Wikipedia

User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 12

< User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Latest comment: 13 years ago by FeydHuxtable in topic Give me your dirty WikiLove
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

No Wikipedia for old men

Latest comment: 13 years ago32 comments3 people in discussion

Malice_____Thought seems like a code-less and cowardly Anton Chigurh.

And now we have a user publicizing the name of a rape victim /complainant in a rape case. "Now days are dragon-ridden" indeed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

(Some jerk stole the ArbCom archives, and then published confidential email, which may result in serious harm to several persons.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC))
 
Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Silver seren's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Well, thank you. I do try to be the voice of the better side of Wikipedia over there. SilverserenC 02:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Publishing the names of rape victims

This apparently moot discussion was extremely distasteful.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rape Complaintant and WP:BLP

Where does it state that naming a rape complainant is against WP:BLP? There are MANY articles which name rape complainants on Wikipedia. See for example articles on:

Tawana Brawley Trisha Meili Crystal Mangum

You seem to be selectively applying a rule (which I can't find) to Julian Assenge's accusers (whose names are already all over the news and the internet.

Please also refer to WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia is not censored! Poyani (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:Censor is trumped by 'WP:BLP, as you should know. (Earlier. Now updated with policy links and quotations 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC))
*WP:Biographies of living persons
*Restoring deleted content: "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first"
Updated with policy links and quotations. 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I edit WP sufficiently that I have no need to apologize for failing to correct all its errors or violations of WP:BLP.
I live in Sweden and I was unaware of the names of the complainants until recently, because civilized press do not publish the names of rape complainants. What is your source, apart from the hateful and marginal CounterPunch?
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Source? Typing this person's name on google brings up half-million results. What source would you like? This person's name is in the New York Times. As I said before there is nothing on BLP about rape claimants being censored. Please refrain from exporting your morality into wikipedia and demanding that other editors adhere to your moral standards. Also note I did not ask for any apology. I asked for an explanation. Poyani (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Your link is broken.Please read WP:BLP, particularly the section giving victims/complainants the benefit of privacy to avoid prolonging victimization. What purpose does putting the complainant's name on that talk page serve? Answer: NONE!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
More sources for you
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/08/1962779/accuser-in-wikileaks-saga-has.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20025270-503543.html
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-09/us/28247531_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-swedish-women-condom
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/assange-fails-to-manage-his-affairs-111773324.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LL16Ak02.html
Poyani (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


The Miami Herald states that her "links to Cuba were posted on several websites Tuesday after Assange surrendered in London", which is consistent with a violation of WP:BLP, per Gossip.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
CBS News cites nobody for its identification of the woman. It cites cites the Australian website for news about the woman's recent activities: Indeed, it notes the weakness of even this sourcing: "Crikey also claimed, according to unidentified sources in Sweden,"... This doesn't establish a WP:BLP public identification of the complainant, and it is a very shaky description of the woman's other activities, if they were subject to a WP article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The Times of India states that "Based on information available on various websites quoting police and court files, and reports in the Swedish media, here's an account of what happened.", again violating BLP:Gossip.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The Winnipeg paper publishes an article that cites no sources, apart from stating she was mentioning an interview (my guess Aftonbladet's as summarized in a couple sentences in the NYT). This source, like the last, should not have been mentioned if you were serious.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The Asia Times is even worse—just a columnist writing sleazy nastiness about Hell having no fury like a woman scorned: "the twin Scandinavian version of Congreve's "a woman scorned"." It's hard for me to continue AGFing when you present such shit as evidence, particularly for your violating BLP about a rape complainant.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Which is why it is not mentioned in any articles about her. What are you talking about anyways? Please remember that the burden of proof is on you to show that WP:BLP prohibits the publishing of a rape complainant's name on a talk-page - and requires such person's name to be censored. There is no mention of rape complainants in WP:BLP.
You are wrong. WP:BLP puts the burden of proof on you for restoring deleted material.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Note that the NYT link is not broken for me. Please check again. Poyani (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The NYT's identification of the complainant is based on the Swedish socialist tabloid Aftonbladet, which need not be reliable.
'Aftonbladets interview does not mention the name of complainant A, in fact.
Regardless of Aftonbladet, this falls under the BLP violation against prolonging the victimization of the complainant.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The NYT states no such thing. It states "But Ms. Finne, the prosecutor, has said the evidence appears to exclude outside manipulation, and one of the two women involved, **** *****, 31, has told the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that ..." Hence the NYT independently identifies the person I identified using * and then quotes them in the newspaper. The NYT does not use the Swedish newspaper to establish identity. It identifies ***** using its own authority. The NYT is a reliable source. Poyani (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

