User talk:TomMoore/archive 01

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"He judged it not fit to determine anything rashly; and seemed to doubt whether those different forms of religion might not all come from God, who might inspire man in a different manner, and be pleased with this variety; he therefore thought it indecent and foolish for any man to threaten and terrify another to make him believe what did not appear to him to be true."

You're stuck now

Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. Karajou 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

That's a joke, right? Wandering 15:50, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
You're giving me eight hours to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact (that I already documented for you, albeit in contemporary sources) from a two-month span thirty years ago? Most newspaper archives online don't even run back that far for free, do you realize you are essentially demanding I drive to the library and hit the microfilm archives for a couple of hours today? And you're threatening me with a block if I don't do as you say?
Also, I have to wonder at the sarcasm, since all I did was post three links in a discussion providing evidence to this matter, with the word "Flavor-Aid" three times as link. Maybe it's how you're pronouncing it... try saying it to yourself differently.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 15:54, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, just realized I never said whether or not I was going to do it. The answer is no. Even if I responded to bullying, I don't have time today to go to the library.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 17:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
The fact that you didn't even offer to try weighs against you. A better response would have been that you'll do your best, but that you aren't sure you can meet the deadline.
And calling an editorial direction "bullying" is going to get you removed as a volunteer from this project. All of us have to take on assignments from time to time, like them or not. If you have something valuable to contribute, cool off and reconsider. --Ed Poor Talk 19:50, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
Now wait just a second, take a look at his comments up above. You don't think that is very insulting and patronizing? You characterize it as giving direction, but it would be more accurate to say he was giving me orders, would it not? And backing them up with a threat of a block?
I'm sorry if I didn't bow and scrape enough, but I was not amused and I think it's pretty obvious he simply wanted an excuse to block me for providing evidence that supported someone arguing against him; i.e. because he was wrong. My reward for stepping in and finding sources for them on the matter (contributing) was to be treated incredibly shabbily and threatened. Do you honestly look at that and think it is not bullying? "Editorial direction" might be a suggestion, not a command that is an affront to my dignity and is accompanied by a threat.
I assure you, I did cool off. My first response to Karajou contained some speculations as to his leisure-time activities and where he could put various things, but I took a few minutes and rethought my words, and instead responded reasonably and with far more respect than I was treated.
You seem to be criticizing my response as less than good-natured, which is reasonable considering how it took all of my good nature not to be overly precipitous in my reply, but am I to understand you support his actions?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 19:58, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

I spent just five minutes finding this document at MTSU's library. It's a news item from the Washington Post, dated November 22, 1978, and sent on the wire from Guyana by UPI:

"...the autopsy showed the ingredients, blended in a huge cauldron filled with grape-flavored Kool-Aid, included thorazine, a sedative; demerol, a pain killer; phaerengen, an anti-histimine that promotes absorbtion of substances into the blood system; thalium, a tranquilizer; haliopareol, an antipsychotic sedative used to calm violent people; largatil, another sedative; and two poisons - potassium cyanide, which affects the respiratory system, and potassium chloride. The brew contained depressants to minimize the pain associated with cyanide poisoning, and may have been used to trick the faithful into believing they were only rehearsing their deaths."

In short, the experts on the scene wanted to know exactly what was inside that vat, and if they took the time out to read the labels of the medical ingredients, they took the same amount of time and care to read the label of a cheap flavored kid's drink. And this was reported to the news media FIVE DAYS after the mass suicide took place.

