Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:35, 18 November 2004

Southern Rhodesia draft:

Sadly, untouched since August. Please write comments on it in this space. El_C

lthough I don't know squat about the history of Southern Rhodesia, your article on the subject has raised the following question in my mind. "Britain could still veto the decisions of its government when it came to 'Native Affairs,' a veto which Great Britain never saw fit to exercize." How was that veto supposed to work? Would it have required a vote in parliament? --Christofurio 16:42, Nov 13, 2004

Someone read my Southern Rhodesia draft, yes! No, I believe that the British Governor in Southern Rhodesia would have advised the British Cabinet (Colonial and/or Dominion Offices). It is somewhat confusing because there is another set of legislation the British could theortically employ which superceded the 1923 Const. Under the '1961 Constitution' of the CAF, unlike the 1923 one, Britain could not block discriminatory legislations, rather, appeals to the quasi-British (In London, but Commonwealth membership) 'Judicial Committee of the Privy Council' could be made on an individual (submitted by individuals) basis. This, argues James Barber (Rhodesia, pp. 96-98), was not, however, the case. While not included in Duncan Sandy’s document (British Commonwealth Secretary, architect of the 1961 Const.), since Southern Rhodesia itself was still formally a British colony, Britain could still override legislations through 'the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865.' Sandys appears to agree. Thus, with respect to British law, the specific Self-Governing arrangments (1923) were more good-faith than truly legally binding for Britain. Thanks for taking the time to read my SR draft! El_C

Image:Meow2.jpg

Image:Meow2.jpg

Hi there! Thanks for adding the image Image:Meow2.jpg. It currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, and I was hoping that you would add one as untagged images may be deleted eventually. (You can use {{gfdl}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! --Diberri | Talk 23:45, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I conveyed your request to the copyright owner, my cat, and he responded with: Meow2. Not Meow, not Meow1 or 3 — Meow2! I attempted to obtain further details, but was ignored (he just started licking). How would you suggest I proceed? :-] El_C

Nazism and Religion

El_C, could you also take a look at mysticism in Nazi Germany ? Thanks Andries 19:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries, please see my response in your user page's discussion field. El_C

Nothing really

Hello,

You talk page has an interesting setup. Anyway, thanks for fixing "an saying" in Nothing comes from nothing. I do have one question. Why do you say it relates to the law of conservation of energy? It my experience it's generally used as an analogy for the Law of conservation of mass (e.g. matter can neither be created nor destroyed).

Thanks,

Acegikmo1 20:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Does your username have anything to do with El Cid?

My talk page is mostly comprised right now of my current big project, a draft for (the ~70 year history of) the Southern Rhodesia article rewrite; though I haven't added anything to it in quite a while, the plan is to afterwards move to a rewrite the Central African Federation, and then Rhodesia article(s). Empedocles speaks of the transformation of something into something else, so the emphasis was placed on the energy rather than mass area of mass-energy. But on second thought, mass could be similarly applicable to that notion, so I retract (at least partially). Since NCFN is so unrefined in relation to both theories (and their grasp of mass-energy), perhaps the article will benefit from having both accounted for. So point taken on that front, let me know what you think of the revision. My username is only related to El Cid in that it sounds very much like it, minus the dh.

Yours sincerely,

El_C

Greetings (from) 172!

Hi,

I first ran across you work about a month ago on Efraín Ríos Montt, when you added that excellent list of recommend readings. Since then, I've been meaning to thank for elevating the research, writing, and standards of Misplaced Pages. After devoting so much time to the site myself, I cannot praise you enough for your acting as a force for scholarly standards and adding a wealth of content on the 'developing world', even though that is certainly not always the path of least resistance around here. Best regards, 172 08:02, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Greetings! Thank you so much, 172! I have also noticed your work quite some time ago (how could I not? I primarily write about history). Your own contributions to a great multitude of important articles are nothing less than prodigious, and of an exceptionally high quality. As well, your tireless and dedicated efforts as an Admin did not go unnoticed. You are truly a driving force in this groundbreaking encyclopedia. This is why your extremely generous praise means so much to me.

Cordially & sincerely yours,

El_C.

