User talk:Donnachadelong/archive

why are you remarking that stuff about dance music? I do not dislike dance music, and I believe that music is music, and everyone is free to listen and/or to dance to any kind of music. Did you know that in some discos in early-mid 1980s we used to dance even with Bauhaus, Siouxsie and the Banshees and other acts of the same scene? Could you please check "my" new article

If you just think "music is music" and don't even know what "dance" music means, quit trying to update genre pages. Donnacha 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that most of music genres articles here are so poorly and badly written, and I will never waste my time with trying to fix them; I joined some talks becouse I am trying to understand wikipedians' mental schemes and strategies, that's all. Actually, I am not interested at all in the article "Darkwave" , I do not even like the word itself, and I guess that "electrogoth" is a more suitable word.Dr. Who 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll like the criticism bit I put in then. And I'm definitely not a "wikipedian", I'm a pro who stumbled across such awful inaccuracies that I felt compelled to change them. Donnacha 23:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that much of your criticism has reasonable roots, but the other two users have also many good points. If you are going to ask me to vote for deletion of

Darkwave, well, I'm neutral. I didn't live in UK those days (early-mid 1980s).Dr. Who 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I never once disagreed with what they said about the original use of the term, I was arguing for proper reflection of the last 15 years of usage. The article now, finally, reflects the multiple uses fairly well. Donnacha 00:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Dr. Who 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making you aware of the

So, Mr POV continues to push his anti-arms control position, and I'm the one who's wrong? Where's the investigation into the charge on the Anarchism talk page that Mr Whisky is a banned user recreated? Donnacha 09:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you are misreading my comments. We have a 3 revert rule. If you get blocked for violating it, it is not an indictment of what you are saying. It's just saying that you have violated a policy. And who Whiskey is isn't what this is about. If you want to pursue that avenue, be my guest. You can always request a checkuser. That's your right. But don't revert until later on tonight or else you will be blocked. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior on here and what you are actually saying are 2 different things. I have no opinion on what you are saying. But I do have an opinion on our rules and what's acceptable and the 3RR is pretty set in stone. Letting the comments of other users sit there for awhile isn't going to hurt anything. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, I didn't act on Whiskey's comments outside of protecting the article, which I'm not even sure he wanted. And secondly, I rescinded the block, which means that I decided that the block was in error. So it's a moot point at this point. I do wish that you, Good Intentions, Whiskey and everyone else in the heat of that article would just step away from WP for a few days and cool off. You aren't doing yourselves or the article any good by continuing to snipe at each other. -Woohookitty^(meow) 14:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donnacha, I sent you an email. You could have just sent me one because my email address is right on my page. Whiskey Rebellion 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, last week sometime i believe. solidarity, Blockader 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It's actually not so much an anarchist issue as a basic journalistic issue. Firstly, groups cannot have beliefs, only individuals. Secondly, you can never be sure what anyone believes, all you know is what they say. Thus, it is correct to use says, argues, advocates, but believes is unverifiable (on another tangent, states implies a slightly authoritarian slant and claims or alleges imply that it's not true). Ditto beliefs, philosophy is a better term as a philosophy is put forward, while beliefs are personal. Donnacha 11:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)"

How can what a person advocates be more or less verifiable than a belief. Either way i cant say whether or not the person is really stating his/her oppinion. The person might as well be telling something thats not her/his opponion, when he/she advocates some oppinion as well as when he/she states her/his beliefs. Essentially the thoughts of a person is private, it doesnt matter if its a belief or an oppinion (something a person might advocate). Essentially what a person believes and what a person might advocate is identical. Second how can you seperate what a person says from what the person believes as you would only know of a persons beleif from what he/she says. You might say that a person can tell you (she/he can say to you) what she/he believes, advocates and what arguments he/she has to back up these oppinions. Argumentation is yet another story. You might state your belief or what you advocate in themselves (i think X), but stating arguments without one of these two is meaningless. You cannot argue without having something to argue for or against. And about it being a basic journalistic issue. It might be, i dont know, but i know that its a fundamental issue of philosophy, stretching back as far as Plato, Descartes and all who might want to know anything. Do you know of the classical theory of knowledge?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Knowledge_%28IB_course%29

