User talk:TrulyTory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(shakes head) My, aren't you a piece of work. Perish the thought that anyone could disagree with you other than a conspiracy. RGTraynor 14:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
no, it is opinion. thanks for correcting. between the two of us, we have improved this entry however. TrulyTory 19:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- A valiant effort with the Bobby Orr page. But it won't last. There are some wiki-nazis lurking about who feel they own the hockey pages. They are bound to take offence to your edit(even though you included the word 'arguably' to remove POV) and rv it because they they 'idol worship' a different player. Good Luck though ~Mr Pyles~
- I hate to say I told ya so but...
~Mr Pyles
- We shall continue to fight the good fight however .... Cheers !
- The word "arguably," all by itself, doesn't suddenly turn an unverified POV into NPOV. As we told Mr Pyles, if anyone cares to submit verifiable, current references backing up their assertions, then they can gain a consensus for their views. Mr Pyles has so far declined to bother, choosing instead to attack the credentials of anyone whose POV is (or that he claims is, anyway) different from his own. One of the things that Wikipedia is not is a soapbox. There are no doubt many forums and bulletin boards where you can press your personal opinions all you want on this subject, and good luck to you. RGTraynor 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
TrulyTory, His(and a couple of others) entire POV is based on 1 book. A book which used 50 hockey 'experts' as selected by The Hockey News. A book which, BTW, did not list Steve Yzerman as one of the top 50 players of all time??? I guess somehow the opinions of these 50 represent the opinions of all?. It's a very Communist way to control an otherwise informative series of pages. I have tried (as quite a few others have tried) to correct the wording to 'many' or 'some' rather than the misleading word 'most' which implies fact and should never be used. But it is to no avail. He's right that wiki shouldn't be a soapbox, but apparently it is a soapbox for a select few. I will credit them though as they hawk some of these pages in that they catch obvious vandalism and revert it almost as quick as it happens. And the overall layout of the pages is very well done. So, even with the POV in place, the wiki-'Kremlin' has done some noble work. ~Mr Pyles
[edit] Gibby
So by Tory do you mean you love protectionism? and thus the exploitation of societies poorest people?
(Gibby 02:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC))
pragmatic according to whom? Whoever happens to give the most $$$ to the ruling party? Today's winners in society? I dont call free market "doctrinare" I believe that is a reductionist statement and view to make. Free markets are simply consistant logic and policy application...instead of picking winners and losers the market is free and fair with the consumer (which represents everyone) rather than the capital owner or socialist minority being able to retain political dominance by exploiting opposition.
Your definition of pragmatic to me, simply means that you wish to award friends and punish foes without caring for the consequence of the consumers as the whole of your society. (Gibby 18:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
No the "free trade" era has not come and past, it never came. And no free trade does not work only for small geographical areas. And before you say it, no free trade does not require every state to engage in free trade. As a matter of fact the best possible outcome is for one state to engage in free trade and all others remain protectionist while subsidizing their own industries.
The country that gets to be free market gets a bunch of cheap imports at the expense of foriegn tax payers.
And I seriously don't know what you mean by predatory countries trying to dominate. Thats a bunch of silliness. If one country became very effecient at using steel to make cars then there is no reason why far less effecient countries should make cars. They would be wasting resources. Likewise its unlikely that this effecient car making country can effeciently make all goods. Contrary to what you believe, free trade encourages cooperation among states and cooperation among citizens of states whose livelihoods are now interconnected by making resources, trading resources, converting resources into goods, and selling goods.
Friedman's example of how to make a pencil is a perfect example of how markets (and not even a free one) works to encourage cooperation among diverse people.
Also, tariffs do nothing but exploit the consumer of your own society. You are simply advocating the perverse increase in prices of goods at a high expense to your own societies poorest members.
(Gibby 21:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
You sound like a nationalist and perhaps a bit of a socialist...thats a national socialist by the way. Stop reading Stiglitz, you are trying to create strawmen by calling me a fundamentalist. There is no such thing.
And "dominated by foriegn companies" Oh no! Guess what your society is better off with "foriegn" companies "dominating" than with local companies, obviously because these companies have come in and survied on voluntary transactions with the people. They are providing superior products, services, lower prices than otherwise would be. Your society is also free to innovate and create companies of their own. And guess what, free to buy stocks, or join the companies and work your way up the corporate ladder.
Your fears are nationalistic, simplistic, and regressive.
You have nothing to worry about except low prices, product innovation, and superior goods.
And really, thats not much to worry about.
Its your type of nationalist self interested outlook that leads to exploitation, colonialism, imperialism, conflict, and war.