Thanks for the comments, though I haven't been too active lately while leaving quite a large number of unfinished articles... On that note I won't be able to keep track of the mess on Communist state. Could you please take a look at that article? A professional historian is needed there to make sure that the coverage stays relevant and on topic. Thanks, 172 01:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I will look into it, but it is a somewhat considerable project for me to commit to at this point as, at least for the immediate future, I am rather pressed for time. Also, I would like to put another dent towards the Rhodesia project — untouched for quite some time. But I'll certainly give it a cursory glance soon. All the best, El_C

Images (Copyright)

I have added a number of your pictures to Misplaced Pages:Copyright_problems#October_10 if you would like to explain your reasoning for using them there. A couple I listed I suspect could be used as "fair use". Rmhermen 19:19, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Rmhermen, and welcome once again to my talk page. I am afraid that at this point I cannot expend the time — though perhaps I will revisit the discrpencies you cite in the future. El_C

European National Socialism RfD

- Please see Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/European_National_Socialism and consider voting AndyL 16:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi AndyL. I presume you deleted your comment here since the dispute was concluded. Though I have not read the aforementioned article, having read the VfD, I am satisfied with the outcome (we already have Nazism -and- Nazi Germany), and I support the course of action you have taken. Addendum: a brief glance (google cache), confirmed to me everything said above. Best wishes, El_C

Neocolonialism

I don't really know what that comment meant, or indeed who wrote it. Feel free to add yourself to the list of participants on WP:Bias --Xed 11:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please see my response in your talk page, Xed. Thanks. El_C

'White Pride'

The discussion between Sam [Spade and myself has become increasingly lengthy. I, therefore, moved it to a newly-created User talk:El C/White Pride. El_C

Karl Marx

I give up with that page.--198 03:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have not been around for a few days, I will need to catch up with the discussion as well as the article's revision history prior to making any comments. I am hopeful that I will get the opportunity to do so in the near future. Thanks. El_C

From Palestine-info

Hi. Thanks for the support! I wasn't about to leave Israel, I've spent *WAY* to much time trying to correct its faults to do that. But if I had the chance to go back in time two weeks, I probably wouldn't have done the original changes which seem to have risen so much controversy. Also thank you for your original comment. I was about to reply to it when I had answered all the other points above but it took to much time. Yes I know I shouldn't mention other authors by their name and if Jayjg got pissed I'm very sorry. However, I do believe there was some truth to what I said. It's like GW Bush and John Kerrey debating and neither of them can end the debate before they both agree fully to everything. That like doesn't. Palestine-info 07:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Certainly, I think you have made and can continue to make useful and productive contributions to the Israel et al. articles, though I will admit that your username causes me to have some (instinctive) misgivings due to its Hamas connotations, possibly (the palestine-info.org/.net/etc. domains, that is). Now that you are in my talk page, I can afford to forgo with some of the formalism that I normally feel compelled to exhibit in articles' talk pages, so on this front I should say that I am staunchly opposed to Hamas' method of waging armed struggle (it is not a people's armed struggle, it is Islamist and, as such, reactionary). It is not a progressive organization, and never was (it never sold out because it never sold in). Of course, I also oppose Israeli State Terror. My sympathies are extended towards both ordinary Israelis and Palestinians, and I value the life of each ordinary Palestinian or Israeli absolutely equally — I value the life of each ordinary human being the same: whether one is Tanzanian or Japanese or Bolivian, etc., it's all the same to me as my sympathies are with the masses, wherever. It is in virtue of this internationalism and universalism on my part (the sacredness of all human life), that I feel my role in the Israel et al. article has been to balance out both you and Jayjg. Not that I don't have my own biases, I do, these are just not as pronounced in being affiliated with either side. I oppose all injustice and I view both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority (which I am not implying you support; nor Hamas, that is just the mental association brought by your username) as inflicting great injustice on their own (and the other's) populations. This is all, of course, not so relevant to wikipedia articles, and at the same time, it is very relevant. I find that there is a strong pro-Zionist imbalance in wikipedia, but I also find the manner in which it is challenged (it should: objectivity is key), to be often questionable. I do not wish for it to be supplumented with 'pro-Palestinian' views, but rather, supplanted with NPOV ones. This is something these articles often lack notwithstanding their quasi-NPOV. The same is true for many other articles that I contribute to though. Sorry, for the lengthy diatribe, it goes beyond the scope for which wikipedia is intended and you are, of course, under no obligation to respond to anything said above. El_C

Wheeler and fascism

Well, I wasn't putting forth a serious argument on Wheeler's talk page. I was really just trying to use his own arguments against him to make a point (actually to have some fun). AndyL 20:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heh. That much I have gathered. I meant your position as stated elsewhere, also. Yes, I found it somewhat amusing as well, but I don't think he viewed it (remotely) with humour. I was not accusing you of misconduct though, not even close.

