I did sign up (as Talldave). Anyone want to bump my privs? The misconception that most angers me is the assertion that Iraq has not made huge strides in political freedom and democracy. I'd like to start a topic on that, and I've got a few links to political freedom indicators.
The .org name was a nice catch too. Surprised that was available. And nice of Yon to let us use that picture; it's so perfect symbolic of what's happening over there.
No - and the front page won't have articles listed on it (at least not like it does now) for much longer.
The easiest way to make a new page is to make a link on another page, then click the link. It'll take you straight to the edit page for the new page. The hardest part is finding a page to put your link on. But as luck would have it....
Almost by default, you should be linking your new page from the the Community Portal, under the "Stub" section - because unless you write a perfect article in the first sitting, you're going to leave it at some point and someone else is going to come in later and make it better. That's what the Community Portal is all about - telling people who want to help out what projects are needed or in development.
You can also create an article by simply searching for whatever you want to call it. The wiki will then ask you if you want to create one and you can go from there.
I got it off of Yon's web site. We can probably get a higher-quality original from Yon and his attorneys, however, I'd rather wait to ask until Chris finishes his revisions to the front page.
Chris, I will mention that we really need to find some way to incorporate whatever legal language is required to protect Michael's copyright.
Mike: Hmm. Now that represents something interesting.
The traditional wiki way is we'd take that and post it in the wiki then let others chew on it. Or, to post a link to the original blog entry. But it does occur to me that there's a third way: a good piece like that could be reprinted wholesale and protected so it can't be edited. We could develop a collection of such things. But then the question of your qualifications would come in.
I'm a lawyer. I did the research. If anyone wants to look at the case law concerning the effect of international law on enumerated Constitutional powers they may. Or it may be placed as a discussion item, or it may be used as a hanger queen for parts needed to fill out an article.
Anyway, I stand behind everything I wrote, including all of the caveats. I have re-posted parts of it in comments, here and at other sites, when I thought it would be useful. I'm not trying to smoke-screen anything, (although my profession is known for that) I was trying to be illuminating, in a reader-non lawyer-fashion.
BTW, I will have been a liscensed attorney in Michigan for eleven years come this Halloween. Dean, you have my name and I am listed on the State Bar website. For a wiki piece I don't have a problem with that being mentioned.
Again, anyone is welcome to do their own research, prove that the case law I cited is not applicable, or overruled on the grounds I am citing the case for, or argue that there is anything in the current AMF regarding Iraq that was illegal. Again, I said illegal. The Spanish-American War was a case where the US population and Congress wanted to go to war and the president didn't. It may have been ill-advised, or based on incorrect information, but the Spanish-American War was perfectly legal.
There is a vast ground between 'unwise' and 'illegal'.
Mike: Good to know. I suspected something like that. Now it still begs the interesting question. Actually, two interesting questions, which are almost entirely unrelated:
1) Are you willing to put your full name and credentials over it? Because if you aren't, I really don't know what to do with it. "The masked lawyer says this is right?"
If that scares you all I'll say is that I do it every day. On the other hand, I don't know your situation, and can't condemn you if you decide you're not in a position to do that.
2) What do we on this wiki do with something like this? We're trying to avoid a bullshit "point/counterpoint" proposition. We're here to make a case. Those on the other side can make their own case, but this is OUR case: we have legitimate reasons to be there, and we have legitimate reasons for not cutting and running.
On question #1, only you can answer.
On question #2, I'm going to wuss out: I'm going to ask our new front page editor Chris tell us what he thinks. We're not going to host a series of "debates." We're building a case, and the merits of that case will be decided by the readers. Can we use a series of articles like yours that are not subject to general wiki editing? Yes. But what are we doing with it if we do?
Front page editor Chris just realized why he made a mistake: I'm asking him to decide what to do. It's a great piece though.
Michael Demmons: I really want to make the front page look good before I ask Michael Yon and his people what they think. Because they basically don't get this blog thing, or this wiki thing. And yes, that includes Yon himself, who barely understands blogs and asked me "what's a wiki?" when I asked him. Even though he gave me permission. So I want to make sure that what we have on that front page looks really good before we ask for a final blessing.