(Gibby 21:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
also your complaints about corporate behaivor are really about government interference into the economy. Corporations wouldnt be able to seek protection and special favors from governments if people didnt have the same policy prefrences you do. Government intervention is the problem not corporations. (Gibby 21:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
I wonder how you think markets actually work because I think your conflating free market with mixed market as we've never had a free market. Any and all market oriented reforms have been stumped by statist policies that remain in place and as a result they usually do not have the desired effect. For free markets to work you either free everything up, or you dont get the promised goal.
The dominance of the U.S. economy is the result not of what you suggested but of one of the largest free market zones mixed with a healthy dose of liberalism that has been sustained far longer than most countries. Our average weighted tariff is around 3% most states have At-Will hiring and firing policies, many companies remain free from unionization, property laws are well maintained. These liberal ideals, although not complete, have built up over time to create a very strong and vibrant economy. In time, any other country that copies the U.S., or better yet, goes to unilaterial free trade will be as strong or stronger than the U.S. economy.
Canada would experience huge surges in economy growth by freeing the economy, reducing many of the favored union laws, institute at-will policies, eliminate price and wage controls, reduce or eliminate tariffs (hell the U.S. tariffs against lumber certain hurt Canada as well as U.S. homemakers).
I also dont think you are really aware of how international competition really works...whether or not you actually worked for a fortune 100 company (mail room?). Who says that size of the company is what matters? Seriously. THere are a lot of highly competitive and profitable small companies operating internationally.
And as far as raising capital to compete is concerned have you heard of Hewlitt Packard? Dell? One was started in a barn the other in a house.
And raising capital in the country. Don't worry who the source of the capital is. THe United States grew up on the capital of Europeans. We took their capital, developed our industries, made profit for the Europeans, and took our own capital that we made and generated more for ourselves. You seem to have a very forgetful or selective historical memory.
You also seem to think that export industry is the only thing that sustains a country. You can run a country having no exports at all and possibly sustain such an economy forever. There will still remain service industries, human capital, and property to sell. And foriegn investment is only a good thing, it means foriegners believe your country to be a safe bet, it does not give you to put ignorant fears into your fellow citizens to make it seem like your country is being over run by foriegners. We have a word for that in America, its called xenophobia.
If you took two countries, Canada and the United States, with Canada as the protectionist country with corporate subsides and the United States with unilateral free trade (say they are the only 2 countries n the world)... Canada would look to have an early victory as trade preventive tariffs keep US imports out. But Canadian companies are no longer subject to market competition now being protected by tariffs and subsidies. U.S companies however must innovate and become effecient to survive. Overtime they create better and better products and lower and lower prices while the Canadian company stagnates and suffers. To survive the Canadian company requires higher and higher tariffs (aka the consumer pays more and more) and or more subsidies (aka the taxpayer pays more and more). In the long run (really not that long of a time at all as history has shown...30 years at most) the U.S. company comes out on top and the Canadian economy goes in the crapper and into a nice depression. The longer you prevent free trade the harder the fall will be. The more economic restricts the harder the fall, as the market has to make harsher and harsher corrections to make itself work.
As far as your worries about outsourcing and globalization, have no fear. Outsourced jobs are actually a good thing (though some jobs are not outsourced because of "evil corporations" as you may assert" but overbloated and overcomplicated tax laws and economic interference by the government. Governments thus reduce profitability of companies and they move over seas. Other labor regulations also reduce profitability. At anyrate the job outsourcing represents societies unwillingness to continue to pay certain wages for certain jobs. Those jobs go to where society will bare the cost and that former worker must find a higher valued use (economic term for the job where society will sustain them a wage given a certain level of value that laborer provides society). Outsourcing is just modern job destruction and there is nothing wrong with job destruction. This is why I call you a regressive nationalist. YOu are interested in preserving the here and now rather than moving forward to a positive future. Job destruction is the markets way of innovating and streemlining the market for the next big leap.
For example, as new agricultural inventions made profits higher. Profits caused farmers to grow more and generate more food. The new inventions also displaced labor. This labor moved to the cities to find new work and became laborers in industrial factories.
Shall I go on? Yes I shall. The maker of wagon wheels lost his job to the maker of rubber auto wheels. The maker of the abycus lost his job to the maker of calculators. ANd if we had of protected the jobs of telephone operators to keep them from losing their jobs to computers then we wouldnt be able to have cell phones today.
Contrary to your belief, and its hard to swall, job destruction is positive for society. Your favored policies keep economies stagnant and regressive.
I'm all for you doing that. Because that means higher profits for the free market country as they will continue to innovate and move forward you will find yourself with little reason to innovate until it is too late. By all means exploit your own consumer or subsidies your companies with taxpayer funds. But dont dellude yourself that you are doing it for the good of your country you are only doing it for the good of a company and its shareholders. Which is why I think you truly changed your view. Its not about saving canada its about protecting your own capital and the capital of your employers.
