Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.

Be aware that the arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent.

Key past versions of Lyndon LaRouche[edit]

Over the last 500 edits

Martin 21:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Protection log[edit]

  • 17:35, 21 Jun 2004 Mirv protected Lyndon LaRouche (edit war)
  • 06:07, 30 Jun 2004 Everyking unprotected Lyndon LaRouche (requested on talk)
  • 15:15, 15 Jul 2004 Ambivalenthysteria protected Leo Strauss (Protection requested due to edit war.)
  • 11:28, 16 Jul 2004 Angela protected Frankfurt School (Edit war. Protection requested on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection)
  • 01:10, 17 Jul 2004 AndyL unprotected Frankfurt School (no request to protect this page was made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection)
  • 01:37, 17 Jul 2004 AndyL protected Frankfurt School (My allegation that proper procedure was not followed is incorrect. )
  • 17:04, 16 Jul 2004 Ambivalenthysteria protected Counterculture (Protecting due to dispute between Adam Carr and Herschel...)
  • 00:14, 17 Jul 2004 Mirv protected Synarchism (requested)
  • 22:56, 19 Jul 2004 UninvitedCompany unprotected Counterculture (protection not appropriate; no sign of an edit war)
  • 01:05, Jul 27, 2004 Angela unprotected Frankfurt School (protected over 10 days. Unprotected requested on my talk page)

No other protections noted in log that I saw. Martin 18:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Note that [Synarchism and Counterculture] are on the list of pages cited by Andy at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence#AndyL.27s_response, implying that he would never, in a thousand years, dream of deleting my work on those pages. In fact, he started edit wars leading to the protection of those pages. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:03, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My sole edit of Synarchism consisted entirely of substituting the word "currently" for "presently" [1] I look forward to Herschel's explanation of how this edit either started an edit war or led to the protection of that page a full thirteen days after my edit. AndyL 21:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was your cohort, Adam Carr, working your list, that started the edit war which lead to protection. See Adam's Response.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's not my responsibility. Your prior claim was deceptive as to the nature of my editing on Synarchism. AndyL 01:18, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

AndyL 14:32, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--Herschelkrustofsky 19:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AndyL 01:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--Herschelkrustofsky 23:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Refusal to provide justification[edit]

Hershel is now arbitrarily refusing to provide justification or evidence for his version of Frankfurt School on the basis that his critics are not "compotent" and is thus abusing the page protection mechanism

These comments are 1) a sophistical misrepresentation of what has transpired at Talk:Frankfurt School, and 2) the result of poor reading comprehension: I did not say that my critics are not "compotent", I said rather that I regarded two specific schools of criticism of the Frankfurt School as incompetent. The matter of the competency of my critics is a matter for the arbitration committee.

From Wikipedia:Requests for page protection:

Frankfurt School - please consider UNPROTECTING. User:Herschelkrustofsky has made no attempt at Talk:Frankfurt School to justify his inclusion of LaRouche as a critic and is the only editor who thinks this inclusion is justified. As well the version currently protected is the more controversial page. AndyL 17:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andy has been pursuing a sort of grand edit war against every article that I have edited, along with his cohort Adam Carr. He generally appeals for page protection as soon as he has deleted my contribution. This matter is presently under arbitration (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence). This time, it was The Wrong Version ( that got protected, and it should remain so until arbitration has been given time to work. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, you need to provide some sort of justification for your version on the Talk pages. You've refused to do so thus far. The point of protection is to allow time for discussion on the Talk page but if you refuse to discuss then there's no point in having the page protected. See Talk:Frankfurt School. AndyL 04:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andy, as I said at Talk:Frankfurt School, you are not a serious participant in this discussion. The only reason that you wish to edit this page, is that you are carrying out an obsessive vendetta against my work at Wikipedia, which has been amply documented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence. In your feverish pursuit of this vendetta, you recently violated procedure by reverting this page while it was protected. I have responded to your posts at Talk:Frankfurt School, but not because I believe that you have any real interest in the topic. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:07, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So you are unilaterally deciding that you do not need to provide any justification or back up to support your inclusion of LaRouche as a serious critic of the Frankfurt School and are simply using the protection as a way of enforcing your opinion and insulating it from others. That is precisely why protection is not valid in this case. AndyL 15:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam's version of events[edit]

