Zoe- I wrote this: Then you wrote that: I can just repeat what I already said: Ignore GrahamN. Regards, Erik

It's also entirely possible Zoe - that youre overreacting (It sure is hot here in California) and that you may have made a decision that was poor, not-well thought out, and hasty --- while still having no bearing on your qualifications to be sysop, which I think are fantastic, generally. I say all of the above knowing no specifics about the case in question - only knowing some of the people in question - and that its inappropriate for you to characterize them the way you did. If I may comment - you DO get defensive sometimes about your judgements and views. But then again, who doesnt? Were all human here. -Stevertigo P.S. Dont mess with Ayn Rand.

Maybe you mean "objectivity." Or "Scientology"... I'm not entirely sure this is the place to discuss "objectivism" -- its merits, or its nonsense. -Stevertigo

Yes, love of excellence. Fred

of fish. We even already have new poorly >conceived >acronyms. Yes - and nobody ( I think ) mentioned that most basic of contradictions -- making a static textbook out of a dynamic website. And think of all the trees.... the best course of action. Yes, "give us your money." I do >know is that I find working on Wikipedia a >rather irritating thing to do lately. And irritation is not what >one expects to get from a hobby. Nice job on my super nakade problem BTW. It does seem that there is a conflict (related to the textbook issue) of professionals and other institutionalized people - being trained to standards, and convention.. (lets face it...before the web, a lot of this culture was bound by mere convention) and then all of a sudden finding some sort of finite and solid foundation - in an environment more infinitely open than any other. Its hard to reconcile these two things, especially since the progeny of each school both treat their conventions like a tradition. Steve, 2k even start pages all over at times. I don't think we >should be unhappy at all about deleting, radically rewriting and >refactoring material. Cancerous growth is nice and all, Ah, I see. Why does the above remind me of this?: "Waiting to cut out the deadwood. Waiting to clean up the city. Waiting to follow the worms. Waiting to put on a black shirt. Waiting to weed out the weaklings. Would you like to see Britannia Rule again, my friend? All you have to do is follow the worms." have yet encountered in wikipedia discussions. Well, like I said, It was food for the lions. If there wasnt any meat on it, y'all wouldnt have jumped on it. The discussion served its purpose, which was to activate some latent idea. I have that idea now, and Im processing it now. I keeping with the above critique, however - I have reconsidered my naive strategy of free speech and will submit it to the class only when I know for a fact that the class will find it agreeable. Go figure that one out. -Stevertigo-