(Gibby 07:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
Oh yes, and about corporations making huge profits in oversea markets...I dont care, where they make their profits so long as they are profitable. And i'm really not sure on how you get your information or what information you exactly get but, what is so bad about corporations spending capital over seas? really? Its simply an investment the corporation expects a return on.
I think you believe its bad because you have a fallacious assumption that the wealth of the world is fixed and by spending wealth in one part of the world the other part must lose. THis is not true. Who knows, maybe you know its not true but you still hold on to the fallacious assumption anyway (I have a professor right now who will admit the wordlds wealth is unlimited but still complain about trade deficits and corporate investment overseas like you do....its fallacious, and irrational!) (Gibby 07:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
[edit] protectionism
please educate me on the reasons why you believe governments have a legitimate right to raise tariffs? corporate subsidies? trade quotas? other trade barriers? capital controls? fixed exchange rates?
(Gibby 07:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
Please answer these questions?
Trying to guess my age or education level does not constitute an answer of questions that I know am starting to think you are unable to answer. You seem to also have missed the several paragraphs above this section. Please try again. (Gibby 17:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
The common good is best protected by engaging in free trade and eliminating prefrences of one group over another at the expense of underprivilaged in your own society....you want the opposisite with your heavy economic interference. Please tell me how the common good is protected by raising tariffs?
There is nothing wrong with "American" corporations in emerging markets and nothing exploitive about them. They are not "feasting" they are developing. These corporations are doing more for the economies and people of Asia, South America, in some cases Africa, than the IMF, World Bank, and most donating governments put together. The capital invested results in jobs, improved working conditions, improved life styles, things will only get better with time.
If free trade was to continue, seriously continue, American wage dominance will decrease as predicted by the Stolper Samuelson model, but prices of goods will decrease as well. World living conditions and wealth will rise altogether and so will the value of capital (thus laborers such as myself can always invest in capital and make money work for us while we work for money).
Unlike you I'm not a nationalist, so I dont care if or how long American corporations "dominate" I care about high quality and or low prices. I'm looking at the consumer end, where justice and fairness are at, your looking at the producer end where you can get re-elected, huge donations to your cause, or special privilages at the expense of the rest of society. (Gibby 17:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
No its because you are incapable of truely attacking the free market on its own grounds...instead you have to refer to me as an undergraduate (and you even got that wrong). You don't seem to understand the first thing about economic market operations, but feel free to exploit and steal from your own people if you want, Canada will be more hurt by it than we will...oh and third world countries too...they'll just be stuck in poverty.
DO you ever debate things on their own merits or do you just call your competitors undergrads and call it quits? Come on that doesnt work...also note that you're a hypocrite. (Gibby 06:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC))
Bored? By what? Your inability to make an arguement? YOu dont even know what makes a free market advocate a fundamentalist? You just pander back to these explinations because they are fallbacks to your inadequate arguements.
What makes free market advocates fundamentalists? Seriously? Explain that at least.
[edit] arb evidence
Just a suggestion, as I can't edit your section, you may like to modify your evidence for Gibby's arbitration case to include the diff where it was actually included, to highlight this information, especially if the talk page gets archived or something. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:John Farthing2.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:John Farthing2.jpeg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- The tagging is good and I took the no license tag off. The source is not very good. It does not seem to actually get me to the image. If you could check that source out it would be great. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 02:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Canadian participation in France during World War II
Hi Tory,
Regarding your recent change/restoration to the Battle of Dunkirk page, I propose moving this information to the existing "Battle of France" article, since it appears to fall outside the Dunkirk timeframe. What do you think?
Regards,
StephenMacmanus 01:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Users With Poor Writing Skills
I'm not sure who this WG contributor is. I don't think he scored very high in his English classes.(at least not in the essay/technical writing portion anyway) Take Care TT!, ~Mr Pyles
-
- he must be finding it very hard to type with those socks on his hands???
[edit] George Grant
Hi TrulyTory, I noticed your comments on my page. I definitely think Grant deserves more time and energy, I just hate starting something I cannot quickly toss off-(unlike other articles where a person can just add a few comments in spare time and not feel you've done anybody an injustice.) Right on with the suggestions for additions though. --Mikerussell 03:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Classical liberalism
It was not my intention to remove your edits. I think I opened the page, had to do sometging else and when I came bag, saved my edit. Your edits in the meantime were deleted accidentaly in that action. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 17:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Red Tory
I and HistoryBA were not "Managing the input" (See: [[1]]). Wikipedia is not a contest of ideology. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I was simply cleaning up the language to better reflect common understanding: "Lodestar" and "disposition" are just extraneous words. They're not necessary, and dilute understanding of the article for the person who reads it strictly for information about a term. And I'm not a "neoconservative", I'm non-ideological.
