User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive March 2004 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Why the spelling changes Sam?

Just curious. Why have you changed every s to z -- recognise to recognize for example -- on Anarchism? What was wrong with it as it was? Or has a policy of using only US style throughout wiki been adopted? Moriori 02:04, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't bothered by the spelling changes in general, it doesn't really matter -- I just thought I'd keep that quoted spelling of "premiss" the same as the original. I don't take issue with the rest -- and don't worry, it doesn't change the meaning, premiss & premise are equivalent. -- Sam Francis

[edit] Other changes to anarchism

I wouldn't quite agree with all of them: I'll post my comments on talk:Anarchism for you! -- Sam Francis

[edit] perl

I'm afraid the "tyranny of sysops" has won afterall. Best wishes Sam. Perl 02:25, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My first/last name

The IP address of me (Perl) was posted on IRC by developer, as was the first and last name of me (Perl). Perl 02:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This was done because the developer has power to look in the server logs and find these private things out. He knew I wanted the information private, because I am cloaked on IRC (courtesy of the freenode staff after I told them that I wanted my IP to stay private) Perl 02:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
the developer thought it was his duty to tell other users my name. Perl 02:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
can we finish this conversation on the irc network later tommorow? I don't know the time that i will be able to talk yet. Perl 02:59, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinator of AMA

Sam, thanks for nominating me for Coordinator of AMA, I've noticed that Perl has also decided to self nominate. At last a Wikipedian election! Any thoughts on setting the deadline for nominations? Should we also close the doors to new members on a certain date to prevent someone from stuffing the membership in an effort to get elected to this powerful position? ;). — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk]


[edit] Kevehs

Hey, Sam, thanks for your note. No, I haven't considered mediation yet, and my discussions with him have (as far as I recall) only been on the talk pages, not the user pages. Kev is far from the worst offender I've encountered (there was an AaronS on the ancap page who was worse), and seems a borderline case for Wikipedia:Requests for comment - although I don't know what all experiences you've had. His edits are definitely problematic; he clearly wants to push a certain viewpoint, and is unrelenting in this respect, although what he insists on is generally more subtle than bare propagandizing. The Anarchism article, which had reached a delicate compromise once upon a time, was awash in POV when I returned to look at it, mostly from him. Yes, there have been civility issues too, although again much less than what I've gotten from others, and not to the point where I am ready to ramp up to arbitration, but maybe my judgement is wrong on the severity. Your mileage may vary. Perhaps the most egregious aspect is his mischaracterizations: besides calling me ignorant several times, he misquotes me or misrepresentes quotes from me, he implies I'm a chronic edit-warrer and misrepresents histories to support this, he largely ignores what I write and focuses on some part he gives some sarcastic response to, and so on. Such things make dialogue next to impossible. Perhaps these are symptoms of his base refusal to compromise on certain points. I'd be interested to know what experiences you've had that might bear on this. -- VV 07:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sense of humor

Glad you get it, it's always risky trying to wisecrack in online discussions because so much context is missing, like body language. And part of the reason I'm not angling to be nominated is that like you, I think I prefer Alex over myself as the coordinator (it's probably possible to infer that from what I wrote on AMA talk, but I don't want to start promoting a particular candidate until the process has moved along more). And personally, I feel that even though some people may not take Perl seriously as a candidate, the mere presence of an alternative helps make things more legitimate. I know it feels undemocratic, but in some elections the lack of strong opposition really does indicate that nobody seriously objects to the winning candidate. --Michael Snow 01:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if I need to decline to run any more than I already have, unless someone actually nominates me. But in any case, I'm at least going to wait until I see Alex's statement, whenever he has it ready, before publicly supporting him. That seems appropriate, since at least in theory he could come up with something too outlandish to support (but of course that would be uncharacteristic of him). --Michael Snow 01:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade

Sam, don't know if it matters to you, but our current article on your alter ego(Sam Spade) is in dreadful shape. I tried to set it to rights a bit, but it's still an awkward little stub. Anyway, I thought perhaps you might want to set your editing attention to it—if not, it of course is not reflection on you! :-) Have a good day, Jwrosenzweig 18:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Hinduism

Hi,

Your edits in Hinduism are factually incorrect or POV.