Best regards, El_C

I didn't think you were. Just thought you were accusing me of making a bad argument. AndyL 01:44, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, AndyL, I missed your above comment. For the record, I was not accusing you of making a bad argument — on the contrary, I agree with it. Best regards, El_C

Ludo Martens

Hi, Comrade,

Thanks for your message. It's reassuring to see someone else here, in this cesspool of right-wing bias, who thinks that Martens's book on Stalin should be treated seriously, not dismissed out of hand for differing from the received Western "wisdom". I have found it to be the best work on the subject. As you know, Martens is a serious historian who specialises in sub-Saharan Africa. The red-baiters here who conclude without reading him that he is a propagandist for Stalin are, as usual, off the beam.

Thanks also for your contributions to Collectivism and various other articles, which are of uniformly high quality.

Shorne 12:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Comrade, and allow me to extend the same sentiments. As you know (I saw you correct some sp. errors), I am the (sole) author of The Destruction of the European Jews article, and on that note, it is very pertinent to observe how long it took to compile the records. The argument that we cannot make (similar) approximations with respect to the USSR — more specifically than the tens of millions — is not longer tenable. The records have been released and they are not as difficult to demystify. It is an insult to the historical profession and the social sciences that we are still without an authoritative, scientific account, and that people such as Solzhenitsyn are allowed to inflate the tentative figures themsleves ten-fold and still be taken seriously. El_C

I agree, Comrade. If I had a fat grant, I'd travel to Moscow myself and do the research. Unfortunately, I expect that it will be some time to come before this work is done. There's no money to be made from a scientific account of the Stalinist era, so one probably won't be written any time soon. There is, however, money to be made from propaganda that villainizes Stalin and blames him for fictitious millions of deaths.

I appreciate your article The Destruction of the European Jews. I hadn't been aware that Arendt, who built her career on labelling communism "totalitarian", had tried to suppress the book. I guess I'm not surprised.

By the way, thanks for deleting that rubbishy message from my talk page. Shorne 09:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is crucial to note, Comrade, that the supression is not only limited to the right, but is just as vehement within the left and those who consider themselves Marxist-Leninist — most of all, the Trotskyites, for whom it is ideologically central. Now, I respect the work done by many Trotskyites — I highly recommend Alan Woods and Ted Grant's Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science (the book, dedicated to the Marxist Nobel Prize winner phyicist and founder of Plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfven, to which the authors were assitants) — but I consider their position on this front to be dogmatism par excellence. So, I do not expect to see Ludo Martens works featured in marxists.org, for ex., any time soon. El_C

Well said, Comrade. I agree with every word. The Trotskyites are, if anything, more pernicious than the right-wingers, for they lend "left"-wing credibility to the anti-Stalinist orthodoxy that claims (I think this is the latest estimate) 724.34819374892 septillion deaths caused by Stalin. Of course Stalin made mistakes, like any other leader, and of course he ought to be criticised for them—but fairly and scientifically, not merely because he was ideologically unpalatable to capitalists and many self-styled Marxists. It is indeed extremely dogmatic and, I might add, opportunistic of Trotskyists and others supposedly on the left to embrace the lies of Solzhenitsyn, Conquest et Cie. and even to outdo these scoundrels in shrill accusations of "mass murder" and the like. They need to read a book on materialism. Placing subjective theory ahead of objective reality may be good Christianity, but it is lousy Marxism.

By the way, thanks for the reference. I'll have a look at that book when I get a chance. Shorne 22:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image:BAHA-apartheid-signage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BAHA-apartheid-signage.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ] 15:58, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I am emberassed to say that I do not remember. I will try to attend to it when I get a chance, but very recently I got a new machine, so I am afraid that is my (rather lame) excuse for the disarray on that front. My apologies. Regards, El_C

Who's calling whom names now?

Thanks for trying to avert a cataclysm at user talk:Xed. I wish I had never alluded to the idea that "not all Muslims are terrorists, however, sadly we say that the majority of terrorists in the world are Muslims." (Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid) --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 17:16, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

It is my pleasure. While I do not shy from conflict (and at the same time, nor do I seek it), I take exceptional delight in diffusing conflict when it is unncessary. As for the definition, I did say I disagreed with you, but that had more to do with the conventional notions of terrorism. If we are to use this narrow definition, then I actually agree with you. But are paramilitary deathsquads in the Democratic Republic of Congo (esp. their genocide of the Pygmies) be defined as terrorist? I argue that yes. What about Maoist rebels in Nepal? I argue that no. I view terrorists most of all as particularly targetting (unarmed) civilian viz. (armed) military targets, so for me, this is their most prominent charactaristic. Regards, El_C

Our discourse is over, 198

I will revert until Doomsday.--198 05:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To be frank and honest I'm a trying to discuss this with however you seem to really take insult by my slight edit on Karl Marx froma personal stand point, you like a Commmie to me ;)--198 00:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I refuse to engage in discourse with sophomoric trolls. Please do not address me in the future, especially in my talk page. You have earned my contempt, El_C