In case anyone really wants to investigate this absurd complaint, this is my version of events, first posted on the LaRouche Talk page on July 6:

  • The first version of the article was pure LaRouche propaganda, full of blatant lies and total inventions (such as the mythical Eurasian Land-Bridge), so I rewrote it.
  • I used as my principal source Dennis King's book, which is the only LaRouche biography in existence. While it is not an academic biography, and has the deficiencies of a book written to prove a case (that LaRouche is a fascist), it is nevertheless adequate, and gives standard citations for most (though not all) of its attributions. I am not aware that the factual accuracy of King's citations have been challenged by any non-LaRouche writer. If King's book cannot be used to write a LaRouche biographical article, then so such article can be written, because there is no other account from a non-LaRouche source.
  • I also used various online sources (with due caution) and the Washington Post account of LaRouche's trial and conviction.
  • Who funded King to write the book is completely irrelevant. Most academic books are funded by someone.
  • Krusty did not "call me" on using King, and I did not "admit" it (these are standard LaRouche polemical distortions).
  • King does indeed "assert that LaRouche uses a code language to secretly convey a message of anti-Semitism," and I think he is correct, at least when talking about the 1970s, but my article gives due credit to what appears to be LaRouche's recent shift of position on matters Jewish.
  • I did not "announce my intention to respond to any efforts to edit my article by embarking on revert wars." I said I would revert attempts by Krusty to re-insert LaRouche propaganda in the article, as I have done and will continue to do. This was why I reverted Krusty's edit after the page was unprotected.
  • Readers of this controversy need to understand that Krusty is obviously a LaRouche activist of some seniority: he says himself he remembers things LaRouche said in 1978. Given the nature of the LaRouche cult, everything Krusty says and does here must be seen as LaRouche propaganda. It can no more be taken as true than what a neo-Nazi would say at Adolf Hitler or what User:Hanpuk says at Khmer Rouge. Krusty is not interested in writing an encyclopaedia article, he is interested in protecting the LaRouche cult's view of itself and particularly the fantasy biography that LaRouche has spent 30 years creating around himself.
  • It is of course true that I and others editing here are hostile to LaRouche. But there is no equivalence between that hostility to LaRouche and Krusty's support for LaRouche. I and others are trying to write an encyclopaedia article, as objectively as is humanly possible and using the available, admittedly inadequate, sources. Krusty is merely acting as a mouthpiece for the LaRouche cult.
  • Krusty complains that "Adam and Andy continually attempt to rig the debate by insisting that any source they prefer, such as the thoroughly disreputable Dennis King, must be accepted as gospel, whereas any source associated with LaRouche is automatically excluded, in their world." In a sense this is true, for reasons I have already stated. Material from LaRouche sources is always propaganda, and often untrue. Since truth cannot be separated from myth in LaRouche propaganda, it must all be excluded unless it can be verified from independent sources. The anti-LaRouche material is of varying quality, and must be assessed critically in the way any historian is trained to do, but if it is properly referenced it can be used unless shown from an independent (ie, non-LaRouche) source to be false. This may seem unfair on Krusty, but it is the price he pays for choosing to become an acolyte of a proved liar, slanderer and fabulist like LaRouche. Adam 17:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky's Statement[edit]

Adam's role[edit]

Hopefully, Adam has gone a long way toward making my case, in his above comments. I would suggest that in order to get an article that conforms to NPOV, it will be necessary to find some thoroughly neutral third parties who can cobble together the relatively unassailable portions of Adam's article, my article (Lyndon LaRouche/draft), and perhaps even portions of the original article. And then, I fear, it will be necessary to reinstitute protection.