While we are on the subject. Please note that CounterPunch is a reliable source. It fulfills all the requirements listed for reliable sources. Therefore this is a pointless exercise anyways. Poyani (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another source - from Australia's The Age newspaper:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/did-he-or-didnt-he-the-murky-politics-of-sex-and-consent-20101211-18tie.html?skin=text-only Poyani (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
One last thing. The "nastiness" or "sleaziness" of a source is not my problem. You are going around removing references to Ms A (as you call her) who is mentioned by name in a few talkpages but have no problem with the fact that Trisha Meili has an article. Whatever personal vendetta you have in this issue and with regards to this case please do not export them to wikipedia. This is getting absurd. Poyani (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
If you have read WP:BLP and you continue to re-insert contentious BLP material about a ~rape complainant on a WP:Talk page, then I shall file a report at the BLP noticeboard.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
It is not libelous. This is ridiculous. Refer me to whatever you like. You are just making up rules as you go along. The you state that the Miami Herald's description of her Cuban activities are gossip. But what you censored were not about her cuban activities. It was her name which you removed. The Miami Herald states "He is wanted for questioning after ***** and another woman accused him of having sex with them without a condom and without their consent."
You are charging me with violating BLP on a talkpage meanwhile you, without a sense of irony, refer to Gwynne Dyer of the Winnepeg Free Press as "lazy". You refer to Pepe Escobar, a well-respected journalist as "sleazy", describing his work as "nastiness" and "shit".
You demand a source from the source, and possibly another source from the source of the source (as was the case from the Australian, which was the source for CBS for only part of the story). You dismiss sources because they are "socialist tabloid" or (in your opinion) "hateful and marginal" or "left wing". Please cease and desist from this nonsense! Poyani (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Ask yourself "Which is us is more familiar with WP:BLP policies?" before you continue to waste my time. You seem still not to have read WP:BLP, which strongly recommends evaluation of sourcing before one even begins to consider merely adding material.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh I see. Thank you for familiarizing me with WP:BLP. Now, since Pepe Escobar is a living person, would you mind presenting your reliable sources justifying your description of him as "sleazy"? What is your source for describing his work as "shit"? Poyani (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, I redacted my comment to apply precisely to the shitty, sleazy, or lazily sourced articles. Thanks for the help.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt you are interpreting this correctly. I don't want to revert someone else work in that page. But I am going to mention this person's name on Julian Assenge's talk page. Feel free to file a report on BLP noticeboards. I want to test this. Poyani (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
It's there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poyani (talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
See WP:BLPN and Talk:Julian Assange for apparent consensus against outing rape victims.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Reversion of Julian Assange TalkPage

My post on the Julian Assenge TalkPage which you reverted did not actually refer to the accuser by name. I was just asking a question. Poyani (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I took you at your word, which announced another attempt to violate WP:BLP by breaking WP to prove a point. You did in fact name the victim repeatedly in your first edit. At long last some sense of decency prompted you to remove the name in your second edit, which I had wrongly guessed to be merely copy-editing. I have not reversed your addition of your redacted text (without the name).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
See WP:BLPN and Talk:Julian Assange for apparent consensus against outing rape victims.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Another RfA