--Fjulle 14:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought i might as well put my answer too you here, instead of in the bottom of the page. First a quote from you: "My acceptance of anarchist ideas are on the same level - I don't believe in anarchism, I accept it as the most persuasive of all ideologies based on my own experience of human nature and personal reality tunnel." Theres a difference betwen believing what you know about anarchism and believing in what anarchism wants to accomplice. Isnt what you mean this: You know, from your experiences etc. etc., anarchism to be the best bet for a better society (most akin to human nature, and yourself). From what you write about anarchism id say you believe anarchism to be the best bet for a better society, simply because you argue thats something you know to be true (thats its the best bet). Arguments (that people says so to speak) you can verify, but if those who give them dont believe the truth of what the arguments back up, why even care, because its obviously false? Therefore, anybody who argues for anything, could be said to at least believing in what he/she argues for. Peoples beliefs are verifiable because their arguments are. --Fjulle 11:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defintions, aye, but its quite important what we make of the words. If we put my statement (That knowing without believing in the truth of what you think you know is absurd) together with R.A.W.'s statement that "belief is the death of intelligence" it would seem to imply (i assume he is right for the time being, as well as i assume iam right as well) that everybody who thinks they know something, and therefore believe in it, are death as far as intelligence is concerned. Dont you think R.A.W. means that if you hold on to a belief that is very doubious, fx theres no arguments in favor for it, or the arguments can easily be refuted and turned to back up some different belief, you're not thinking. In this way i agree with you (and R.A.W.), and so would almost any philosopher of knowledge id guess. From my point of view, excactly because belief and justification fit so well together to form a concept of knowledge, belief can be changed if the justification for the original belief is changed. Ofcourse there are people whose beliefs are irrational, excactly because they cant change them when they no longer can justify them (fx most counscious religious people, and people who takes ordinary common-sense as their beleif without being skeptical). But that doesnt mean theres not a way of believing and being able to change it when facts wieght against your beleifs. --Fjulle 12:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for jumping on you about AI. I'm still not real thrilled about it, but on the other hand, I don't think I knew enough about the mess at Anarchism to comment, so I shouldn't have commented. Anyway, if you spot another possible wolfstar sock, let me know. I have (way too much) experience with these POV socks that never go away. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 209.115.235.179 isn't Whiskey. It's AOluwatoyin, another lovely blocked user I keep running into. But I still appreciate you taking that ridiculous notice off. Thank you. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOluwatoyin has used 209 and 207 in the past which is why I'm thinking this is him. And with the blocked IP, he hit LGagnon's page. I don't think Thewolfstar has any history with LGagnon. AOluwatoyin does. Anyway, I wish they'd both go away together and leave us all alone. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, I was wrong. Wolfstar put the box up and then AOluwatoyin's sock added to it! I do wonder how I attract these yahoos. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know I saw someone else refer to you as a she, so I just assumed you were. I've never heard the name Donnacha before, but Donna is a female name, so I thought it probably was too. Well, I guess I could have just taken a closer look at your user page when I took that crap off too! Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If they didn't use the term anarchist, then they're not anarchists. Stop with the Mormon-esque post-humous conversion." Bishonen | talk 12:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

She (Thewolfstar) does this every time one of her socks is busted. Donnacha 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem: did seem a bit odd! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 00:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few bands to the list, but I will be adding a ton more later when I have the chance. JanderVK

Despite my previous disagreement with you at the communism talk page (about the historical influence of anarcho-communism), I am not opposed to your expanding the article to include more information about anarcho-communism; I simply wanted to ensure proportionality in the lead. Just wanted to let you know, in case you wanted to work on it. -- WGee 02:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Vision Thing -- 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's it like these days? I traveled there a lot when I was younger. The last time, I think was 1998. I hear from expatriates in Massachusetts that it has changed quite a bit, mostly because of the EU. What's up? --AaronS 21:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I'm hearing. Some said that there was a bit of tension resulting from the influx of immigrants. Personally, I think that unbridled capitalism is a greater threat to a nation's culture than immigration. I did hear that prices are ridiculous, though. Of course, the Irish pound was always worth quite a bit more than the dollar, so it was always expensive for me. I did hear, too, that some people are quite a bit more nasty towards tourists (especially Americans -- that is, more than usual).