1. Hinduism does no constitute an ethnic group. There are lots of ethnic groups among Hindus. Even if you hold with a very broad concept that ethnic group refers to shared culture, it is incorrect to use the term ethnic group because culture refers to it better. Your comparison to Jews is not parallel to the situation. Indian culture and society are heterogenous. Maybe in today's context the word 'Indian' can refer to ethnicity, however Hindu and Hinduism cannot refer to ethnicity. I hope you understand the difference.

2. Caste(varna) and race are contentious issues and there is no final word on this subject. What you have written about this constitutes POV because it assumes that Hindus accept the caste system as final. If you are familiar with current India related issues then you would be aware that caste issues causes more political unrest than religious community issues- in terms of how it evolved, whether it is right or wrong and so on. So when this is still an evolving issue, it is wrong to assume that everything about Hinduism is status quo and Hindus accept everything in a fatalsitic manner.

I will wait for your counter and go back to the earlier version after a day. KRS 12:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Bcorr

" A candidate is accepted when there is no opposition from the Mediation Committee, no veto from Jimbo, and general agreement from the community. "

There was clearly no general community agreement, and it is outrageous that anthere would presume there was such and arbitrarilly add Bcorr as a mediator. My faith in the mediation commitee is shaken, and I strongly request an inquiry. If she is so very busy, could she at minimum refrain from such dubious and provocative actions? Sam Spade 19:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We advertise the case on the pump and the mediation committee page. By default, given the rule of the mediator, a non absence of opposition is considered support. You were the only opposing. That is not enough. We adressed your requests, by promising you would entirely have the choice to agree of any mediation with Brian or not. This is entirely your choice; What do you say ? FirmLittleFluffyThing

comment moved to discussion page -- sannse (talk) 20:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Actually 3 people raised objections (me, Perl, and DontMessWithThis), not only me. That is not "general support of the community". Secondly, are you suggesting I have a mediation with Bcorr, or you, or what? Maybe RickK? ;) I didn't understand perfectly what you said about mediation. Sam Spade 20:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

perl raised objections, but supported Brian in the end. DontMessWithThis is not relevant. That means 80% support, which is sufficient. No, I do not suggest that you have a mediation with Brian :-) I suggest that on the contrary, you avoid each other Sam :-) ant


[edit] hinduism

Hi,
I already looked into the dictionary link you provided- out of the 4 dictionaries only one mentions ethnicity and that too not in the context you have used. Moreover it refers to Hindostan meaning historical India, so such terminlogies are not generally valid. And if you notice carefully, you will see that it is mentioned As an ethnical term it is confined to the Dravidian and Aryan races and as a religious name it is restricted to followers of the Veda. In the context of your usage, 'ethnic' refers to the religious context and so is incorerct. I have looked into lots of other dictionaries and none refer to Hinduism as 'ethnic'. So in any case, you have to go by general acceptance.
Regarding caste, it is just that you have used it very early in the article and also that your sentence formation seems to suggest that caste is taken for granted. Without even having introduced Hinduism properly, its not appropriate to plunge into this.
I don't want to get into an edit war with you, I neither have the time nor the inclination. However, its my opinion that the article has not improved with the additions you made. I hope that you will see reason and we can reach a compromise. I had been involved with this page a few months ago(see the edit history and discussion page). Sometimes problems arise when there is a subtle nuance that only people who are directly within the subject are aware of and that have to be discussed in detail to be clarified. Maybe we can involve other people in the discussion. KRS 02:21, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AMA Election

Sam, I've taken the liberty of adding links at Wikipedia:Announcements and Wikipedia:Goings-on that the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates is searching for a Coordinator and I have started a new page dealing with the election. See: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election. You editing, comments and participation as an AMA member would be appreciated. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 20:32, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lir and gender identity

