User talk:Fatal

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Appology
Sorry for getting mad at you earlier, I'm tired of editing articles in which people don't want to cooperate. And I feel like I've been constantly denfending my edits against certain people who refuse to talk civily. The articles I'm interested in usually deal with subjects I feel a strong attachment to, but that "main stream" culture apparently finds so offesive (anarchism, libertarian socialism, atheism, etc.) that some people go out of their way to insert statements which are clearly misguided sterotypes, and then claim NPOV for their offensive behaviour.

Articles like anarchism are mangled in the name of NPOV, while articles like Christianity get nominated as featured articles, because people who disagree with it are strong enough in their own convictions to know that they don't have to demand that the article present falsehoods in hope that others might not be exposed to it sinful ideas. millerc 01:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey man, it's cool, I know how you feel. As you can see, I get pretty angry when people come in and start downtalking about things I feel strongly about, especially when they don't know what the hell they're talking about.  But it's cool, just a misunderstanding, thanks for your apology though. ;)

Ad Hominem
It is important that you focus on logic and reason, and refrain from logical fallacy's on the wikipedia. When you say something to suggest that a given user is not to be heard, you not only betray No Personal Attacks, but you also damage your image and reputation by promoting intellectual dishonesty. I was not offended of course, but I was saddened. I understand it must be hard for you defending the indefensible, but when you feel such conflict over your inability to resolve the contridiction, please open your mind and think outside the box, rather than insulting those who contridict you. God be with you, 17:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My intent was not to attack you, but to make clear to other users that you have an extreme lack of knowledge on the subject of the article you are editing and discussing. Other than fixing spelling mistakes, one should not be working on an article when they clearly know nothing about it, and if they do, other should know this fact, especially when the user has admitted it openly.  --Fatal 18:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your idea is anti-wiki, see: Foundation issues. It is also extremely hierarchical, more so than even I accept. I volunteer to proofread encyclopedias to learn, not to get bossed by self appointed "experts" and page masters, thank you very much. I defer only to bone fide, verifiable expertise, and then only where appropriate. 23:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not hierarchal to display to others your lack of expertise in the field you're trying to be involved in. And it's not anti-wiki.  As I have said, and you have pretended I haven't said, I have nothing against you doing your spelling runs on pages you know nothing about.  Pushing a false point of view on a subject you know nothing about is what I am against.  You have not just been doing grammar on the page but were one of the defenders of the anti-statist capitalist argument to keep wrong POV existing.  I haven't at all stopped you from making a thousand edits to whatever pages you want.  If you think it's anti-wiki to make it clear to others that you're not to be taken seriously when talking about or editing a certain article, then you have further proven that you don't know what you're talking about and that you don't want others talking about it.  If you don't want others to call you out on your lack of knowledge, then don't overtly display your lack of knowledge. --Fatal 19:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do not persist in your personal attacks. You have been warned. 19:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Free-market anarchism
Well, I'm sorry but I disagree. I will continue to put the link in. Regardless of whether it's anarchism or not, something called "free market anarchism" should be in the See also section. See also doesn't necessarily mean "synonym" but just "see also." Those who think government, or governing, should not exist would be interested in seeing other systems that advocate, or believe to be advocating such. RJII 03:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarchy
I'm afraid I would have to disagree about anarchy not meaning a state of chaos and disorder. What I can agree with you on is that this is not the only meaning, and it certainly is not the meaning used by anarchists when they refer to anarchy. However, misused or no, anarchy has come to have multiple meanings, and one of those is chaos and disorder. Obviously this meaning was infered from those who believe that lack of hierarchy leads to disorder, in fact there was a time when those advocating democracy or even a republic were refered to by monarchists as advocating anarchy because said monarchists could not imagine a world in which political power was not mostly or entirely centralized. It is important to keep in mind that while Proudhon was the first person in recorded history to use the term anarchist as a self-descriptive, and he certainly did not mean chaos and rioting in the streets, the term "anarchy" itself predates Proudhon and was used for hundreds of years prior to refer to a disordered state that (supposedly) occurs in the absence of authoritarian leadership. I believe it is important to make the distinction between anarchism and anarchy apparent because some very misguided folk on wikipedia are on a bit of a crusade to demonstrate that because one of the meanings of anarchy is disorder, that must mean that anarchists advocate disorder. This is not the case, in no small part because anarchy has more than one meaning, but that level of nuance is lost on those taking part in the crusade. Kev 04:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand, however I advocate a different approach. I've seen anarchists before that are afraid of the word "anarchy" but we can't allow power to redefine words for us.  Like you said (and I agree), the word was defined as chaos throughout centuries because there lacked a significant argument to say that a lack of hierarchy wasn't chaos, but of course it's different now with a whole movement of the contrary.  You can actually read the play Antigone from Greek B.C. times and even then in the play, the main character is labeled an anarchist by the king and the king in response is accused of being like all men of power, concerned only with their own power and whatnot.  One can read Antigone and see that the word anarchist in that play is used negatively by a king and subject to reader interpretation, one can interpret from things the character has said that they could be an anarchist but not in the sense that the king defines it.  