Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive 5

message: I want to congratulate Mr. Southofwatford for his no ending patience and his heroic will to defend the truth and the memory of the victims. But it would be dishonesty not to point how fruitless his effort has been so far. After literally months of careful and respectful discussion, he has been unable to even state in the begining of the article who commit the bombings. Randroide, armed only with more than doubtful newspaper articles had been able to stop the truth with his reckless and disorganized softalking.  Everybody who counts in the world KNOWS for sure who did the bombings at least sice the 12th March 2004 but wikipedia cannot reflect this fact because its working mechanism allows whoever has the patience (and the lack of moral) to stop the truth, to do so. It is sad to say this, but for me is the litmus that shows that the project cannot work properly and wikipedia is a non reliable source. Unestructured lies spread by amateur spin doctors have more chance than the simple and evident truth. I want to apologize to Southofwatford for not having helped him but I knew the outcome from the begining and unfortunately facts are at sight. The bombings were done by an islamist cell and for IRL it is irrelevant if Randroide manages to twist the truth or not (i.e. how much patiente Southofwatford has)in wikipedia. IRL the trial will start in a few days and the culprits will go to prison. IRL the deads are dead as will be forever. IRL the El Mundo lies are lies and as such will be remembered. As the said goes : "all the rest is silence". Southofwatford : I am not exagerating when I say that every good faith person in Spain is behind you and your fight. If at the end you throw the hat to the fire and you surrender, nobody would accuse you of anything since you have fought much beyond the duty. And if at the end you succeed and the truth appears in the article, it would be one of the heroic feats in the ethernal fight against lies and dishonesty, fought in a field (wikipedia) where the most evident truth is in a terrible and dramatic disadvantage. If someone who reads this can do something, please do it (e.g. add a paragraph in the rules that states "if a newspaper has lied in the most infamous way for months about an issue, if it has paid witnesses to lie, if is a part in a political quarrel so have evident reasons to lie, etc...  then, it cannot be a source for this particular issue specially when its opinion is going against the opinion of all the world experts, the police, the judge and the logic.") Igor21 18:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southofwatford : you are a hero of the truth 

message: I can't find and I really miss any reference to the  report of the ESISC on march 17th. The ESISC is an independent agency and it's specially interesting its statement on the real opinion of the Spanish Intelligence Service after the bombings.
Attentats de Madrid 
----
Randroide 13:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The report or the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center 

message: --Larean01 14:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Southofwhatford wrote: I am prepared to refer to the conspiracy theories as "alternative explanations"
I am not. Pedro J. Ramírez makes a very, vey strong point on this issue: He says that he is not trying to "explain" what happened, he is only pointing at the (allegued) inconsistencies of the indictment, the Commission...whatever. J
ust the same with Losantos: He says "I do not know what happened, I am only know that the government lies us". 
I propose the more neutral "doubters of..." the indictment, the Commission, whatever.
----
Southofwatford 20:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, it is provable that El Mundo has violated almost every rule in the deontological code. Your silence concerning the examples I brought up is, allow me to say, deafening. And let me state this again: I DO NOT endorse El Pais. I think some of their latest articles on the matter are deplorable.
Larean: El País (and the SER radio station and Zapatero  himself) brought us the pure, undiluted LIE of "suicidal terrorists" in the immediate aftermath of the bombings. A lie uttered with the devious politically-charged intention of reinforce the "islamist" theory in the previous hours to the march 14th election. They made something despicable. They broke all deontological rules in heaven and earth, and I do not understand why "El país" readers (God bless them) still buy that newspaper.
I am not (and I will not ask) asking for a "ban" or a "red flag" on those media.
What´s the point then in defending "El Mundo"?. You think that is not a good source. I respect your opinion, but Wikipedia rules say that it is a valid source, or, at least, as valid as "El País".
....
--Larean01 13:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Methodology 

message: Randroide 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quid pro quo offer: 

message: Randroide : You accused me of wasting bandwith and space in the servers but whoever looking to this particular page will see who makes the wasting. You keep saying the same unbeliavable things for ages stopping, without any other reason than your stubborn contumacy, the editing of these article (and some others). You think Wales founded wikipedia to allow you to spread non-sense and to block legitimate editors from doing their job? Quosque tandem Randroide, quosque tandem....? Igor21 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who wastes what? 

message: Wikipedia is not the place for awareness ribbons, as it not only fails to add content to the article but also makes a minor political statement. Wikipedia is the place for a lot of things, but not content-free statements of solidarity. --Adamrush 03:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black ribbon 

message: El Mundo is a vomiting source of nauseating lies. Only a demented, immoral and abject mule can say what they regularly excret in their libelous turd. It is a joke to suggest using it as a source of an encyclopedy. All this is GUBU and Randroide is going far beyond any reasonable person can accept. Igor21 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[GUBU]] 

message: Southofwatford 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: or even about presenting a nice centrist image
Why being "centrist" is "nice", Southofwatford?.
----
Southofwatford 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Welcome Example of Clarity 

message: Randroide 10:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userfy the Atelier