I will revert until Doomsday.--198 05:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is, the Ultimate fate of the Universe, if you don't subscribe to religious dogma. Keep on keepin' on, El C. Timbo

Stop mocking me I don't mock you because of your religion--198 22:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Roger that. El_C

You might want to start Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/198. Just a thought. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment for info. – Quadell ] 14:06, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I will certainly consider doing so if the circumstances warrant this. Nevertheless, this can only happen once 198 decides — for the very first time — to explain why he is in favour of the addition both 172 and myself object to. Then and only then can such a process be considered sound. El_C

You refuse to discuss it not I. First of all why do you object?--198 22:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In view of the intransigence of 198, you may wish to go straight to mediation. I must warn you that the administration is dreadfully slow (not to mention biased), so don't expect to see any action for a couple of months. But you may as well start your complaint right away, since anyone with the hardihood to aver that he "will revert until Doomsday" is most unlikely to turn into a human being without an administrative boot judiciously applied. Shorne 17:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely, I am confident that the mediators and/or arbitrators will side in favour of 172 and myself on this dispute. As his obstrcution continues to shift closer towards vandalism, this will reflect very poorly on him. It already does. El_C

Trying to avoid endless conflict: On the KM page, first paragraph: would you object to ending it with a paranthetical (see also Marxism)? My point is that the phrase "so-called" is inappropriate, but there is no harm in having a link to another article. Might this be a succesfull compromise? If you think so, I suggest you try it out and ask that other number-guy to be satisfied with it as a compromise. Slrubenstein

The conflict will not be endless, I am confident it will prove short-lived no matter how many (procedural and otherwise) channels we may end up exhausting. I am unwilling to compromise with accuracy without, at the very least, seeing an argument being posed for it. No one has anwered why we need another synonym to confuse the reader with in the op. sentence: Marx is most well known for Communist theory, so this is what we mention — Marxist/ Scientific Socialist/ Dialectical Materialist/ Historical Materialist/ etc., are all inappropriate to mention at that stage of the article. I am concerned with clarity and I refuse to allow it to be obsctructed by the intellectual peculairities of un-responsive editors. What makes 198 so special that his additions are somehow beyond reproach and outside normal discussion. At any event, it will set a terrible precedence to reward misconduct with comrpomise, so I strongly object to a comrpomise on these grounds alone. I have expended efforts into explaining my position to the other editors, if he refuses to do the same then he is forfeiting his argument. El_C

I agree completely. It is entirely inappropriate to talk about compromise when one side does not even engage in discussion. Tactics such as those of 198 and VeryVerily must not be tolerated; the site would degenerate into chaos if they were much more widely practised. No "compromise" with 198 (as if any were possible) will get my support at this time. Shorne 05:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

recent edit summary on Racism page

I'm puzzled by your prolix comment in the edit summary. All you really did, as far as I can see, is change the way a dash or two was indicated. But your edit summary made it look like the act of the Simbian Revolutionary Front or something. Why? There is enough senseless conflict around here without faking more of it. Grumpily yours, P0M 04:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to see how it would feel to be an obstructionist, but I just could not carry it through. So now that I know my own limitations on this front, cheer up, it's in the past and will not reoccur. Whimsically yours and in mild amusement, El_C

Ludo Martens article

Fraternal greetings, Comrade,

I've started an article Ludo Martens. Please feel free to edit it. At least keep an eye on it if you can; I'm sure the acolytes of Goebbels and J Edgar Hoover will be around any minute to ruin it.

Venceremos, Shorne 17:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Comrade,

I commend you for the new article on Ludo Martens. At this point, I do not think the 'critics' have much to work with — this because they would actually need to first do some serious research (as opposed to the anectodal, primary kind), as to his works, his own critics, etc. I have taken the liberty to change the format of the works by him listed in the article, primarily Anglicanizing the titles. Yours, El_C

