User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/April 2005 3

disambig

Thanks man. That's probably something like the way the anarchism article should start. But maybe we can make do with this if it stays. RJII 00:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

these problems w anarchism are indicative of a systematic problem on the wiki: the majority of people interested in editing a subject w potential bias tend to be biased regarding the subject. Many have no interest in or understanding of NPOV, and the results are highly unencyclopedic. I of course get reamed regularly for my extreme (N)POV...

Sam Spade 00:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me more like mob mentality combined with scapegoatism. Many animals kill members of their own group that exibit differences. I saw a nature show display graphicly a group of dogs kill their brother who was born different. (I forget the exact nature of the difference. The point was ganging up on the different was instinctual.) Being different has consequences; some good, some bad. 4.250.132.97 21:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you are observing some of the inherant sideeffects of anarchism. Quite illustrative of the subject, really. Sam Spade 21:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

political vs. economic communitarianism

Why not instead speak of political versus economic communitarianism; i.e., the way we usually talk of liberalism? Note, Canadian or Lebanese communitarianism has very little to do with US economic "communitarian" implementations. In addition, we shouldn't forget that major communitarian theoricians, such as Taylor and Walzer, actually have very precise political views. And that the views in question have very little to do with "third way" or Bushist talks. User:Mohhe (sig added by Sam Spade 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Interesting. What is this seperation between the political and the economic which you envision? What would political communitarianism be? IMO politics is the science of lying, and economics is the frame of truth behind the facade. Sam Spade 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Politics is the science of lying." Right on. I have concluded that managing humans consists of 1 - organizing self-interest, 2 - fraud (lying, trickery, half truth, making things too complex to make good descisions, etc.) and 3 - force (killing, terrorism, threats, laws enforced by force, property destruction and confiscation, etc. (draconian laws - upload a song - see a 10,000 dollar lawyer bill or a 1000 dollar settlement) . In short fraud & force - we can self organize (and when done right you have a government based on a (not un-US like) constitution.) The world has made slow progress from mostly using force to more use of fraud (e.g. religion) to more use of self-interested self organization (markets, pluralism,etc). Violence seems to set the clock back rather than help matters. 4.250.132.97 21:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting paradigm. I suppose it depends in what your goals are. my goals are:

1. Love and obey God
2. Love myself, my family, and my neighbors (the rest of existence)
3. Learn

Pacifism doesn't play a role in my paradigm. Sam Spade 22:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Political Biases

Just had a look at your self-declared biases.. I wondered where u stood on the assassination of Pim Fortuyn? - max rspct 21:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know what to think about him. That whole situation failed to compute for me. I oppose identity politics generally, and aggressive public paraphilia especially. I would not have voted for the guy. What one does in private is between them and God (and consenting others I suppose). Anyone who aggressively shoves their sex life in others faces is tainted and unpleasent in my eyes (that includes madonna and various other "normative" sexual degenerates). Making your self image a sex act is abominable to me. Sex is great and all, but there is absolutely no good reason to self identify regarding ones tastes on the subject.

In the USA I support mexican immigration, since they have hereditary claim to the land, and because they work hard and make life better for guys like me who can afford a maid. Here in europe things are weird, and in germany especially alot of immigrants are social welfare leaches. I personally know a polish guy and a philipino here, both unemployed and yet enjoying a high standard of living due to the socialist welfare state. Thats inefficient. I support benefits, but I also insist people earn them.

Another important issue is islam. I'm not sure now is the time to allow, much less encourage muslim immigration. Islam is a good religion, but muslim culture isn't so great at the moment. There was a time (dark ages) when Islam was a world leader in culture and human rights. That unfortunately is not the case anymore.