Regardless of what the word implies to certain people based on their own beliefs about hierarchy, the main meaning of the word has remained for all of these centuries and millenia.  This is similar to how some hackers are tired of everyone (especially the media) using the word in a negative light to describe a hacker and something which they are not.  Some run away from words that are cursed, while most of the hacker community has further embraced the word, proud to call themselves hackers and seekers of further knowledge despite what the media labels people who wish to free all information.  In the same way, anarchists should be embracing anarchy, it is afterall what they believe in.  I find that many anarchists often use the term "anarchism" more often because they feel with some audiences, putting an "ism" on the end of a word makes their argument seem more valid to the ignorant.  Anarchists do not seek to create anarchism, anarchism is only a term referring to the root philosophy written about by various anarchists.  Anarchy is a society based on voluntary cooperation, equality, and complete lack of hierarchy and oppression.  That is anarchy!  Shout "anarchy!" and mean it!  People cannot conform to the ignorant's requests that we make our terms more appealing to them just because they feel like soiling another word.  We want freedom, but freedom is also used by those in power to really mean slavery, so will we abondon the word "freedom" because some have falsely defined it and used it in a sense that has nothing to do with its definition?  Anarchism is about anarchy and anarchy is taught through anarchism, they are in the end practically the same word said in a different way.  I don't feel there's any distinction at all to be made between them.  A much more important distinction to make is the fact that the word anarchy has been distorted and falsified and what it really means is something totally different than what power definies it as....although the article already has some of these facts in it.  --Fatal 03:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I may have been somewhat unclear, certainly at least one other person on the anarchism talk page has gotten the impression that I'm claiming no relation between the term anarchy and anarchism. That is not the case.  What I think you and I still disagree on is that there is no distinction between the two words, that the one basically equates to the other.  I don't think that this is the case.  I am not ashamed of the term anarchy, nor would I try to distance myself from it simply because it has some negative connotations.  Anarchism also has negative connotations, and if I abandoned a term everytime someone used it to express something I disagree with then I would have to have abandoned anarchist the day it was embraced by Proudhon, given that many of his positions unrelated to anarchism were worthy of scorn.  Indeed, still to this day I insist on refering to our philosophy as a form of libertarianism, because in fact it is, despite the unfortunate events that have eclipsed its original meaning in the U.S. and left it synonymous with capitalist apologists.  However, I still believe that it is very important to recognise the fact that anarchy means, and has come to mean, more than what anarchists believe it does.  I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm not denying that there has been a history of willful attempts to support a negative connotation to the word.  I'm simply saying that we are left with the reality that the meaning it has for us is not universal, and on wikipedia we are required to deal with all the notable interpretations it has, even those we disagree with.  This is not an obstacle, imho, but an opportunity for us to set the record straight.  In order to do this, I think it is important to distance ourselves from the meaning that anarchy has which we have never embraced while at the same time emphasising those meanings which we do.  Kev 07:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Judging from your last few sentences then, I think we both want the same thing: to clearly explain the meanings of these often abused words that are false and those that are right. --Fatal 00:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph of Anarchism
Hierarchy meaning all? I feel zat zee capitalism should be in the first section no? i have not yet digested the whole archive discussion dude max rspct 00:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Traditionally the first few lines of an encyclopedic entry are general and encompass the whole article. Mentioning specific things like capitalism I think are supposed to be left for later.  Plus, I don't see the need to mention "anarcho" capitalism as if it's being advertised in like the first sentence of the article, especially since it's been concluded over and over again (and later in the article) that no one consider it anarchism except the people that promote it and therefore it would be poor wording to have it be referred to as anarchism at the beginning of the article and then debunked later on.  Kinda like saying "Lettuce is a type of fruit.......................no one really considers lettuce a fruit though, except for maybe a few crazy people."  --Fatal 02:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism
Oi! I've put this cloned nonsense up for deletion.. interested? -max rspct 21:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in deleting anything related to capitalism! --Fatal 21:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism
Please calm down a little bit. Let's avoid turning the discussion into a huge flame war. As some say, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. --cesarb 21:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well said. --Fatal 22:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye on RFC
Please help out: User:CesarB/RFC/Hogeye. --Tothebarricades 19:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dude
Personally, I hate the anarcho-capitalists as much as the next guy. But man, I'm trying to make a case for arbitration! Would you mind revising your additions to the summary to be briefer or....shit, I'm so tired and I'm covered in drywall dust, so I'm going to take a shower... I dunno anymore. :P --albamuth 01:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I took a shower and feel better now. Anyhow, I was going to say that there's no way to win this fight on anarchist principles or appeal to common sense. We have to be even more wikipedian than them -- that is the only basis upon which arguments are judged: how does it best serve the wikipedia and conform to accepted policy? anyhow, rock on. --albamuth 01:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)