Reply to Question Re: Hegel

I have no quarrel with the archiving of my material on the Karl Marx talk page. I won't be making any more changes in the article proper until I have a chance to do some necessary spade work -- and that (as always) is contingent upon events in the rest of my life. I added my recent derogation of Lenin's grasp of empirio-criticism in a mischevious spirit, I admit. It wasn't meant to signal new article changes. (I might put something to that effect in Lenin's article, but that's another matter!) --Christofurio 16:35, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) By the way -- vast as our differences of POV appear to be, we have some things in common. We share an interest in fractals and chaos theory. I use the Mandelbrot set as my computer wallpaper. --Christofurio 16:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Nice! I just let me machine work overnight on 130-zoom fractal movie of the Mandelbrot set using a programme called Fractal eXtreme and all I have to say is wow – it would have taken me days to do with my old machine. Would you know of any other similar programmes that are worthwhile? I am fascinated by Chaos Theory, Complexity theory, Fractal geometry, etc., I only wish I had more background in advanced mathematics so that I could better understand the science behidnd these. Yes, I did not think your comments meant anything which pertains to the article, but merely a discussion of philosophy – but it appears I needed to make that clear to some people (who I am inclined to think did not read our aforementioend discussion closely) since it was suspected that I had some sort of agenda by archiving which is entirely false. As an aside, the full title for Lenin's work is, in fact, Materialism and Empirio-criticism: Critical comments on a reactionary philosophy, and it is a 400-page book, not an essay. El_C

Date on Oubangui-Chari map?

Say, do you know the date of the map at Image:Oubangui-Chari.jpg? It has some interesting differences with The Stamp Atlas, which I use for philatelic geography and is supposedly authoritative, but is giving me doubts - for instance it mentions a "Fort Possel", while your map clearly shows it as "Fort de Rossel". Also seems odd that Bangui is not shown. Stan 18:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid don't recall, and the information is not available to me at the momemnt (I got an entirely new machine and was not yet able to retrieve everything successfully). That is really odd, I don't know how to account for this. I wish I could be of more help, but in fact, I am not that familliar with the colony's history, I only contributed to the article because at the time it was a pitiful substub.So, by all means, feel free to remove it if you feel its accuracy is not up to par. El_C

Contemporary maps are often revealing in interesting ways, and I've caught the stamp atlas in mistakes before, so all kinds of possible explanations, too soon to conclude anything. In researching things for WP, I've frequently run across garbled secondary sources (see Matryoshka doll for a recent victory in sorting out conflicting stories). I'm sure there's an account of French colonial Africa that clears all this up, even the smallish UNLV library has multiple books. (I'm falling behind! - finished Mervyn Brown's Madagascar book weeks ago, but have yet to make use of it...) Stan 21:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sir Mervyn Brown's A History of Madagaskar, I have heard of it but have yet to read it. How did you find it? As for your first comment, that's interesting, and yes, I agree, it likely can be made explicable without too extensive a reserach. El_C

I liked it! Seemed at its best in the initial dealings with the Europeans - one can feel the kingdom just a hair's-breadth away from survival a la Thailand - but I found it somewhat more wooden for recent years, as if maybe trying too hard not to offend anyone. Stan 07:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, he is Chairman of the Anglo-Malagasy Society (not to mention former British Ambassador), I'm sure he had to be accordingly diplomatic – which perhaps why you were most fond of the initial (i.e. least controversial) parts. The book certainly seems to have set a precedence for (an holistic) English-language history of the island. I am looking forward to reading it at some point; in the context of Africa, that island has a fascinating and unique history. Thanks for reminding me of it, I am encouraged to learn that you found it worthwhile. El_C

It had nothing to do with being off topic.

I as relaxed as anybody about occasional strays off topic, on the article discussion pages, they are part of community building. What I object to is you two holding a discussion in public on the discussion page, and then once you are done taking it to a more isolated place prematurely, just because you two are done. If you wanted it to be private, and not retain it as part of the recent culture of the article, you should have discussed it on your talk pages, people respect each users right to control the contents there, but discussions in the public wiki area, should remain public until they have naturally gone stale.--Silverback 01:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Considering the actual situation, I find that to be a fairly nonesensical claim, and your continued assumptions as to my motives, preplexing. People had a chance to respond to that lengthy discussion, and no one did throughout. It provoked less interest (only myself and him), so I chose to archive it over the Hegelian Dialectic section which had many people involved. I continue to take exception to your insinuations. It dosen't matter, I think I can accomodate you easily enough. El_C

Images

Hello. I replied to your question about image uses on User talk:Infrogmation. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for taking the time. Regards, El_C

Zimbabwe

Warm greetings, Comrade,

I was unable to find your material on the Land Apportionment Act in "Rhodesia". Would you mind pointing me to the right article?

On another note, I have essentially stopped editing articles on Misplaced Pages, as it is simply impossible to accomplish much under the corrupt (mal)administration that exists. See, for example, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily.

Thanks, Shorne 20:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Comrade,

I sectioned (previously only large fonts) the LAA section in my SR draft for easier linking – it is available here. Yes, I have gathered and I have been attempting to follow that RfA, but what a convoluted mess. I am in the midst of preparing a response for it on your talk page, though note that is is based on a very curosry overview. Anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. I urge you though to exhibit utmost restraint so as to not defeat your own case. Yours always, El_C

Dear Comrade,

Thanks for the link to your article. Why not simply publish it in the main article on Southern "Rhodesia"? It's too good to leave in a place where people can't find it. By the way, sorry for making a few small corrections; I couldn't resist. I have a bad case of cacoëthes corrigendi.

