directly from films like Loose Change and Press For Truth. Corleonebrother (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inside Job

I am not a lawyer but I will take a stab at it. I am going to use the Bush/Bin Ladin family Carlyle Group type theories for the analogy. Suppose at the Carlyle Group meetings Bush Sr. and Osama's brother actively discussed Osama's plans but the Bush family did not plan or participate in the attacks but sat on it or actively disabled U.S. defenses. This would be collusion and thus under the definition in the article MIHOP. Suppose Shafig was not a supporter of his brothers plan but found out about it and informed Bush and he sat on or actively helped the plans. That is not collusion and thus LIHOP. It was my impression that Meacher meant something along those lines. The murky part is it was a "wink" "wink" deal everybody knew but the words were not spoken. It is morally collusion and morally MIHOP I do not know how it would be defined in the article. While this is a nice semantic discussion if any of the above actually happened all the U.S. parties involved would be guilty of a form of treason that makes the one by Benedict Arnold look like child's play and the death penalty should be the punishment meted out. Edkollin (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hate to break to you but defining treason could also get quite complicated. In my example they would be colluding a business partner not a foreign army. So it would be morally treason if not legally so. Anyway I have never seen LIHOP MIHOP broken down that deeply before. Edkollin (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

Hi,

you might want to look at the list I (we) are compiling at: Talk:9/11#NPOV / missing_facts. I appreciate any addition or criticism you can make. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Corleonebrother, thanks for your message. Yes, I think you may be right, I may not have done that split very well. I am about to catch a plan right now so I don't have time to look into it. Please do whatever you think is best. Thank you again, Johntex\talk 14:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of 9/11 advance-knowledge debate

An editor has nominated 9/11 advance-knowledge debate, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 advance-knowledge debate and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)