There is an especially odd situation here in germany w the birth rate being so low. Germans are very worried that Turkey will be allowed into the EU and every turk in turkey will immediately pour into Germany and france. It seems clear to me that serious changes need made, with an emphasis on increased efficiency. In case your unaware, 90% of germans strongly dislike their political leaders, compared to under 60% in the USA. Its a crisis waiting to happen, esp. given the history and xenophobia here. I have a pet solution to the problem. i call it "one in, one out". The idea is to control the borders, and test every potential immigrant for intellegence, work ethic, health, and whatever else, to make sure only the best of the best are allowed in. Then, for every 1 immigrant you allow in, you kick out 1 lazy good for nothing, say a criminal or ne'er do well. If nobody wants em drop em out of an air plane above cuba, or Iran, N korea, who ever were not getting along w at the moment ;)

Good job finding an awkward case. Oh, and I support animal rights too, but I don't advocate killing gay people as a form of protest on the subject ;) And... those are "theoretical" biases, my only wiki-biases are factual accuracy and NPOV ;)

Sam Spade 23:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help on Anna Louise Strong. If you ever have the time or inclination, I invite you to contribute more on her, African-Americans in China, Shirley Graham DuBois, Sidney Shapiro and the other Anglophones in China. I appreciate your help! ~ Dpr 03:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No trouble, and I appreciate the thanks, but I meerly carried over some info i found elsewhere (Great leap forward, I believe). My knowledge in the area is somewhat less extensive than might at first appear... Sam Spade 06:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate WikiProjects ?

Hi there! I just wanted to point out that Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Inappropriate projects was not created to block or counter the detective agency. Rather, it was created to counter VfD nominations of wikiprojects. If people have a problem with the DA (and for the record, I do not) they should probably go to RFC. R adiant _* 12:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't have a problem with you and what your doing, and the people I do have a problem with know who they are ;) Sam Spade 15:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

problem with the Pius XII pages, Centre Party germany

I have to get back to you to report the brewing controversy on the Pope Pius XII page . I have had to effect a revert and will need it to be locked up properly or put on notice of same following my own failed attempt to do so . I have moved the bones of the factual political connections on to the Centre Catholic Party of Germany as evidence required by the wikipedia . Can you watch these two and lock them up? User:Flamekeeper21:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll look into the matter, you may want to try RfC pr WP:RfPP. Cheers, Sam Spade 22:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know you collected ancient art

Hi, I see you and Beland are up to your old tricks. Instead of being naughty can we actually co-operate? I suspect that we can get to see eye to eye if we set personal agendas aside. Cheers, Haiduc 23:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

actually I think your a pretty excellent editor, and a role model debater. Its hard to think of an instance where I disagreed w someone as amiably as I have w you. Co-operation w an editor of your caliber is a given, as far as I'm concerned. Let me know how I can help,

Sam Spade 23:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message on my talk page

wondering how you found me (bot?) and if i did something wrong =) User:HunterAmor (sig added by Sam Spade 00:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I'm super, and yer talk page was a red link. This excellent edit is what caught my eye. Please keep up the good work!

Sam Spade 00:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome

Still feeling my way around, reading discussion pages with interest. I copy edit (or is it "copyedit") for a living, and spend a great deal of time waiting for copy to edit whilst sitting at a computer. So There's lots of time to read about whatever catches my eye. User:Iseespots (sig added by Sam Spade 14:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Sounds great, how can i get a job doing that? Cheers, Sam Spade 14:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How are astrochickens and berserker probes related?

You restored the see-also to "berserker probe" on the Astrochicken article with just the comment "it's related", but I'm afraid I don't see how. Aside from the most basic "it's also a self-replicating spacecraft", of course, but there's already von Neumann probe dealing with that. Is there a reference anywhere to astrochickens being proposed for use as berserkers, as opposed to exploration or other more general functions? This strikes me as adding "see also 'club'" to an article on candlesticks, since one can in theory use a candlestick as a club even though it isn't designed for it. Bryan 04:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, its about a self replicating spacecraft. That, plus the fact that berserker probe has only opne page linking to it, tells me a link from astrochicken would be highly appropriate. Sam Spade 13:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "being a self replicating spacecraft" is specific enough to warrant the berserker probe link, though, as I mentioned above. Berserker probes are a specific kind of self-replicating spacecraft, a kind that the Astrochicken proposal isn't. If you're just interested in increasing the number of links to berserker probe, I'll go add it to the see-alsos of some articles about things that are berserker probes. Bryan 00:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a viable compromise. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Human