Your cleaned up photos look great though. Just stay frosty.
I think we should have links to discussions, pro and con, on issues raised. Mike has given us a good example of such a link here.
Very good. And mostly agreed. But I really, seriously, want to avoid "point/counterpoint" thinking. That's artificial and wrong. Giving the devil his due is fine, but strict "party A says X, party B says Y" is wrong. Let the other side make their points, which they have done endlessly. We do have an editorial position, God damn it. It's not slavish, it's not cultish, but we damn well are making our case.
Dean: On my original work I have no qualms about my name being used. My only qualm is if someone changes what I actually wrote, i.e., quotes me as saying something that I did not. I am pretty relaxed about many things, but soemthing that I have created, be it a piece of legal research, or rebuilding a wooden Adirondack chair? I want the addresses to point to the actual work, not the work that someone manipulates to say I did.
I have a very hot temper; someone can try to argue that I meant 'x' or 'y' when I meant 'z'; but to actually change the words I said?
I have pride in my work; I will stand by my work; but I will not stand for anyone physically changing the words I have said for their own purposes. That, to me, is a Declaration of War. I know; "If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools," means that I have missed the 'never explain, never complain' part; but I refuse to concede being willfully misquoted to evil.
So, to be brief, to be obvious, and to be seated, my work can be used as attributed to me.
As to what can be done with it? Treat it as an opinion of a lawyer on a subject of law. I made the argument, I stand by it. A better argument can come in, and the courts' may change the precedential value of that argument. I know, it sounds all squishy, like lawyer-talk, but until the courts' rule everything, no matter how well bolstered with precedence, is just a 'maybe'. Honestly, I can advise no more - I'm just a lawyer, I'm not God Almighty able to arrange all to my satisfaction, nor am I the embodiment of nine black-robed humans in Washington, D.C.
I'm not afraid for my real-life job. I have kept my posting and my commenting within the bounds my job has allowed, as I understand them. As I said in my original posting at Cold Fury, what I used as my first research souce was a general attorney reference work. The cases speak for themselves - I have placed my interpretaion on them, but that is what my profession requires within the bounds of the text of the statutes, common dictionary definitions for common terms, and legal dictionary definitions for 'terms of art'. I loathe twisting words into what they are not, and I quoted the courts verbatim when they spoke directly on the subject.
With that 'let the reader beware' I have no fear regarding the honesty of what I wrote.
If it needs to be said, I wasn't ignoring this thread, I was trying (and so far have failed) to get the main page done. I did divert at one point to answer the question, and ended up wasting a lot of time on an overlong response that ended up trashed.
In short, I would encourage us to link heavily to wherever we find principled support for the war, honest criticism from the loyal opposition (dwindling though it may be), and constructive discussions of the various issues with both sides engaged.
As I've said before, I think we need to avoid editorializing within our own pages as much as possible. (Though the statement I made on that Talk page may not make clear my strong opposition to a strict NPOV.) It looks like Mike wrote something good and it's hosted somewhere already, so we can link to it. Why would we want to do more than that?
It looks like Mike wrote something good and it's hosted somewhere already, so we can link to it. Why would we want to do more than that?
works for me.
5.31.2007 12:16pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
This Wiki was Intelligently Designed!
The easiest way to make a new page is to make a link on another page, then click the link. It'll take you straight to the edit page for the new page. The hardest part is finding a page to put your link on. But as luck would have it....
Almost by default, you should be linking your new page from the the Community Portal, under the "Stub" section - because unless you write a perfect article in the first sitting, you're going to leave it at some point and someone else is going to come in later and make it better. That's what the Community Portal is all about - telling people who want to help out what projects are needed or in development.
link
Chris, I will mention that we really need to find some way to incorporate whatever legal language is required to protect Michael's copyright.
