User talk:Jros83: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:04, 2 May 2010 editJros83 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,063 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:52, 2 August 2011 edit undoMystichumwipe (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,132 edits →9/11 conspiracy theories: new sectionNext edit →
Line 42:		Line 42:

	Thanks for your comment about the Diary of Anne Frank. My own view is that she probably had a diary of sorts. I also think that there was a significant period of time between the date Otto Frank discovered the diary and the day on which he released it for publication. Using words commonly found in the Congressional Record, there was sufficient motive and opportunity for him to "extend and revise" his daughter's remarks. ] (]) 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)		Thanks for your comment about the Diary of Anne Frank. My own view is that she probably had a diary of sorts. I also think that there was a significant period of time between the date Otto Frank discovered the diary and the day on which he released it for publication. Using words commonly found in the Congressional Record, there was sufficient motive and opportunity for him to "extend and revise" his daughter's remarks. ] (]) 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

			== 9/11 conspiracy theories ==

			Hi
			I see you raised similar thoughts to mine on this article some time back.
			I agree with what you wrote and see that others have made the same observation over time, but to no avail.
			I don't know if this is OK to do (contacting like-minded individuals to reach a consensus on a contentious article) or if you are still interested? But if it is OK, I wonder if I could ask for your involvement on the discussion page under '''Article neutrality and accuracy - the introduction''' ]--] (]) 15:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:52, 2 August 2011

DISCLAIMER: If you put something here, and then I remove it, and you then put it back or replace it with something reworded but meaning the same thing, then you and I are going to have a problem. Don't do it. If I deleted your drivel, let it be. This goes especially for you pseudointellectuals who keep saying I "attacked" you when all I did is contradict something you said. You know who you are.

Part of Napoleonic Wars?

I think that we should recognise that there are at least four participants in the "War of 1812". Native Indians, British, United States American and Canadian. It is possible that of these, some would, while some would not, have put the war into the broader context of the war in Europe.

As a point of interest regarding any desire at the time to fold in Upper and Lower Canada into the United States during the War of 1812, am I wrong in my belief that the Declaration of Independence still allows any Province of Canada to petition for inclusion into the United States of America?

Also, regarding the impressment by Britain of sailors formerly British citizens, I personally think that such action was deplorable. However, under present U.S. law, a citizen who seeks to renounce U.S. citizenship should also be aware that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations.

124.170.29.156 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Marc_in_Oz

So are you agreeing with my position or no...? I have purposely been avoiding that article for weeks now anyway... Jersey John (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for giving me some encouragement to come back on wikipedia (and for the kind words). I appreciate it. Looks like I opened a can of worms on the page, though. I decided to put an actual entry in the Beck page. But now CPTONO has lodged a complaint about me, because of an edit war. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your Conservapedia dilemma

That site is a farce and a parody. I had a similar problem. You can see my attempts at understanding the madness here. Cheers!--It's me...Sallicio! 05:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Washington

I posted something there also, and it also did not seem to "take" right away. Must be a server issue. →Baseball Bugs carrots 13:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bug bug bug

I have no objection whatever to 2YO comments, if something's bugging you. Absent knowing what page was involved, however, I can only say, "Huh?" ;D Care to clarify? TREKphiler 20:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain?

This? ]Abce2 (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And this?]Abce2 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer?Abce2 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering if your account had been compromised. If so, I would have gotten a swift, "Fuck off." Anyway, glad to see it's not. Cheers, Abce2 (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cheers, Abce2 (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Caution

Caution is always wise when living in the Middle East, but I am able to meet with others from time to time. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Anne Frank Diary

Thanks for your comment about the Diary of Anne Frank. My own view is that she probably had a diary of sorts. I also think that there was a significant period of time between the date Otto Frank discovered the diary and the day on which he released it for publication. Using words commonly found in the Congressional Record, there was sufficient motive and opportunity for him to "extend and revise" his daughter's remarks. John Paul Parks (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Hi I see you raised similar thoughts to mine on this article some time back. I agree with what you wrote and see that others have made the same observation over time, but to no avail. I don't know if this is OK to do (contacting like-minded individuals to reach a consensus on a contentious article) or if you are still interested? But if it is OK, I wonder if I could ask for your involvement on the discussion page under Article neutrality and accuracy - the introduction ]--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)