(Copied from User Talk:SlimVirgin)Your right, this link is the one I ment to provide. The reference to the soul wasn't so vital to me as the movement from the emphasis on creationism to one of emphasis on the diversity in supernatural concepts and postulated entities. Sorry to be discussing this here, but Talk:Human is pretty hectic ;) Sam Spade 23:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't mind your addition of cryptozoology, and for my own part, I don't mind reference to soul. If we're going to mention religious beliefs, soul may as well be in there, so long as it's written in a somewhat distancing way. I was only anticipating other objections. For my own part, I'd like to see Zappaz's sentence about self-reflection, philosophy, and earliest historical records end the introduction, because it draws attention to the fact that religious or spiritual beliefs go way back, which effectively explains why the material is in the introduction. But that's just my view. How about this for that paragraph:

The self-consciousness of human beings, their resultant curious and introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to attempts to explain the development and nature of the species, in both materialist and spiritual terms. The latter emphasizes a spiritual or non-physical dimension to life, and may include a belief in God, gods or other supernatural entities, and a reference to the concept of the soul. Such self-reflection is the basis of philosophy and is present in the earliest historical records.

I'd be fine with the soul reference written as above. I don't know whether others would, and the last thing I want is to start that discussion up again, so I'm not sure how to proceed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hows that for an answer? ;) Sam Spade 23:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think it was better when it mentioned the notion of creation because that goes with "attempts to explain the development..." How about "a belief that God, gods or other supernatural entities created man"? That is more to the point, I think.Grace Note 01:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That says more than it needs to, esp. considering most people believe in intellegent design, not creationism or secular evolution. I think mentioning that people tend to believe in such entities says enough. Sam Spade 14:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks...

for your help. I think the growth in my wiki enthusiasm has, at least for the moment, outpaced the rate at which I'm learning the formatting rules. Carmeld1 00:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) carmeld1

Great, glad to have you! Sam Spade 12:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please consider helping us welcome a new user

Hi, Wesley (Cc:Alai and Sam Spade). We have a new user User:Vegasbright at the WP:LDS project who is absolutely sure all of us True Believing Mormons at the project are out to squelch him. We'd really like to groom him as an important POV addition to the project (like you, Alai, John Hamer, and now Sam Spade), and I would personally hate to lose him. But he seems impatient and pessimistic about the whole thing, and he is having a hard time understanding that this is not a blog site, that we have to use our best writing. I suggested he should rub shoulders more with you and the other non-LDS project participants, but I guess it hasn't happened. Anyway, if you drop by at his user page and his personal blog you will get an idea of where he is coming from and perhaps you will think of somehow you can put an arm around him and help him scheme against all of us closed-minded True Believing Mormons. Thanks beforehand. Cc:Alai and Sam Spade. Tom Haws 05:15, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Sam! Upon Tom's insistance I have been directed to speak with you. Just wanted to let you know that I am new to Wikipedia and subsequently still a little wet behind the ears here. At times I am rather reactionary but I guess what can be expected after learning the religion I have been raised in is not what it purports to be. I want to make sure to comply with the wiki "rules" but at the same time I see a great deal of squatters that capitalize on the wiki as a stump to preach from (I say that semi-sarcastically Tom/vstuff). Anyways, I am trying to learn the proper methods of the process around here and want to get a better idea of how to properly apply my ideas in a constructive and objective fashion while at the same time clarifying opinions that are one sided and misrepresenting reality. I have seen that even editing articles to include valid sources can be somewhat difficult, as once again the mormon opinion machine is painting over a great deal of history and reality here on Wikipedia.

Don't know yet how you specifically feel about all of this but I look forward to working with individuals such as yourself here on Wikipedia.--Vegasbright 07:50, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

My reply is @ User talk:Vegasbright#Welcome to the Wikipedia. Cheers, Sam Spade 12:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)