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Dudeman... RfA oppose

Did you deliberately indent your oppose so it wouldn't be counted? LadyofShalott 23:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I was trying to fix my indent. The weird quotation of MF by Ryan Vesey seemed to have messed things up before I made my mistakes. I'll go and fix anything. Sorry for the inconvenience,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I saw you fixed it, and came to say "nevermind", but you had already responded. :) LadyofShalott 00:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
For once, my fast typing worked to my advantage! However, I shall add the trick of mis-indentation to my "black ops" repetoire, in case a future important vote seems to be going the wrong way! ;) Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

RFA formatting error

You could use the blockquote if you had placed it after the text instead of on a new line. Otherwise, your new edit works. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, do you know why the formatting for your talk page is incorrect at the bottom? The sections seem to be indented. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggested fix! I gave up on the block-quote, after several attempts failed to fix the problem of denying !votes to the following editors: I trust that the simply quoted test is sufficiently legible. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
My misadventures with a GAR (quoted directly above) were responsible for the mis-formatting. Thanks for noting the error.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

July 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion
 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on [Deleted name of minor]. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. If you genuinely believe the material is identifying information about a minor, then you should discuss that concern with WP:OVERSIGHT, not edit war over another user's userpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

DemiWit1000, you want me to ask Nyb to okay a deletion he endorses in his essay on minors? Don't be an idiot. Let the minor make the decision. Put your obsession with one-upping me aside for the interests of the minor.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
You guys started the edit-warring, also.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I found the link. First, I have no way of knowing [Name redacted]is a minor. Second, I'm going to take your word for it and say that he is. The link you have provided is a link to an essay but you are treating it like policy. I used a link to a guideline. A guideline trumps an essay in my book. [name redacted] is an experienced editor and has the ability to understand the consequences of his edit. He even used an edit summary specifically referencing his desire to re-add the information. Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
He is a minor. Look at his RfA. This is a time you need to use common sense. You are familiar with vandals writing dozens of suicide suggestions on targets' pages, I presume?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Who gave you the authority to decide what can and cannot be on someone's page. It does not matter if they are a minor or not, you don't have the authority. Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ryan,
Maturity is a necessary balance against the passions, particularly against the natural rebellion against silver backs common to the young great apes. When somebody highly intelligent and vastly more experienced than me suggests removing personal information from minors' pages, I listen and I would suggest that you do too.
You should have read a proper dictionary rather than Wiktionary to understand "obsteperous" and to understand the failings of the linked definition. I did not use that word to insult you but to urge you to moderate your passions when you write. Please understand that I deal directly with adults.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I used Merriam Webster long before the Wiktionary post was made; although, isn't it a little detrimental to the project if you do not consider Wiktionary a "proper dictionary"? Is Wikipedia a "proper" encyclopedia? Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Not to be confused with S. V. Benet—Ambrose Pierce's The Devil's Dictionary and Merriam Webster are written by travelled men that know what they talk about and maybe what they say is true about "obstreperous"? But "Oh when I was young and held the OED in my arms!"  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
In addition, I count four reverts by you on that page. Your edits seem to be a bit obstreperous. Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
That would surprise me. Perhaps I saved a page twice unconsciously? I had counted three. I believe that your revert was the fourth, crossing the line of doom!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you trying to say I violated the 3rr? I only reverted twice and, in my edit below, you can see that I reverted myself as I would like to abide by a single revert rule. Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, Ryan, I don't edit war and I have only had one brush with 3RR when I warned another editor (who drove even sweet-hearted Charles Matthews up the wall some time later), and discovered that the 4th is the problem. I believe that your revert added to the other reverts of me was the fourth revert of me: I thought that such reverts were viewed as edit warring and 3RR violations, but I may well be wrong. sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a note on edit warring. The 3RR is broken when one single editor reverts an edit 4 times, not when multiple editors revert an edit 4 times. You cannot violate 3RR on your first edit. I don't really mind now, and any administrative action would be uncalled for. Besides, if we technically said I reverted back to the revision after your third revert you only made 3. Ryan Vesey (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
As I can no longer stay on Wikipedia (2:50 A.M.) I have reverted my edit. I do not want my views to stay in an argument I can no longer discuss. Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that you made the best decision, to let the editor sleep on the decision to add a statement that his considered judgment told him to remove and leave off for months. Thank you for letting your concern for the youth and moderation win the day.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep, personally I think that the user should have been notified on his talk page and he could deal with it in the morning, but it is too small in the grand scheme of things for me to get "all up in bunchie boos" about. Hopefully this does not affect our ability to have cordial relations. Ryan Vesey (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I left a message on the users page
That's fine. I tried to safeguard the user's privacy by writing somewhat indirectly. I view this as similar to previous interjections by DU: I write something imperfectly, DU interjects himself and obtains the craved drama, then the original person deals with the issue I raised in a good faith manner, and I and the original discussant both shake hands.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Give me your dirty WikiLove