The traditional wiki way is we'd take that and post it in the wiki then let others chew on it. Or, to post a link to the original blog entry. But it does occur to me that there's a third way: a good piece like that could be reprinted wholesale and protected so it can't be edited. We could develop a collection of such things. But then the question of your qualifications would come in.
Still it's a very good piece...
Anyway, I stand behind everything I wrote, including all of the caveats. I have re-posted parts of it in comments, here and at other sites, when I thought it would be useful. I'm not trying to smoke-screen anything, (although my profession is known for that) I was trying to be illuminating, in a reader-non lawyer-fashion.
Again, anyone is welcome to do their own research, prove that the case law I cited is not applicable, or overruled on the grounds I am citing the case for, or argue that there is anything in the current AMF regarding Iraq that was illegal. Again, I said illegal. The Spanish-American War was a case where the US population and Congress wanted to go to war and the president didn't. It may have been ill-advised, or based on incorrect information, but the Spanish-American War was perfectly legal.
There is a vast ground between 'unwise' and 'illegal'.
1) Are you willing to put your full name and credentials over it? Because if you aren't, I really don't know what to do with it. "The masked lawyer says this is right?"
If that scares you all I'll say is that I do it every day. On the other hand, I don't know your situation, and can't condemn you if you decide you're not in a position to do that.
2) What do we on this wiki do with something like this? We're trying to avoid a bullshit "point/counterpoint" proposition. We're here to make a case. Those on the other side can make their own case, but this is OUR case: we have legitimate reasons to be there, and we have legitimate reasons for not cutting and running.
On question #1, only you can answer.
On question #2, I'm going to wuss out: I'm going to ask our new front page editor Chris tell us what he thinks. We're not going to host a series of "debates." We're building a case, and the merits of that case will be decided by the readers. Can we use a series of articles like yours that are not subject to general wiki editing? Yes. But what are we doing with it if we do?
Front page editor Chris just realized why he made a mistake: I'm asking him to decide what to do. It's a great piece though.
I think we should have links to discussions, pro and con, on issues raised. Mike has given us a good example of such a link here.
Your cleaned up photos look great though. Just stay frosty.
I think we should have links to discussions, pro and con, on issues raised. Mike has given us a good example of such a link here.
Very good. And mostly agreed. But I really, seriously, want to avoid "point/counterpoint" thinking. That's artificial and wrong. Giving the devil his due is fine, but strict "party A says X, party B says Y" is wrong. Let the other side make their points, which they have done endlessly. We do have an editorial position, God damn it. It's not slavish, it's not cultish, but we damn well are making our case.
I have a very hot temper; someone can try to argue that I meant 'x' or 'y' when I meant 'z'; but to actually change the words I said?
I have pride in my work; I will stand by my work; but I will not stand for anyone physically changing the words I have said for their own purposes. That, to me, is a Declaration of War. I know; "If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools," means that I have missed the 'never explain, never complain' part; but I refuse to concede being willfully misquoted to evil.
So, to be brief, to be obvious, and to be seated, my work can be used as attributed to me.
As to what can be done with it? Treat it as an opinion of a lawyer on a subject of law. I made the argument, I stand by it. A better argument can come in, and the courts' may change the precedential value of that argument. I know, it sounds all squishy, like lawyer-talk, but until the courts' rule everything, no matter how well bolstered with precedence, is just a 'maybe'. Honestly, I can advise no more - I'm just a lawyer, I'm not God Almighty able to arrange all to my satisfaction, nor am I the embodiment of nine black-robed humans in Washington, D.C.
With that 'let the reader beware' I have no fear regarding the honesty of what I wrote.
My opinion is my own personal opinion.
So any comments can go to my personal e-mail account.
In short, I would encourage us to link heavily to wherever we find principled support for the war, honest criticism from the loyal opposition (dwindling though it may be), and constructive discussions of the various issues with both sides engaged.
As I've said before, I think we need to avoid editorializing within our own pages as much as possible. (Though the statement I made on that Talk page may not make clear my strong opposition to a strict NPOV.) It looks like Mike wrote something good and it's hosted somewhere already, so we can link to it. Why would we want to do more than that?
works for me.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.