That article does not belong to you. It does not belong to your "tory" friends. It does not belong to me. It doesn't belong to anyone. For example, check out John Turner, and look in the history section. Notice how 3-4 main editors and the rest just went over and over all information, criticised each other's points, corrected each other, checked with each other, put everything in, and we come out with a nicer article. Notice how nobody "Name dropped" that they knew so many Liberals in the talk page to try and make their edits above the others, or brushed aside edits. And we have a nice article.
If you're offended by me clearing up a few words, I'd reccomend reading: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
Again, a good deal of your edits did flesh out the page a lot, and I think they made the article better.
Thanks, and yours in editing, Habsfannova 14:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, I don't listen to facts? I provide what the meaning of "red" in Red Tory is, and you simply dismiss the source and provide links that don't answer the question. And I'm brainwashed by the US media...Ok...whatever you believe, I guess.Habsfannova 15:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Violating Wikipedia Policies
You are to assume good faith on the part of other editors and are to refrain from personal insults. Failure to do so is a violation of Wikipedia policy and may result in your being suspended. HistoryBA 00:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No personal attacks
Your response to me on Talk:One Nation that "Characterisations are not personal attacks." demonstrates that you have nor reviewed that policy. I ask again that you do so.
Let me remind you that you called me arrogant, smug, arrogant, uninformed and unread. You stated: "I can guartantee I have READ more on the subject than the three of you combined."
Here are some of the key points from Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which is an official policy on the English Wikipedia:
- Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.... There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.
- Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:
- * Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.
- * Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
The venom in your comments really shocked me given how I left my question standing on the talk pages for two months before I took any action on it. You did not choose to repsond to my question, but instead attakced me with all guns blazing when I made my edit. The comments you posted on Talk:One Nation are clearly personal attacks. Please withdraw them and apologize. Ground Zero | t 20:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- TrulyTory: Your comment on the Red Tory talk page is inappropriate. You are to assume good faith on the part of other editors. HistoryBA 23:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Red Tory.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Red Tory.jpeg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 07:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actaully, what it is meant to imply is the media changing the definition of the term, ie calling Belinda Stronach or Scott Brison Red Tories. I'll change the title accordingly. Thanks for the heads up.Habsfan
|t 17:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Canadian Crown.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Canadian Crown.jpeg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 11:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thought this might interest you
FYI - Wiki-Link 156.34.142.158 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
Why did you remove NPOV tags and my comments? It is common sense to only remove NPOV tags when an issue is resolved and its definetely rude to remove someone's comments. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate a reply. michael talk 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conservativsim is about being "right"
Hello Truly,
Nonsense? I think you missed my point.
I consider myself a "compassionate conservative" and am appalled at the (mis)direction that conservativism has gone worldwide in the last decade. I looked it up here and was disappointed that this community does not have a conclusive or concise definition for "conservativism"... it deserves a definition.
For me, it seems that people (perhaps like yourself) that believe in "answers" lean towards the right, while people who believe in "questions" lean towards the left. In that spirit, what is your succinct defintion of "conservativism"?
Can we figure out a way to improve the definition of "conservativism"? This is my original contribution... please feel free to edit.
---
In general, the conservative "right" believe that truth and justice can be achieved. The belief in "the truth" and that it can be known is what enables righteous thought and what motivates a conservative's individual and political positions. The belief in "the truth" will exclude all expressions of freedom that challenge this sense of truth and justice. On the other hand, the "left" (see progressives) value freedom and liberty and social justice over judgement and tend to believe that freedom implies that "your truth" (not "the truth") is a personal choice that is subject to your perspective and can never be truly known or even agreed to by human beings. It is this distinction between a "need for certainty" and a "need for possibility" that separates the Right and the Left... Conservatives vs. Progressives
---
Sincerely,
-chad
[edit] What is the matter with you?
Look, I get that you just plain can't refrain from personal attacks -- I see that your talk page is littered with complaints on that score. But this business with the Orr page is just plain nonsense. You might want to review WP:CITE and WP:BLP, but let me quote from official policy on the subject: "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim."
Or this one: "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source ... These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked."
This is not optional. Either source the claim or it will be removed. RGTraynor 09:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] George Grant article
Hi Truly, I read your message on my user page and wanted to ask you to think over any additions to the George Grant info box, especially under "influeneced". I thought you might be the best one to ask since have the most good to say in the RT article and have also contribute to Grant. Right now I only have three people. When you get time, look it over. I actually have been rather choppily re-reading Christians' bio of Grant and may get around to adding to the article. thanks--Mikerussell 06:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good work, thanks. I like the Ron Dart article too. --Mikerussell 02:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