A couple of links you might be interested in Sam:

As far as I know the only time she has used a "male" name on Wikipedia was not by her own choice. Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Lir is male. I've kept an eye on "him" since I came to the wiki, and on at least one occaision one of his "attackers" gave his legal name. Unless your more certain than I am, I suggest you go w something gender neutral to describe him on RfM, as some (many) people are offended by innacurate gender descriptions of themselves. :) Sam Spade 19:33, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I will repeat myself yet another time; I asked Lir directly how she wanted me to refer to her, as a male, or as a female; she said "as a female". I respect people wishes of how to call them. Since she told me to say "her" herself, it is unlikely she will be offended. When she asks me to say "him", I will say him. It has little to do with being certain of something. (anthere)

[edit] Picture formatting

That works, thank you very much! - Hephaestos|§ 21:39, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


[edit] talk:cosmotheism

Never attribute to malice, what you can justify through ignorance (or however the saying goes). I thought that the word the person was replacing wasn't even a word (i.e. a mispelling), and that's why I kept reverting. I wasn't even aware of the difference in meaning. In my defense, the guy wasn't too keen on cooperating either (he did act like a vandal). Anyway, I'll try and be more careful in the future. Dori | Talk 03:09, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] To many kilobytes

I work at a Library Computer and I cannot continue to participate in Discuss this page at Fascism because of kilobytes. Can you divide it up into pages so I can continue.

Mr. Wetman has added "an ancient symbol of Government" It is not. It is only a sign of the Roman Government and power.

Mr. Jrwontzeig (sp) has praised Kim Bruning of completely deleting my post and additions to the Republic. I need some help in resolving this issue. Can you supervise also the Republic or find somebody else to mediate.

Thanks.