Thanks also for your comments on this case before the "arbitrators". (How dare they call themselves "arbitrators" when they refuse even to speak to the people involved in a case?) I'm aware that my aggressive pointing up of their shameful behaviour did nothing to endear me to them. If I defeat my own case, so be it. The kangaroo court and those who make it possible have already ruined the site and made it all but impossible to achieve anything resembling a fair article on a political subject. Pointing out the fatal flaws in Misplaced Pages is probably the best thing that I can do at this point. Let them ban me. It'll be their problem, not mine.

Yours, Shorne 22:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I need you here, Comrade! To start with, whom else will I be able to call Comrade? I have not met a single-person here besides you that qualifies. I will be very saddned to see you go and it is something I very much wish to prevent. Please, remember that it is, has, and always will be a double-standard based on class aliegences, and that we who politically align ourselves with the toiling masses of the world are on the wrong end of the barrel. This is why, for us, intellectual honesty is so paramount, for our own credibility. Don't get upset over procedural (and otherwise) injustices – rather, expect and predict these (you do not need to be a prophet for this). But all that said, we must give everyone the benefit of the doubt – inspite of everything, wait till the Committee submits its conclusions, it is senseless to anatagonize them in the interim (though protesting any discapencies you encounter is, of course, desirable; but not in this manner). I assure you that if I find their conclusions to be grossly unfair, I will take every measure available, even resigning in protest. Cacoëthes loquendi-ly yours, El_C

Shorne,

I totally concur with the statements by El C above. Please reconsider your decision to stop editing articles on Misplaced Pages. There are still a number of general users and admins, including Slrubenstein, AndyL, Mirv, Everyking, Mihnea, et al., who may not be willing to get involved in the arbitration case, but will defend your edits based on the merits of the evidence and arguments. It's still worth the fight. Please don't go. Regards, 172 00:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Misplaced Pages (joining groups like the Misplaced Pages:The Business and Economics Forum and the Misplaced Pages:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will, it sounds interesting. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, 172.

Cordially & sincerely yours,

El_C

Note

I'm afraid we haven't met or collaborated, but I'd just like to note that I was impressed by the advice you gave Shorne. I fear that I may be one of those reactionaries you describe (at least by your standards), but we reactionaries have feelings too, and I would find it much easier to work with Shorne, despite our obvious ideological divide, if he didn't treat me as some kind of blackguard fool. I hope to see you over at Misplaced Pages:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards, we could use your voice. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've already apologised for the offence caused by my tone, which, I admit, is sometimes acerbic. I'd find it much easier to talk with you if you didn't come bounding in with a less-than-original generality about capitalism and communism and expect me to regard it as something novel that I had not considered before. Shorne 03:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I can't say I find your arguments original either. If I sound like everyone else, that might be because my point-of-view is widely shared, and you're in the sound minority. I added my voice because I felt compelled too (and given all the abuse I've gained for my trouble, sometimes I wish I hadn't). I accept your apology in this case, but on the understanding that in the future our conversation will be marked by civility of tone, on both sides. Best, Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Internationally I'm in the majority. Sure, I'm in a tiny minority in decadent imperialist countries that go around invading the Third World and voting for Bush and Blair, but that's as it should be. I couldn't live with myself if I were in the majority in those countries. Perish the thought! Anyway, I'm in many a minority. So what? Capitalists were a small minority until recent times; in the southeastern US, they were a distinct minority less than 150 years ago. Shorne 03:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Mackensen, for the kind words. It is always appreciated and gratifying to see one's efforts acknowleged. All of us should, of course, aim for collegial polemics. We largely already know the position of the various political doctrines out there with respect to important theoretical questions. And while each of us, inexorably, project our own biases, I believe we all have the capacity for objective analyses and syntheses; we all attempt to follow a logical, rational, scientific, etc., mode of thought. That is, then, my ultimate modus operandi here.