  • Lyndon LaRouche is a political activist. If no one were paying attention to him, he would not merit an article, nor would he inspire such vituperation from Adam. I think a suitably NPOV article should incorporate LaRouche's consultations with heads of state, such as Mexican President José Lopez Portillo, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and other notables, plus his addresses to such bodies as the Russian Academy of Sciences and Russian Duma. There should also be mention of the individuals who signed various public calls for the exoneration of LaRouche, following his imprisonment. This latter material is available at Significant Omissions from the current version. Adam and Andy apparently do not dispute these facts, but insist that they be excluded from the article.
  • Adam writes above, I did not "announce my intention to respond to any efforts to edit my article by embarking on revert wars." I said I would revert attempts by Krusty to re-insert LaRouche propaganda in the article, as I have done and will continue to do. This was why I reverted Krusty's edit after the page was unprotected.

When the article was unprotected on June 30, Adam reverted my edit (which I invite 3rd parties to inspect, at the relevant history page), without comment. This edit consisted of removing assertions which I knew to be false, for which no attempt at documentation was made (see my list of false and downright bizarre assertions,) and the addition of some material on LaRouche's legal case which is in the public domain. Contrary to Adam's assertion, I "inserted" no propaganda to his version of the article, and I am confident that an inspection of my edit will pass muster. This is the sole attempt I have made to edit the article after unprotection -- with one exception. I added the {{TotallyDisputed}} bug on July 4; 11 minutes later Adam removed it; I replaced it later that day, and it remains.

Adam's announcement of his intentions was fairly unambiguous:
"Do grow up, Everyking. You know perfectly well what is going on at Lyndon LaRouche. I have almost singlehandedly turned it from a mess of propaganda and outight lies into a reasonably acceptable article, something which no-one has had the persistence to do. Doing this inevitably means fighting a revert war with the LaRouchies. If you don't want to help, fine, but kindly don't carp at the methods which are necessary to defeat such malevolent slanderers. Adam 17:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)" (User_talk:Everyking#Lyndon_LaRouche)
"A great deal more will be removed when I get time to tackle this article again. And I agree with 172 (let history note), that Krusty should now be reverted on sight. A bit of stalinist rigour is just what this debate needs. Adam 02:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)"
  • With respect to Adam's use of Dennis King as a source, Adam concedes in his above comments that "it is not an academic biography," but then goes on to say that "Who funded King to write the book is completely irrelevant. Most academic books are funded by someone." In fact, King's "academic" credentials were limited to the article he wrote about LaRouche for High Times, entitled "They want to take your drugs away." I would be delighted to have the article include King's highly original attacks, provided that there is a sufficient degree of caveat emptor: each charge that originates with King should be clearly indentified as such, and as well, the article should expand a bit on King's role in the fascinating "Get LaRouche Task Force," which included the John Birch Society, billionare neo-con Richard Mellon Scaife, various intelligence stringers, and so on -- see Significant Omissions from the current version.
There is no prospect of "mutual understanding" with Krusty, because he is (in my humble opinion) a malicious vandal and a lying slanderous piece of filth with whom civilised discourse is not possible.
Sam should be careful about associating himself in this debate with Krusty, who is clearly a deliberate, calculated liar and slanderer.
Herschelkrustofsky, proven liar and slanderer
--heading on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4

Regarding the article, Lyndon LaRouche[edit]

I have just posted, on the talk page, an updated list of wild fabrications and propagandistic slurs in the present version. Each one of these inventions or propagandistic insinuations constitutes a violation of Wikipedia policy; see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, points 3 and 4. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My copy of Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines propaganda as "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person." The deliberations on the Talk:Lyndon LaRouche pages, in conjunction with Adam's admission on the Arbitration Evidence Page ("It is of course true that I and others editing here are hostile to LaRouche."), leave little doubt that what we have here is a lynch mob of sorts, editing at cross-purposes with Wikipedia policy as stated. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

John's role[edit]

I give John Kenney full credit for conducting his part of the debate in a relatively civilized manner. My only problem is that he is intransigent with respect to his insistence, shared with Adam and Andy, that the article on LaRouche be an "attack piece."