[edit] Thank you for your note

No, I'm in excellent humor. WHEELER concerns me because I do not believe he is really interested in NPOV -- I think he's well-read and intelligent, which does give cause for hope, but his responses make me think that he's assuming I will eventually say "you're right!" :-) I agree that communicating in text makes conveying attitude and emotion difficult, but that goes both ways, so we'll have to mutually agree to remain congenial and assume the best of each other, eh? I have no concerns about that. I'm glad we're setting aside personal issues....one comment, though. I know you have larger concerns, but I think it's most profitable to ignore them for the terms of this debate. Handling systemic bias is huge, and much more than the two of us can easily hash out over a cup of tea. :-) Handling the approach of this one article is, I think, much more within grasp. Let's keep the positive dialogue going....even if WHEELER ultimately can't handle the NPOV idea, he's raised some good and neglected points that I think you and I can continue to discuss and integrate into the article. And I hope that WHEELER comes to a committment to NPOV and aids us in this: I think you will be the agent that helps him adjust to NPOV here, (certainly he seems disgruntled at me) so I wish you good fortune in the task. I'm babbling now and making less sense than usual. Drop me a note on my talk page if you ever think I'm crossing the line -- but I have every belief and hope that I'll remain calm on this one. I'm committed to NPOV intellectually but have successfully avoided making it an emotional issue, which is of great benefit in cases such as these. See you at Talk:Fascism. ;-) Jwrosenzweig 18:32, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just to make you aware, WHEELER has revealed his political philosophy at Talk:Fascism. Please alter my assessment of the chances we can work profitably with WHEELER to compromise from "cautiously hopeful" to "almost certainly impossible". :-) It looks as though you and I will have to sort out the changes to the article between us, mano y mano. ;-) I promise to play nicely. Jwrosenzweig 20:38, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree, 172 hurt things as opposed to helping. Have I stopped playing nice? I admit to frustration with WHEELER, but I hope I haven't been rude to him. Let me know if you believe I have. Jwrosenzweig 21:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You are right about assuming the best as a good general course of action. I'm afraid that seeing his anger and rudeness addressed at another user in his first day here made me pessimistic. You're right that I should assume good faith, but I also feel bound to be honest in my assessments of others. I try to put the best spin on it that I can, but I will endeavor to make an extra effort to do so in this case. I fear I will have trouble. I don't normally show up on IRC or IM...on occasion, though, I show up on AIM as "alpheides" (bonus points if you can guess why I chose that name :-). I do think we would enjoy chatting about these things, but perhaps we'd best wait until we finish sorting out the article, lest the two conversations overwhelm each other, eh? Thanks for your notes, I've archived for WHEELER's convenience. Jwrosenzweig 21:55, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouragement -- you guessed rightly, I was absolutely fuming over his nonchalance in challenging my faith. I hope also that he apologizes very soon, but I've left messages on both Talk:Fascism and his talk page, and I'm not hearing back.... He hadn't been as rude as that before, though when Kim Bruning left a comment on his talk page explaining why she had cut additions of his, suggesting articles where his ideas would be more suitable, and thanking him for contributing (really the model of politeness -- you can read it, it's still on his talk page), he replied with a lengthy diatribe, the most troubling remark of which was "When someone asked Benjamin Franklin what government they were forming he said, 'A Republic, if you can keep it'. What is he referring to Kim??? Do you have a clue???????????????????????????????????????????? I also noticed that you have no political education or wrote on it on your website, who are you to tell me what I cannot post." Nowhere near as offensive as what he did to me, but still indicative of a temperament that usually does not last here. I hope he does apologize soon.....if tomorrow comes and he hasn't, I honestly don't know what I'll do. I don't think people should get away with such things -- they are very hurtful, and I think many editors would have been far crueler in response than I was....it invites escalation, and will lead to horrible flamewars. We can't have that. Do you think this requires mediation? A request for comment? It is admittedly an isolated incident, but I think it serious enough that, absent an apology (which I will of course accept), I think some kind of consequence appropriate. Not permanent ban, of course! But something to indicate that such remarks are absolutely unacceptable here. I guess I'll wait a little longer and see. Jwrosenzweig 00:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam, don't be too dismayed. I'm probably atypical. :-) I didn't mean to imply, though, that I thought God had nothing to do with my work here. Certainly I try to let my actions be guided by him. But I know that I cannot insert my beliefs into pages because it will bias them, even if I think it very neutral to make statements like "The intricacy and complexity of the universe point to a divine mind having created it" or something of the kind. Also, WHEELER's faith seems very centered on pushing his political beliefs also -- The reason I said what I did to him is that I don't feel he understands NPOV. He thinks NPOV means that I have to agree with him because he's telling the truth and the truth is neutral. But what he has to admit is that all of us have biases that interfere with NPOV. I didn't mean to imply that I thought I could cut God out of any area of my life -- certainly not! Only that putting my beliefs on full display can't be the sole guide for my edits here, or else I will become more of a missionary than a productive editor (I think WHEELER is a good example of this --there are kernels of good edits in his work, but because they are driven by a desperate desire to convince others to agree with him, they have not failed to be divisive and controversial). I do try, though, to behave in a manner that will be some kind of witness to others, and I hope that there are occasions in which I succeed. I'm sorry you think Marxists get to push their POV -- I honestly only know about two Marxists here and they seem to be constantly edit-warred against. I think that materialism probably does get preference because it feels "neutral" to most of the world, though not so much to you or me. I don't know that there's a fix for this. And right now my goal is to get WHEELER to relax and agree to abide by policy here, rather than rile him up about how heathen this site is. But you are free (as always) to disagree with my approach. I don't mind it. It's a shame, though -- I think you and I agree on an awful lot, Sam. We just always end up in disputes that show off our disagreements. But maybe that's a mistaken belief on my part. Anyway, thanks for the help. Yesterday wore me out, and if WHEELER can't agree to abide by NPOV, I don't know how much more help I'll be at Fascism. I wish you luck in guiding him, and will do what I can. Jwrosenzweig 16:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your support I appreciate your vote. I agree on many of the opinions you made concerning Rickk. We are having a discussion on my page about him and his connection to the Junta. Please participate if you would. GrazingshipIV 03:23, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Angry sock puppet