All the best, El_C

Talk:Racialism

I have no idea what annoyed you so much on this page, but it would seem it would perhaps be best for me to step back from editing it for some time, let you do what you intend to do, and then let the process here take its course. More important to me is resolving our personal differnces (and no, I'm not just fighting for a vote here :) You clearly were personally offended, and as I said I have no clue why. I'd like to clear that up, but it takes two to resolve things amiably, and if you are disinterested in doing so, I'll simply have to accept that. If, however, you would like to help me understand why you were offended, and allow me to make things more clear, I would be glad to resolve matters to the best of my ability. Sam Spade 14:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was offended, I'm glad you noticed that, and I am pleased with your response here. I am more than willing to explain why and allow you a chance to respond, in fact, whether our discourse will continue to be "cordial" (as it was prior to this) depends on it. When it comes to human interaction, a cardinal rule for me is to treat others as I would like to be treated – I found that you failed on that front with your last post at T:R. Moreover, at the risk of being harsh, to be honest, I found your behaviour to be shady at worse, markedly un-cordial at best.

First, you make an edit change with a very obscure edit summary (incompletely citing the passage you deleted per se.), which I felt failed to specifically link to the concerns you outlined. Secondly, I treat both you and your concerns with especial respect, largely because we already had friendly and collegial relationship despite our differnces. I end by stating that "I looks forward to discussing these issues with you," your response was exactly the opposite I expected and certainly did not correspond to the positive tone I projected towards you. I issue a request of you — me, not people — not to make any further edits until we can discuss them. Is it an unreasonable request coming from me ? Me, as in the person who, at your request, took it upon himself to help mediate the conflict in Collectivism ? Thus, your response, the manner in which you have phrased your refusal to do this, certainly struck me an un-reciprocal in this sense, especially when it followed that dismissive why do people always rhetorical question. Again, to what end?

Now, I was not expecting some sort of quid pro quo or future reward when I did you a favour (you have never done me any favours, though I never requested any, until now, when I was refused, rather ungracefully, I felt), not at all – but, really, my request from you was far less demanding than the one I accorded to you. Thirdly, after expressing all this willingness to discuss these issues and reason together, you exclaim how 'you don't know what this discussion can accomplish' – now whether you feel that to be the case, it is simply untactful to mention this, at that point, in the way that you did, in the article's talk page. Fourthly, you intellectually patronize me. For someone who in the past commended me for my intellect (compliments which I very much appreciated), and specifically, my ability to deconstruct your thoughts, you sure come across discourteously with the whole 'what I see as objectivity may be your POV' — I already gathered that from your first post that you feel this to be a serious drawback to the article.

So I was (I would think, naturally) buffled, thinking, 'what have I done to earn such intellectually-condescending innuendos from you?' Lastly, the impetus for your re-entrance into the article was that you felt Racial Separatists' rationalizations should be (more of a) key to the article (they are featured prominently enough) – but you fail to demonstrate why, on an encyclopaedic (which is to say, a broad historico-cultural, etc.) sense, and of course, the meaning is RS' as in primarily-American White Pride et al. movement. I am still waiting for you to answer why their mode of thought/action takes precedence over racialism in Rwanda (by Africans towards Africans), or racialism (and genocide) directed towards the Pygmies in the DR of Congo (again, by Africans), etc. You merely stated it with no explanation. Then, you go on to exclaim that I 'plot-out' to the reader that racialists (again, according to my article, a term with more than one meaning) are actually racists in disguise. That this might be a view we both adhere to, is not necessarily that relevant – the question is is that 'conventionally' (i.e. politics, academia, etc.) perceived this way. And it is my understanding that it is. I know what people in my univ. (a rather conservative univ.) think of Professor Rushton, for example, and this is how his approach towards race is viewed, conventionally.

While my article might indeed suffer from the problems you cited (or rather, have yet to cite) – at this point, I don't think so, but I certainly view it as being within the realm of possibility, I do welcome both constructive criticism and am open to being persuasded otherwise (if I was not open to persuasion, past experience should indicate to you that I would say this straight-up and upfront). It wasn't that I was necessarily expecting acknowledgment for the substantive work I have done with the article (I argue it is vastly superior to the state it was in prior to my involvement) – regardless that you consider it POV – but what I did not expect was the opposite. It was the opposite because we already knew each other and have already established what I thought was a cordial, but if not, at the very least a collegial relationship. If this was not the case, and had it not been for your response above, it is doubtful I would be expending as much energy on this.

Instead you edit obscurely, with no specific explanation (for that particular edit); you dismiss the prospect of the discussion (therefore, the 'intellectual' respect I exhibited towards you with my first reply); you go about playing with semantics, with condescending innuendo about objectivity/NPOV, insulting my intelligence (which, again, I have never done to you); and you outright refuse the minor favour I asked of you (when, again, I have already done a more substantive favour for you), and go on to dismiss and rehtoricize it and aggregate me with other people. Now, Sam, I always give individuals the benefit of the doubt, but unlike a certain, extraordinarily-prominent man (many of his teachings I value a great deal, profoundly so), I only turn one cheek. So now that you know what 'annoyed' me (it was, in fact, more than an annoyance), please read closely what I have just written here – the nature of our future discourse depends on it. El_C

You've given alot of thought to what you said, and I wish I had done likewise. Your criticism is legitimate, but not based on similar premises. Indeed, we are coming from completely different directions, and so this collision is not so surprising.