Andy's role[edit]

Andy entered the debate somewhat late in the game. Perhaps taking his cue from Adam's demand for "Stalinist rigour", he has commenced a campaign to systematically revert or delete everything I have written, effectively making me a Wikipedian "non-person." Case in point: in an article on Henry Carey, Andy went so far as to delete the external links (see the relevant history page.) Note that one of the deleted links was simply a collection of writings by Carey.

I will respond expeditiously to any inquiries left on my talk page. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AndyL's response[edit]

Actually the Henry Carey article disproves Herschel's claims. Had I truly been trying to "systematically revert or delete everything" Herschell has written then I would not have left the article itself almost intact. Herschell is correct that I deleted the external links, one a piece from a LaRouche publication which I thought had no value (I had meant to only delete one link, not both), but the article itself was left intact except for a rewriting of the first sentence in order to make it accord with wikipedia standard (see this link to compare Herschell's original version with the version after I had finished editing). If this is Herschell's only piece of evidence against me then it's quite weak. AndyL 21:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Further to Herschell's claims that I have been trying to "systematically revert or delete everything (he has) ever written, effectively making (him) a Wikipedian "non person"" this is a list of articles which Herschell has edited since June 1st which I have *not* subsequently edited:

Clearly I have not been systematic in editing Herschell's work as all of the above articles have not been touched by me and as, in fact, the vast, vast majority of articles which Herschell has edited in the past six weeks ALONE have not been touched by me. The list would only grow if I went back before June 1. Therefore his accusation that I have been trying to "systematically revert or delete everything" he has written and make him an "non-person" is untrue and nonsensical. AndyL 21:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andy, I think that it might be more illuminating for the arbitrators if you provided a list of articles that you did edit. Or, if you prefer, just the number of articles that you edited. And, it would also be useful if you would indicate those cases where you did something other than simply delete my work. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My comments above clearly disprove your claim. It's interesting that you want more than that. Let me direct you to my counterclaim at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche. AndyL 04:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A burglar could make the same argument, saying, "The charges are obviously false. Look how many homes I haven't burglarized yet!"--Herschelkrustofsky 20:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Herschell, it is you who claimed I deleted or reverted "everything" you've ever written when in fact I only edited a small percentage of articles you have touched in the past six weeks. Clearly your claim is a wild exaggeration. AndyL 02:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I said that you had "commenced a campaign." I did not say that you had completed it.--Herschelkrustofsky 06:13, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Weasal words. AndyL 07:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note that two of the pages that Andy cites as examples of those that he has not subsequently edited, have not only been edited by Andy, but are now protected due to edit wars:

17:05, 16 Jul 2004 Ambivalenthysteria protected Counterculture. 00:15, 17 Jul 2004 Mirv protected Synarchism

I am not challenging Andy's other deletions and reversions, in hopes that the Arbitration Committee will soon intervene on this whole mess. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My sole edit of Synarchism consisted entirely of substituting the word "currently" for "presently" [2] I look forward to Herschel's explanation of how this edit either started an edit war or led to the protection of that page a full thirteen days after my edit. AndyL 21:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It was your cohort, Adam Carr, working your list, that started the edit war which lead to protection. See Adam's Response.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A Day in the Life of Adam and Andy[edit]

Andy's list of my contributions which he has not yet molested is now hopelessly out of date. He and Adam are busily pursuing their vendetta, as this grid of activity for July 15 illustrates -- and the day is not yet over! --Herschelkrustofsky 00:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is an interesting pattern emerging, as Adam and Andy continue their locust-like ravages of articles to which I have contributed. There are certain ideas, offensive to their neoconservative sensibilities, that they wish to erase altogether: for example, Internal improvements (which is certainly a more powerful idea, with a richer history, than "Public Works"), and Neocolonialism -- Adam's edit memo on that one speaks for itself. There is a certain Orwellian quality to their attempts to erase particular ideas from Wikipedia, and I think that it sheds some light on their motives for the hate-LaRouche campaign. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:23, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Public Works is the more common term. In any case this is the first time anyone's ever called me a neoconservative or any kind of conservative which just goes to show you that you're not very good at spotting patterns.AndyL 01:23, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You linked American System (economics) to the personal homepage of a Libertarian Party activist, who denounces Henry Clay as a National Socialist, and to a rabid slander of Abraham Lincoln by the Von Mises Institute. So tell me, was that an expression of your POV, or were you just being spiteful? And which of the two is more helpful to Wikipedia? --Herschelkrustofsky 00:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think here we see how Hershel does not understand how an editor should behave. I did not provide a link to an article on the Von Mises Institute website because I agree or disagree with the article but because it was related to the topic and which provided criticism of the topic. In fact, I personally loathe the Von Mises institute and disagree with the article but I didn't allow my personal views to interfere with my editing. This is quite different from editing in order to promote a particular agenda which, if I may say so, seems to be your purpose. It seems to me that you cannot accept any view contrary to LaRouche's. AndyL