I suppose that I'd rather like to keep the ideal image that I have from my childhood there. Ireland might change, but the Boston Irish never will. ;-) --AaronS 22:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. --AaronS 00:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I gave the AfD my OCD attention. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the heads up. Blockader 18:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a real debate on anarcho-capitalism come on over to www.anti-state.com

I've brought your comments to the attention of the forum: http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=17930

So come around to the main ANCAP forum and explain to us why we're wrong.

I'm sorry, but I didn't know believing in freedom on all fronts meant one was a sectarian. In that case I must be a rabid one. --Hixx 16:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are countless comments on politicians. Why? Because such a vocation is seen as supportive of the state, as is a trade unionist who is seen as supportive of collectivism. If believing in freedom and the individual is sectarian then so be it. Secondly, I don't "need" you to explain where anarcho-capitalism is wrong, just I am a little intrigued as I've never seen an ANCAP defeated in an arguement by a socialist arguement.

Also, regarding your first comment, classical liberalism and its' child libertarianism is a left-wing ideology which was a reaction against conservatism, stemming out of the break-up of the old whig party. The idea that libertarianism is a right-wing ideology is a common misunderstanding, thanks to the growth of socialism. --Hixx 16:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't define a difference between corporatism and the free market? You've never thought of the state as a tool for big business to pass laws in favour of its' own cause? Surely though, without that tool (the state) businesses would have to compete fairly without support from the state?

As for unions you're alleging that I am against their formation. As a libertarian I feel that anyone may join together in "solidarity" as you put it, as long as that agreement is voluntary and is open to all who wish to join or indeed leave.

As for that user, I cannot speak for him, as I am not him but please do not think that all anarcho-capitalists do is build straw man arguements.

Regarding the 'minority' statement, yes anarcho-capitalism is rather new idea and only has a small amount of supporters as opposed to other, longer-standing ideologies. But alas, the relations between minarchist libertarians and even paleocons with ANCAPS are very strong, indeed Murray Rothbard is extremely influential even if those who were influenced by him are not ANCAPS. --Hixx 17:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay firstly you say that businesses would never compete fairly until the state is no longer. I agree with you whole heartedly. Then you go on to say that to do this business must be ran by the 'workers'. Firstly who are the 'workers'? Secondly, how do you wish to achieve such a system without coercion and thirdly how will you stop people from having a contractual 'boss'/'worker' relationship if they so wished? Fourthly, how can you ignore what a free market is, that is an economy free of a 'system' or 'policy' that allows people to buy and sell voluntary as they wish? An economy without any coercive control is a free market. A free market is an anarchistic economy as it has no statist or authoritarian control over it. It is completely natural.

Fifthly, you continue to use the terms 'bosses' and 'workers' in such a simplified form as if they're two different blocks altogether. It's shallow to base something as complex as modern society on such a simple duopoly of groups.

Sixthly, I'm proud that anarcho-capitalists have good relations with the political class as it shows that ANCAP and its' supporters are being taken seriously in the mainstream. Why is this important? Because I support a gradualist doctrine of weakening the states hold over people's lives until it becomes a minarchy and then takes the next logical step, that is anarchism.

Lastly, no anti-statist uses the term libertarian unless they use it for others who don't understand the concept of anarchism. Libertarianism, albeit minarchist is still a statist political ideology. Anarcho-capitalism is not.--Hixx 15:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The majority taking that which survives based upon their labour from those who exploit them and profit from that labour is not coercion."

Okay, so in your view violently opposing justly acquired property is perfectly acceptable because 'workers' are being 'exploited' by their labour, voluntarily no less. I don't subscribe to the labour theory of value, which this arguement is held upon because it's been refuted for years. All value is subjective based upon one's own self values. Value is not attained by the labour put into it, it is valued on how useful it is to each individual consumer. As for 'the majority' that you included, that doesn't make it any more morally correct. Tyranny of the majority and so forth. Thankyou John Stuart Mill.

You say that a worker is a person who is paid to work for another, an acceptable definition, but that's literally millions of individual people with varying ideals who may or may not be 'bosses' themselves in other endeavors. What makes you think these people would come together and all agree to coercively 'take' businesses off their 'bosses' (who may or may not be workers in another contract themselves)? It's simply too complex to be considered as a duopoly. As for sacking workers without good reason, then of course that is a crime and it is completely correct for the sackee to find legal support from an organisation (such as a union) if he so wished. I'll remind you again, I believe any organisation has an implicit right to exist as long as it is not coercive. On that point do you consider all sacking to be coercive? If a person enters a contract fully-aware that he or she's contract could be terminated for various reasons then I don't see how that is coercive if it's fully understood, just and voluntary?