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

The Signpost, 27 June 2011:

 
A corned beef sandwich from Katz's Delicatessen, near Houston Street: "I'll have what she's having".
 
Give me your WikiLove: I don't want your sweet devotion, I don't want no cheap emotion: However, Zingerman's does deliver (even by air-mail)! ;-)

A kitten for you!

 

For removing an erroneous asterisk and expressing friendship, I award you this WikiLoving kitten. Please be gentle with it, Mr. Wolf.

Drmies (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:-)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

  And here's some wiki love that doesnt rely on the pet illusion. (for making me smile with the Ibsen ref) FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Mercy buckets!
A fan of Lihaas and a fan of Simone Weil!
Maybe you can help me locate two Simone Weil quotes.
  1. Justice, that refugee from victorious sides.
  2. (something about stupidity of people in groups...) Beginning a sentence with "we" signals the end of thinking.
Cheers!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
De nada! 1) I think she said that in her 1937 letter to Georges Bernanos about the spanish civil war. Its been described as one of the political monuments of the 20th century - the former marxist fellow traveller reaching out to a hard core royalist. There's some interesting parallels with movements going on right now like Lord Gassman's Blue Labour. The letter certainly had a great effect on Bernanos, he started switching sides left right and centre. Normally the one thing I cant abide is a traitor, but one has to make an exception when its done at the behest of someone like Simone. You might have read the quote in Gustav Thibon's introduction to Gravity and Grace where he introduces it something like this:
This idea of counterbalancing is essential in her conception of political and social activity: "If we know in what direction the scales of society are tilted we must do what we can to add weight to the lighter scale. Although the weight may be something evil, if we handle it with the motive we shall perhaps not be tainted by it. but we must have a conception of equal balance and be always ready to change sides like Justice, that eternal fugitive from the campe of the the conquerors"
2) She wrote on that theme many times, you may be thinking of something from her essay "The Great Beast" (which is included in G&G i think) will have to check my books and get back to you next week. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1) Not sure of the original source for this now, its not in my copy of the Bernanos letter, but as I said Gustav does quote it in his introduction to G&G.
2) Here's the quote you was thinking of, its from The Need for Roots in the 'Freedom of opinion' subsection.
"The intelligence is defeated as soon as the expression of ones thoughts is preceded, explicitly or implicitly, by the little word 'we'. And when the light of intelligence grows dim, it is not very long before the love of the good becomes lost. "
She also wrote insightfully on the difference between, group , personal and impersonal thought in her very classic essay Human Personality. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
That's a beautiful quotation, which regrettably is too long to have tattooed on me (and shall be unless I become worthy of participation on The Biggest Loser!).
"If we know in what direction the scales of society are tilted we must do what we can to add weight to the lighter scale. Although the weight may be something evil, if we handle it with the motive we shall perhaps not be tainted by it. but we must have a conception of equal balance and be always ready to change sides like Justice, that eternal fugitive from the campe of the the conquerors"
"The intelligence is defeated as soon as the expression of ones thoughts is preceded, explicitly or implicitly, by the little word 'we'. And when the light of intelligence grows dim, it is not very long before the love of the good becomes lost."
Thank you so much! You made my day!