This is also what I mean by good, competant research that anyone can and should do. Except you, and yet you started this by posting something with a modern twist mixed with sarcasm on my talk page, and ended it here with excuses as to why you can't. I'll see you in a week. Karajou 02:36, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Skip it...I won't block you. We'll just chalk it up to lessons learned and leave it at that. Karajou 02:40, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
If you learned your lesson, then I am happy to let it go. Thank you, and sorry it turned into such a big deal.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:39, 30 May 2008 (EDT)


  • block me for providing evidence that supported someone arguing against him
No, but you're close. For arguing without providing evidence. Unlike Wikipedia, we do not censor opposing viewpoints when they are properly documented. We're not afraid of balancing conservative and liberal POV, for example, in the many places where this is appropriate. But stating as fact something which is mere speculation is no good.
For that matter, you are free to "fact-tag" anything I write, if you feel it requires backup. (If no one finds a reference after a long enough period time, my writing can be erased ... hm, sounds like a Guideline emerging here.) --Ed Poor Talk 11:21, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure what you mean by speculation and "without evidence", since this was started when I provided three links to evidence, one of which is the account of the son of Jim Jones, who was actually present at Jonestown. Karajou just didn't like the result, for some reason. But it doesn't really matter, and we can let it go now, since he appears to have realized his mistake. Thank you for your concern anyway.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:39, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Not Wise

"If you learned your lesson, then I am happy to let it go..."

"...But it doesn't really matter... since he appears to have realized his mistake..."

When a sysop chooses not to block you, it's not wise to take multiple parting shots at him. Karajou is an excellent finder of historical truth and is very passionate to that end, and while I felt you hadn't done anything that was worthy of being blocked, your conduct now lends itself to a different conclusion. Please consider that while you take a short rest. Learn together 14:04, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Sorry to revert the block, LearnTogether, but I didn't take offense at all to his comments of yesterday, and he did take them back, as well as myself. Besides, and I'm referring slightly to the cheap order I made (and it is cheap, with my apologies to TomMoore), when someone says that he does go to a library to do research on a particular subject, I have to give that person the time to do so...so when 10:30 came and went guess what could not happen? My block threat. Not everything is available on the net, and unlike Tom, I do have a ProQuest access through my university. Karajou 00:05, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
I am pleased for the way you and Tom have worked out this issue. Unblocking for a positive reason, namely that you did not take offense to the statements, is not only fine with me, but preferred. Learn together 23:17, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome

You're welcome. What got me was what you needed to get done in order to carry out the order, which was physically go to the library. I forgot that a lot of people have to do that, especially with news research, and I'm sitting here at home with access to all that; some people just don't have the time, so the order wasn't just silly, but stupid on my part. Anyway, I got the article more or less done; it could use minor touch ups, photos, or any other pertinent info.

As to the Kool-Aid, that shouldn't change, and here's the reason. I have read White Night twenty years ago; I read many survivors testimonies; read the coroner's report; read many news items, some of which were placed on the page, and all of them mention Kool-Aid. I only read the fact that Flav-or-Aid was more recent, more than twenty years after the event. So what needs to happen for the article is that to ensure the presence of Flav-or-Aid as a fact at Jonestown, we need 1), a supply manifest of items ordered for Jonestown or other documentation dated 1977-1978 that mentions Flav-or-Aid; 2) testimony from a Jonestown/People's Temple survivor that it was indeed used; 3) a photograph which clearly shows it being there at the time. Karajou 01:05, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

I have Pro-Quest too through my former school, but I have no training in using it for journalistic purposes, nor (to be frank) will I ever do anything on assignment, as a matter of principle. Ed Poor blocked me previously for that, actually. It's not in the rules and I resent being ordered about. But that's done with for right now, until the next time, so it's no worries.
To tell the truth, I don't really care if it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid. I heard the PBS special about Jonestown a few months ago, and recalled that detail. So I did a google search and dropped off the top three links I found mentioning that detail on the page where the dispute was occurring. It's not an issue for me.
If it is really important to you, though, you might want to just call the Flavor-Aid people. Google turns up this, which is I believe the company that makes it. Since such a matter is bad press for them and negative, you can probably rely on their answer if it is in the affirmative that it was their product. Perhaps their denial cannot be taken at similar face value, but it would certainly save you time if you are really intent on the matter.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 01:39, 31 May 2008 (EDT)