I find your comments offensive Well now you know how I feel. millerc 02:06, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How am I to take that? You feel offensive? I'm sorry if your arguments didn't hold up, but this is about whats good for the articles, not our egos. Just mind the wikiquette, your ad hominem attacks only make you look foolish. If you want to make me look foolish, say something factual. Say it and cite it. No one deserves to hear the sort of stuff you have been spewing, particularly not a 7 year old. If you spoke to my 12yr old that way I'd whup yer arse ;). Sam Spade 02:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who needs arbitration now? I'm sorry you don't take your own advice. I don't really care to talk to you any more. millerc 04:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

You recently claimed that Atheism is easy to discredit. I would like to know how.

Best, Luis Dantas 14:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Hinduism/ archive1

Thanks for your compliments. :-) Cheers Chancemill

Thanks again, for your note. I am indeed glad to know that you have taken an active interest in Hindu philosophy. In my opinion, the reason why you found most people on the defensive on the 'ethnicity issue' - could be because of the current trend of extremist viewpoints that are expressed time and again, in articles related to this topic. The increasingly popular concept of Hindutva remains highly controversial and one of its doctrines is the outright rejection of documented historical and anthropological 'evidences' to the evolution of the religion. On the other hand, we also have certain elements who, while correctly condemning certain ills of contemporary Hindu society, wrongfully assume that these are the direct manifestations of the flaws in Hindu philosophy.
It may not be wrong to assume that Hinduism today, is undergoing an identity crisis, with one group of people trying hard to portray a branded version limited in scope and certainly negative in many aspects, and the other group, under the pretext of countering this, tarnishing everything about the philosophy. Unfortunately, there are many users here who represent both the groups militantly, and as a result there have been ugly edit-wars in many articles (2002 Gujarat violence, Aryan invasion theory being a few related examples.) Your edit may have been misconstrued for this reason, as an attempt by one of these groups.
I personally try to avoid contentious issues, and try more to focus on the philosophy and the religion rather than the social perceptions. But, sometimes the dividing line is very blurred - and one needs to be very careful (is what I learnt the hard way :-))
It is indeed refreshing to have a person like you with an interest in this field. IMO, being from a different cultural background is often a positive bonus as you would be able to evaluate the views expressed - independently and be more neutral-centric than the others. Looking forward to working with you too. Cheers :-) Chancemill 09:04, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Poor and the AMA

Thanks for your response to my post. It's good to see your respect for Ed expressed a little more, because it's not always apparent, especially to someone looking only at the AMA pages. I assume you're putting a conscious effort into being restrained in your discussion of him (I've certainly seen you use harsher language), and I commend that. I was just concerned that it could also look like this: "Ed (the developer, admin, and all that), who is obviously a well-respected user with some authority around here, is just being hassled by Sam Spade, who everybody knows is a jerk, and it must be because Ed simply told Sam he was out of line once, and now Sam takes every chance he can to air this grudge." An extreme characterization, to be sure, but I know people here who would buy it. Making it clear that you respect Ed, but still have this issue with him, can help people take it more seriously.

Anyway, I hope in a roundabout way that I've actually helped the discussion, because your initial problems with Ed are certainly a fair issue to raise. Thanks also for putting up with, and actually reading, my long-winded lectures. If everybody would read and research the page histories as thoroughly as you do, they would jump to a lot fewer wrong-headed conclusions. Including jumping to conclusions about a certain Sam Spade. Keep up the good work. --Michael Snow 06:12, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, I try not to judge you based on your history with Bcorr, Ed, or anybody else, and I'm willing to overlook a little occasional belligerence, especially since you never try to deny or hide it. And really, you didn't make a bad impression on me at our first interaction. Like you, I do read a fair amount of the "historical" discussions, so it shouldn't surprise you that I already knew who you were. Compared to what some people have had to say _about_ you, I thought our first contact was rather tame. And I did have a sense that you might be willing to communicate in good faith if I did the same. You quickly proved me right about that. --Michael Snow 06:49, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AMA & Community Portal