She wrote the essay "The Illiad, Or the Poem of Force" which is extraordinary despite being tainted by its closing self-hating anti-semitism); it was translated by Mary McCarthy for Dwight Macdonald's Politics, and which is translated in Alasdair MacIntyre's (and Methodist Stanley Hauerwaus's) anthology, Revisions, which you may enjoy. Her life was so sad! I feel much closer to her than to her selfish brother, André Weil, who called WWII "not my war". A. Weil was on of the last century's best algebraic number theorists; I have long wanted to read an essay of his on The Illiad, which was published (in French) in a Springer Verlag festschrift for one of its mathematical editors; maybe you would enjoy it also? Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Youre most welcome. Yep I created our article on The Iliad or the Poem of Force back in 2009. It maybe affected more deeply than any other essay Ive read, even though I think Simone was only seeing half the picture - the "ecstasy of battle... compared to with even the physical ecstasy of love ... is less poignant" is not due solely to the intoxication of force. Im not sure if Id agree she was ever a self hating anti semite, though I know many of commentators held that view. She did wrestle with self doubts, but generally I think she had that peculiar blend of awkwardness and invincible self-assurance one often finds with really exceptional people. Maybe anti semitism is correct, but for me her criticism was mild compared to the Hebrew prophets of the OT or even Christ Himself.
It certainly was a tragic life in one sense. Aside from Christ i cant think of anyone who seems to have subjected themselves through so much avoidable suffering - not just physical and emotional pain but spiritual pain to. Nor do I think human history has anyone else whose story is more beautiful. She had the most intense compassion and sympathy for everyone who was oppressed or afflicted - even at the age of 5 she refused to have any sugar with her food as shed heard the soldiers on the front were having to do without. Simone experienced that same direct union with God that was vousafed to Plotinus, Julian of Norwich , her beloved St John of the Cross and many other mystics – but she seems to have almost entirely missed out on the spiritual rapture they were blessed with. Most of her life she seemed to experience God as a kind of absence. In her last few years she did receive some joy in her mystical experiences, and also in sensing God through prayer, meditation, religious music and poetry, and the sacraments like a normal Christian can, but they seem to have been quite mild experiences. She seems to have had almost no spiritual consolation for her abstinence from almost any form of luxury and the suppression of the tremendous capacity for ordinary love one senses through her work. What makes it even more beautiful is that she had no expectation of any sort of a reward in the next life, she seemed to think nothing personal services death, even for the purest souls. Simone understood that both Joy and Sorrow are paths to God, and wholeheartedly choose to imitate Christ in choosing the path of sorrow. In her letter to a priest that was later titled her Spiritual autobiography , she said she felt God Himself had had a hand in the direction of her soul right from the start (c.f. Jeremiah 1:5 , Isaiah 49:1) and she concluded by saying every time she thought of Christ suffering on the cross she committed the sin of envy. In her last few weeks even her brilliant mind couldn't handle the strain and she began to lose her grip. As biographer Richard Ress said, whichever way one wants to look at it, she died of Love. So in another sense her life wasn't tragic - she had almost exactly the life she wanted. God willing I will one day expand and rewrite her bio as I did with our Keynes article.
All I knew about Andre if that Simone recollected he had a childhood and adolescence "fully comparable to Pascal". I see from his article that like his sister he was fascinated with Sanskrit and the old Vedic mysteries. If you ever find an electronic copy of his essay on the Iliad id be very interested to read it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive_12&oldid=1076440406"