I criticize your inclusion of those two links, because the linked articles were incompetent and preposterous. It was noble of you to overcome your personal loathing of the Von Mises Institute in order to include them, but you seem to have no difficulty in allowing your personal loathing of LaRouche to persuade you to delete any external links to LaRouche publications, regardless of how competent and pertinent they may be.--Herschelkrustofsky 12:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I have said several times, I am a moderate social democrat. But unlike Krusty I don't come here to proselytise on behalf of my political views. On the question of neocolonialism, I might well believe that there is such a phenomenon, but that is not the point. The point is that the concept and the term are contested, and an encyclopaedia article must reflect that. Adam 03:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

...which is, of course, a completely different matter than recasting this article to remove the POV assumption that there is in fact such a thing as "neocolonialism". And how many "moderate social democrats" refer to themselves as supporters of the "liberation of Iraq"? --Herschelkrustofsky 14:43, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Er, Tony Blair? john k 22:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Moderate? (sorry, couldn't resist!) Martin 19:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam's Response[edit]

Wikipedia owes thanks to Andy for providing a List of articles possibly infected with LaRouche propaganda. I hope he does "systematically revert or delete" everything Krusty has written, since it will all be LaRouche lies. In response to Krusty's comments above, I am not going to bother responding again to all his various lies and misrepresentations. My comments on his personal character were made in response to his disgusting slanders, made from the safety of anonymity, of a person not involved in this debate. I used stronger language than I normally would, but then I don't normally encounter people as contemptible as Krusty. If he doesn't like it he can sue me, since unlike him I edit here under my real name. I should also say that I am working on obtaining more detailed information on LaRouche from sources in the US who specialise in monitoring him and others like him. When I get this material I hope to expand and improve the article. Krusty will of course dislike this material just as much as he dislikes the current article, and for the same reason. Adam 04:47, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If Adam wishes to use the defense that I "made him do it", i.e., I was responsible for his use of personal attacks because I produced "disgusting slanders, made from the safety of anonymity, of a person not involved in this debate," he ought to be more specific. There has been no exchange between Adam and myself, public or private, that is not recorded in the record of the various Talk:Lyndon LaRouche pages. A thorough inspection of these pages should reveal that I have been more than courteous with Adam. I suspect that he refers to my mention that his employer, Australian M.P. Michael Danby, advocated a piece of legislation which I think most people would find shocking (see Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4); I brought this up because I suspect that Adam, who, like his employer has expended a great deal of effort trying to denigrate LaRouche, has a real disagreement with LaRouche on the issue of the Iraq war and the larger context of the "Clash of Civilizations" thesis. However, rather than discuss the real disagreement, they prefer to attack LaRouche indirectly, with pretexts. I find it curiously ironic that Adam brands both LaRouche and myself as "slanderers," when the whole basis of this dispute is in fact Adam's incessant slander of LaRouche. --Herschelkrustofsky 23:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article Counterculture strikes me as being highly POV and designed to promote a particular LaRouche viewpoint rather than be an objective article.AndyL 22:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well of course it does. That's the only reason Krusty comes here. If he would like to post an up-to-date list of articles he has "edited" we can start the necessary work of vetting them for LaRouche propaganda and nonsense. Adam 07:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have blanked Counterculture because it was nothing but LaRouche nonsense and beyond redemption. Someone familiar with the field needs to write a new article. Adam 08:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please note that this is not the Talk page, although most of what Adam has contributed could certainly be construed as Evidence. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personal Attacks[edit]