As for recovering 'failed' businesses by workers, why would they wish to do so? If the business failed then it must have done so because it was no longer profitable. Why would 'workers' wish to control a company that was not profitable any more than any other human being? It doesn't make economic sense.

Next up, if I was a "true capitalist" as you put it, I'd want greater government control over my competitors and a monopoly over my chosen market. I can only attain a monopoly through government legislation by barring entrepreneurs from entering the market. That is corporatism, state capitalism, crony capitalism or whatever way you want to put it, it's not a free market which Anarcho-capitalists support, a free market which can only exist without the state.

"Finally, you have no idea what libertarian means, do you? Libertarian does not mean minarchist, it used to be mainly as a synonym for anarchism. The Libertarian Party may be minarchist, but most people who know anything about politics understand libertarianism to be anti-statist - increasingly associated with the right unless preceded by the word left or succeeded by the word socialist."

Libertarianism is a political ideology, Anarcho-capitalism like any other anarchist school is apolitical. Sure, Anarcho-capitalism comes from the same vein of Libertarian tradition (including elements of individualist anarchism and classical liberalism), but the political ideology of Libertarianism is of course statist no matter how much it may be against big government it still supports a government. To show this difference we have the term Anarcho-capitalism. Asking me to call myself a Libertarian is like asking you to call yourself a Communist. Or on that note, perhaps the term Anarcho-libertarian would be more apt.

You seem proud about 'achievements' on healthcare and so forth. (I take it you mean state health care) Why would you be proud of a system that is paid for by coercive taxes from the state which is an illegitimate territorial monopolist? That doesn't sound very anarchist to me.

Finally, all in all, why do you think the system you support,(which in my view would have to be coercively enforced with human nature being as it is) is better than leaving people buy and sell and offer services as people demand as they wish? --Hixx 17:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Referring to anarchists being called apolitical: "The Bakuninists replied to the accusation of abstentionism by pointing out that the term was ambiguous and that it never meant political indifference, but a rejection of bougeois politics in favour of a "politics of work". "Political action, at the time, meant parliamentary action. So to be anti-parliamentarian meant to be anti-political. As the marxists at this moment in time could not conceive of any other political action for the proletariat than parliamentary action, the denial of the electoral mystification was understood as opposition to every form of political action."

Anarchists and statists alike have seen anarchism as an apolitical movement, well, since Bakunin himself. Politics is the state and left and right is the apparatus of that state for those who are statist and wish to make change through that framework. Anarchists do not use that framework and are hence apolitical.--Hixx 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can chide me all you like, yet you've still not answered a great deal of my completely valid questions. Not surprisingly they involve political economy which if you had any idea on it you wouldn't be such a messed-up excuse for a 'visionary'. Your attitude is rude, abrasive and a poor advertisement for any aspiring anarchist, you're very much beneath me and I want nothing to do with your sort. --Hixx 22:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm Ximin. Just coming to say Hi to you for the first time, since I run into you on several talk pages. :) Hope you're having fun editing wiki. -- infinity0 22:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. There are many people whom we might think are illogical, but that's not something for us to be annoyed by. Just accept them and try to tolerate them. :) Breaks are always good. Heavy wiki-editing tends to distort your perceptions about what's really important in life. -- infinity0 22:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, breaks are good. I ended up having an (unresolved) dispute about Ahmed Zaoui, another Amnesty related topic, with an editor who has started (or participated in) edit wars over a whole bunch of things. Which didn't do good things to my head. Frustration that continues to build is in no way healthy. Thanks for your words of sense Infinity0 :) Mostlyharmless 11:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'v lodged a complaint against him on the administrator's noticeboard that basically recounts his flagrant policy violations at the anarcho-capitalism article. If you would like to post a comment about his behaviour in other articles, I encourage you to do so. -- WGee 06:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, you've got me. That was entirely my own fault, and illustrates perfectly the perils of editing Wikipedia at eight in the evening like I sometimes end up doing. You're right, that was an error on my part, and thank you for spotting my error. The fact that I realized it was from an IP which had had the warnings it did, also makes it a silly mistake of mine. Sorry. Bobo. 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least, I hope I'm not one of those kinds of people! But no, that was a complete accident. I know to be careful with that kind of article in general. Thank you. Bobo. 18:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just endorsed the RfC, but do you happen to know if there's a deadline for posting comments? -- WGee 01:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm a little troubled by the comments so far by users who are sympathetic to User:Anarcho-capitalism. With all due respect to the said users, their comments smack of ignorance. Although the description of the dispute is rather brief (I completely understand if you're short on time), I'd think that they would have taken the time to look at the links you provided before commenting. If they have done so yet still find his conduct acceptable, then they must not fully understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When I have the time to write a detailed comment, I'm expecting that their opinions will change. -- WGee 02:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should make a case against them? Full Shunyata 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 31 hours for violations of