For example, reciprocity. Yes, I did indeed make honest compliments to you in the past, but I also also wrapped up our dialogue (we were discussing matters of racism / racialism) when I discovered your POV. Perhaps I could have been frank at that time regarding the impression that you made upon me, but life has taught me to avoid such. Indeed, I have been avoiding such rather consistently with you, because I like you. That affection is not however blinding to my natural talents (understanding of others, I am a therapist in training, and preacher by calling), nor obstructive to my duty here or elsewhere. As far as returning favors, the primary favor you have done for me is to be polite, and to interact with me in regards to difficult matters in a manner both intellectual and gentle.

As far as Collectivism, our POV's are divergent on that subject. I also asked assistance from User:WHEELER on that very same page, for similar reasons. I felt that others might succeed where User:Mihnea Tudoreanu and I had failed. I did this because of your respective skills and POV's. In hindsight, perhaps I overextended our relationship in asking you for such. I will point out to you however that I have not edited racialism since your request that I not do so. And now I must return (however unwillingly) to this less savory topic.

For starters, you have improved this article in a variety of ways. The addition of images (altho I disagree fundamentally w nearly all of them) is a positive step. You contributed a great deal of content as well, as well as an orderly approach to presenting it.

Unfortunately, the obvious (to me) has now occurred. The article is now NPOV disputed (not by me, I refrained, due to our relationship). Your POV is enormous. One of the strongest I have ever encountered on matters of race. You leave very little room for disagreement, and I suspect this is true not only for matters of race, but for other matters as well. You have an absolutist approach to certain aspects of interpersonal interaction. Those who you fundamentally disagree with, you reject utterly (or so you suggest), excluding them from all interaction and intimate discourse. I find this unsettling, but not overly so, as I doubt I am a member of such communities as you reject. I have a similar approach to racists as I do with yourself. When they do not hate or reject me or mine (those whom I am intimate with), their views are merely an unfortunate aspect about them, something I hope to heal, as a doctor might heal a broken leg or cough.

I normally keep a bald head, and am fairly militaristic (my politics are very much in favor of self defense), and therefore have had a number of friendships and interactions with s, including SHARP / ARA as well as traditionalist and Nazi skinheads. These people tend to have a POV not entirely dissimilar to your own, an exclusionist one. They have a great deal of hate for those whom they disapprove of.

I, on the other hand, have a fundamentally inclusionist philosophy/theology. My purpose here (in life) is to learn, and to love and help others. I have affection for almost everyone, and hate only 1 man (I don't intend to get into that, but suffice to say its not based on race :) Excluding racists IMO only fulfils their worldview, and perpetuates their hatred. I prefer to include them in rational discourse, and by such method cure them.

This brings us to racialism. What is it? It is a cover. A protective shield against people like you. People who hate racists. Racists on the fence, or who are uncomfortable w the hate or stigma of others, as well as organizations looking to recruit, protect themselves w the term racialism. It suggests (or they feel it should) a lack of violent anger towards others, a lack of hate. Rather (to them) it suggests love for ones own, and an awareness of important differences. This POV must not be dismissed in an article on the subject of this term, and it must not be violated by presenting images of Hitler. I think essentially no one outside of the racialist community disagrees with you about them actually being racists, but when you dismiss their POV, you fail to write for the enemy. That they are your enemy is clear, rejecting and isolating others is among the harshest of penalties, and you ascribe to it in their regards, or at least make such views very clear to myself.

All of this is what I am looking to handle without offending you, or creating enmity between us. Yes, I think you are a good and competent person. Yes, I think you are biased (frankly I think everyone is biased). No, I don't want to offend you, or cause you to despise me. I think I'm a pretty good guy, all told. As far as return of favors, I'd be glad to have you for tea, or to lift you up when you are down. I don't intend however to sacrifice my moral integrity in regards to what I see as bias on racialism any more than I ever expected you to do so in regards to collectivism. I imagine we have a whole host of disagreements (as well as an unexpected number of similarities) when it comes to divisive issues. That’s not really the point. The key is in being able to work thru such differences in a civil and neutral manner. Isn't that the basis of the wiki process?

I'm sorry for being so thorough, altho I am sure I have neglected some matters of import, which I trust you to point out. Respond at your leisure, and in the manner you feel best. I expect nothing other than honesty and respect, and I likewise intend nothing less.

] 23:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)