That's because everything you write is driven by your LaRouchist ideology. The analogy between you being a LaRouchist and me being a gay activist is a spurious one. LaRouchism is a cult whose adherents are no longer capable of objective thought or writing on any subject, which should alone be grounds for disqualifying them from writing encyclopaedia articles. It might conceivably be argued that my role as a gay activist disqualifies me from writing an article on, for example, Fred Phelps, although I would dispute even that. But gay activism is not a cult organisation like LaRouchism, nor does it have a universalist political ideology that dictates what I think about other subjects. In any case, I do not remove Krusty's material from articles merely because he is a LaRouchist. I remove it because it is arrant nonsense. See counterculture and Anti-Defamation League for two obvious examples. Adam 05:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is deliberation on whether the above comments constitute a "personal attack". While the comments are strong I think it is an error to view them as a personal attack. For one thing the strongest comments are directed not at Krusty as an individual but at the "LaRouchist ideology" and "LaRouchism". Whether or not the LaRouche movement is a cult is something that has been discussed in various places and, frankly, there is quite a lot of evidence that it is a cult.

The only comments directed specifically at Herschelkrustofsky is the statement "I do not remove Krusty's material from articles merely because he is a LaRouchist. I remove it because it is arrant nonsense." Which I do not believe fulfills the criteria needed for a statement to be a "personal attack". AndyL

I was not aware of any deliberation on the above comments. They are not mentioned in my complaint (see Adam's role/personal attacks}. They were lifted by Adam, for reasons known only to himself, from their proper context on User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Lyndon_LaRouche. And if there is "quite a lot of evidence that [the LaRouche movement] is a cult," it has yet to have found its way into either the Lyndon LaRouche article, or the talk page.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The above comment was not "lifted" by me. I presume Andy posted it here from Fred's talkpage. It is a comment on why all Krusty's edits need to be vetted, not a personal attack. When I call Krusty a lying, slanderous piece of filth, that is a personal attack (just so we're clear). Adam 04:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[3] is the edit to this page, by, signed by AndyL. I'll check with AndyL that he's not being impersonated. Martin 19:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The comments are mine. AndyL 03:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Herschel poor Wikiquette?[edit]

Some examples:

  • Lyndon LaRouche/archive1 - "Adam, clearly you will only be satisfied with a Chip Berlet-style smear [...] you have little interest in the actual LaRouche, preferring a mythological bogeyman."
  • Lyndon LaRouche/archive2 - "Adam, your new article is not only work of fiction, it is a plagiarized work of fiction" and " It appears that the purpose of your new article is not so much to present the reader with wild fabrications, as it is to suppress any actually factual account of LaRouche's activity"
  • Lyndon LaRouche/archive4 - " A cursory glance over some of the articles that Adam has written, suggests that he may be sympathetic to Free trade and globalism, tenets common to both Neoconservatism, and the so-called "Liberal Imperialism" of Tony Blair and Robert Cooper. If true, this would certainly place Adam squarely in disagreement with LaRouche's actual politics. I may be completely off base here, but I am seeking some explanation for why Adam so frantically attempts to cover up what LaRouche actually does and stands for, preferring to retail Dennis King's zany conspiracy theory. I would like to see a bit more candor from Adam."
  • Lyndon LaRouche/archive4 - "Actually the political views that Adam has chosen to disclose are not very revealing. But -- On a hunch, I googled "Adam Carr" + "Michael Danby". Bullseye! Danby is one of the most outspoken fascists on the Australian political scene" (and later) "I think it is entirely relevant to note that Adam's employer is Australian M.P. Michael Danby, who routinely outdoes his neoconservative counterparts in the U.S. with blood-curdling demands for war against the Muslim world, and is an ardent supporter for the methods of interrogation which lead to the torture in Iraq, Guantanamo, and other locations".
  • Lyndon LaRouche/archive4 - "Adam uses this argument to cover for the fact that he is simply lying."

Martin 21:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)