I originally thought to put it at the end in Resources, but since we are helping people dealing with arbitration and dispute resolution I thought it would get more hits if put in the Behavioral Guidelines section after the links to arbitration and dispute resolution. What do you think? — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 07:31, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for comment

I am posting this to both 172 and Sam Spade. I do not want to see you two get into an edit war over the content of the listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I have taken it upon myself to rewrite the listing so that it simply states, "Allegations of incivility, edit wars." I think this should communicate the substance of the complaint well enough, while being reasonably neutral. If you object to this phrasing, please _do not_ take it upon yourself to edit it further. Instead, contact me on my talk page, and we can work out a suitable alternative. --Michael Snow 21:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination

I've nominated you on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I think you're a very good all-round Wikipede an deserve to be made a sysop. Congrats! Ludraman | Talk 01:06, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And I've now removed the nomination. Given the previous go-round, I hope that meets with your approval. --Michael Snow 01:08, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Wikipedians and Aggro

Hi Sam, followed the link you left on Ludraman's talk page. I guess Wikipedia is not all happy and light (what a sad list). Easy to see how really after the whole breakfast saga - deary me - and I presume that's a minor enough example compared to contentious topics! (Yes I'm a newbie!)
I'd say it's hard if someone is taking this place seriously. I mean, I don't think of it as mess-acting - it's not some kind of joke or just for fun - but it does feel like some kind of social experiment rather than a well-organised project. (Is the latter EVER possible with open projects?) Anyways, I'm happy enough here - as a techie I find it fascinating if nothing else.
Oh well, just thought I'd leave my musings here.
Zoney 11:27, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wheeler

This is Wheeler. I can't win for losing. These people plan on wearing me out. I provide quote after quote after quote and they claim not to get it on either website. The true meaning of words they will never acknowledge. Just like the old Socrates, we will go around, and around and around.

[edit] Angela

Hi Sam, it's rather hard to follow whether or not anyone has responded to your request for mediation when you immediately remove comments from your talk page, so could you please let me know if you are still seeking mediation with 172, and if so, exactly what the issue is that you would like mediated. Thanks. Angela. 10:58, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Poor's nomination

Hey Sam I was just trying to figure out who nominated Ed Poor. Did he nominate himself? Did we ever discuss a policy about self-nominations? Perhaps it would be appropriate to state on the elections page who nominated whom? I am going to add what information that I can cull from the talk page. — Alex756 © 19:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tuf-Kat

Do you have any preferences about who should mediate? Tuf-Kat 20:30, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] john

Sam, those definitions don't support you, I'm sorry to say. They all indicate a social transformation on behalf of the poor, in general. One of them says that socialism allies itself with the most advanced democracy! I think that, at the very least, a socialist system should be defined as one that is working, at least in theory, towards greater egalitarianism. Any definition of socialism which includes Dwight D. Eisenhower, William the Conqueror, and Cardinal Richelieu is worse than useless. Socialism is a very specific political and social movement, arising in Europe in the early 19th century. It has had various strains, but all with common origins. I think there are actually interesting arguments to be made about the relationship of fascism (especially Italian and French fascism - Nazism is actually much more difficult) to socialism, but those arguments have to be made on the basis of an understanding of socialism as a specific political phenomenon, and not as some sort of vague, meaningless generality. And I think those arguments generally point to ways in which fascism, while, perhaps, a twisted child of socialism, is not itself socialist.

By the way, here's OED's definitions:

1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.

2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common.

Neither of these really fits with Nazism (or any kind of fascism) as being a form of socialism. john 09:19, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)