I would like specific examples of my supposed violations, I would like to know why no warnings were given and would like to know where I can appeal this ridiculous block. Donnacha 09:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the wikipedia community, could you explain what instances of incivility and personal attacks Donnacha has engaged in? I think Donnacha has done very well to remain overwhelmingly civil in the face of persistent attacks and POV pushing. I'm happy to hear your reasons. Mostlyharmless 05:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--unblock|No response from Durova, no warnings or examples given. Discussion is admittedly heated, but I have been targetted by POV-pushers who revert my edits with abandon. Attempts by myself and others to get administator involvement in these disputes have failed - [1]--

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Durova for the following reason (see our blocking policy): violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

Your IP address is 80.47.232.170.

It wasn't my comma, I didn't own it, I'm a comma-unist.

Sorry, I'll get me coat...--Red Deathy 16:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say, Both terms date back to the time of Proudhon, Joseph Déjacque was the first person to call himself a libertarian and Proudhon theorised mutualism. This is neither here nor there. A neologism is not necessarily a new word. First, I was referring to your term "libertarian socialism," not "libertarian." Second, the fact that some theorist used a particular term a long time ago does not indicate that the term is a well-established one. The term "libertarian socialism" was very rarely used in publications before the last third of the 20th century. A good test is taking a look at a search on Jstor for instances of the term "libertarian socialism" and then sorting the results by date, oldest to most recent. Few entries appear even for all dates. [2] Hardly any appear from the early 20th century; and the ones that do appear to use the term much differently from the way you use "libertarian socialism." [3] [4] This is what I mean when I point out that you are not using terms that are widely socially familiar. They are still concepts that have not entered a large social lexicon. In this sense the terms you use are neologisms. By the way, in the future please do not make postings on my user talk page that belong on an article talk page. This practice makes it harder for other users to follow the discussion. 172 | Talk 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by Rama's Arrow. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail [email protected].

Hello there. The Borders on Oxford Street and Charing Cross road hold anarchist papers (the Oxford branch has more). Forbidden Planet on Shaftsbury Avenue also has anarchist papers and books. However, I would just go to Freedom bookshop (84b Whitechapel High street, Aldgate East Tube). Give your money to anarchists! BlackFlag 08:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Donnacha. I was very sorry to see those blocks by Durova and Rama's Arrow coming hard on one another's heels like that. Maybe that's put you under a bit more stress than usual? Anyway, I saw your thread User:172 on ANI and wanted to respond, but didn't have time, and now it's been archived. I have a few words to say, though, so I'll say them here, and also drop a line on 172 and User:Llywrch. I was sorry to see the blowout between you and 172.

172 is a pretty approachable guy as far as I've seen, who wants what's best for the encyclopedia, and who responds well to civil discourse. So are you. I was especially sorrry to see User:Llywrch inflame the issue by poisoning the well against 172, going back four years and strenuously implying that 172 hasn't mellowed out in the meantime. That's untrue IMO. I'm asking you to please take a shot at coming to a resolution by addressing him humanly and giving him the benefit of the doubt, rather than ticking off "step 5" or whatever on some stupid list at Disruptive editing with an angry "offer to enter mediation". (Yes, I see your mediation request and RFC also.) Bishonen | talk 23:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, that's fine. I'm not really an active participant on this... but I do think we need to calm this down. --Duncan 11:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]