> From: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr(a)redbird.org>
> At 10:56 AM 4/2/04 -0500, Viajero wrote:
>
>> Ed's behaviour simply confirms my suspicion that there is an
>> authoritarian
>> lurking in the soul of every rightwinger.
>
> This is also unhelpful.
>
> I strongly suspect that there is an authoritarian lurking somewhere in
> *every* human soul, one of the unfortunate impulses we need to guard
> against in ourselves.
>
> Vicki Rosenzweig
My thoughts exactly.
"There is so much good in the worst of us
And so much bad in the best of us
That it ill-behooves any of us
To talk about the rest of us." -- Anon.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net alternate:
dpbsmith(a)alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
> > I strongly suspect that there is an authoritarian lurking somewhere in
> > *every* human soul, one of the unfortunate impulses we need to guard
> > against in ourselves.
>
> Vicki is very wise.
Yup. I'm sure we all know the feeling that Gore Vidal summed up: "I am, at
heart, a tiresome nag complacently positive that there is no human problem
that could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise."
Matt (Montrealais)
As the discussion as wound down on its talk page I have activated this vote
and added the following to goings-on:
* '''Arbitration policy ratification vote''' Vote commences now at
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote]] to continue for one week.
2/3 majority required for approval, voters must have minimum of 500 edits.
Fred
Dear colleagues,
I just found this message from TDC on my talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slrubenstein
>A question for you:
>Now, I know you Marxist types dont believe in an afterlife and the like,
>but if I were to hold a seance and channel Marx's spirit through you, do
>you think you would try and suck your own dick. TDC 04:15, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Now, I've long resisted attempts to ban people but this kind of talk (and
given TDC's antagonistic comments elsewhere, I don't think it is an April
Fool's joke) kinda wants me to see him banned. I don't know if this is
actually a bannable offense -- I've seen far worse language elsewhere, and
I know the rule is to try to educate people and encourage them to be more
civil. Maybe I am especially unsympathetic because TDC has wasted a lot of
people's time -- the time of serious contributors like Andyleherer and
John, and others -- on the Talk: Fascism and Talk: Karl Marx pages, and I
just do not see him making any useful contribution. Be that as it me,
since I am the one offended here I don't quite trust my own judgment. I've
taken a publicly antagonist position to him, dismissing his comments on
these talk pages -- although I have tried to avoid vulgarity and have
always addressed the substantive historical question. But I don't think I
can communicate effectively with him, certainly not anymore.
Would some of you try to communicate with him about this?
Thanks,
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 3/24/2004
As those of you who look at the minor edits on RC no doubt have noticed,
I've been going around for some days replacing thumbnail images with
links to their "larger version" with the appropriate thumbnail code. The
original thumbnail image gets obsolete in the process.
I have now started searching for images with "thumb" in their name. I
will delete all those thumbnails that
* are not linked to by some page other than an "upload log", and
* have a larger version on wikipedia
unless someone has a counter-argument.
Otherwise, feel invited to join me on this mindless task! ;-)
Maybe we should have a bot for this. Or a maintenance page. Well, if
geoffrin is to be resurrected after all...
Magnus
My IP address 62.212.103.37 is blocked again by the proxy blocker !
Why is my home network proxy considered as an open proxy ?
I have reinforced the rules las time and my proxy is still considered as
"open".
Should I change any parameter ?
Eric Demolli
Today's Federal Court of Canada ruling may be of interest to some.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4639920/ and other reports.
It denied a request by the recording industry to make public the names
of ISP's customers who making files available for file swapping.
It will probably be appealed, but if this keeps up it's an indication of
positive common-sense attitudes in Canadian copyright law.
Ec