User talk:Shanoman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Redirects

Hi,

To automatically redirect one wiki page to another use syntax of the form:

#REDIRECT [[Some Page Titile]]

on the page that you would like to be redirected. I've modified Douglas B. Rasmussen for you. Dave 22:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Your edits

Looks like you actually know something about philosophy and philosophers. Maybe that's a better place to concentrate your efforts ;-) -- Fan-1967 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women's Suffrage Day

I have proposed your Women's Suffrage Day page for deletion because, as a resident of New Zealand, I can assure you that no such public/official holiday exists, or has ever existed. --Helenalex 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth, Sixth, Seventh Party Systems of the United States?

In response to this:

"Sixth Party System?

I would really appreciate it if someone would create a separate article on this hypothetical topic, for afterall, if all the previous systems only lasted 30-40 years, how rational is it to hold that the Fifth Party System, starting in the early 1930s, survives even today, over 70 years later? Also, I noticed in the Wikipedia article on the Republican Party, it is indeed asserted that a Sixth Party System began in 1980 (and it doesn't even note the controversy!). If that is the case, then it should be about time for a SEVENTH Party System (or at the very least, separate articles and links addressing these two subsequent, hypothetical Party Systems).Shanoman 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   The existence of a Fifth Party System is disputed; the existence of a Sixth Party System is tenuous. Some of the sources on the subject remark on the surprising length of the FPS. One obvious suggestion is that the parties are now entrenched in primary legislation, and it is very difficult to undermine or redefine the present parties. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

   Why is the existence of the Fifth Party System disputed (I thought only the ending dates were in dispute); and what is meant by saying that "the parties are now entrenched in primary legislation..."?  Surely, sometime between 1960 and 2007, the alignment changed at least once; it makes little sense to speak of the New Deal Coalition in 2007 when almost all of the New Deal legislation itself was repealed by the end of the 1980s.  Is it too much to allow on here even the speculation that it might be changing again, or is even drawing conclusions about what happened in the 1960s through the 1980s too rash to be acceptable for today's standards?

Shanoman 00:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Viennese Actionism

  • Why did you redirect this to Actionism? I reverted it, as I don't see why its not a legitimate page. Wickethewok 00:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The study of Misanthropology

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article The study of Misanthropology, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 02:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VHEMT article

I watch the vhemt article and I noticed your little rant about it being anti-liberal. From your userpage, i noticed that this "liberal as selfish" thing is a topic you have a lot of passion about. i'm wondering, just, why? From the way I was taught, liberals were people who fought for the rights of blacks, women, etc. and care about the environment. The people in vhemt are definitely left-leaning, so why would they not be called liberals?--Screwball23 talk 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose in the broadest sense of the word, VHEMT can be considered "liberal", if liberal means "anyone who is not a conservative (I realize that there are several different senses of the word conservative: Christian conservatives, Muslim conservatives, capitalist conservatives, Soviet conservatives, etc.). In the United States, most people called conservatives are both Christian and capitalist, or at least very sympathetic to these two things. In most ways, I agree with my above definition, as I do not want to unduly limit what defines what a liberal can believe in. I suppose so long as VHEMT is completely voluntary, it is permissible, as in they are not forcing anything on anybody, but I wish to strongly persuade people against it, as I feel that it goes against the overall "spirit" of mainstream historical liberalism, which is tolerance, freedom, pleasure, individualism (cultural, not necessarily economic), and a celebration of the body, mind, and self of humanity; an uplifting of the human condition (rights, well-being, comfort, etc.), instead of the renunciation of all of the above, which was historically the province of conservatives (religious traditionalists). It disturbs me that VHEMT falls into the trap of saying that something nonhuman is so important that it is worth human annihilation; to a conservative Christian or Muslim, this would be God; to VHEMT, it is other species, the earth, nature itself, anything else that exists besides humans. If this is not an antihumanistic, misanthropic philosophy, I'm not sure what is. It seems to me that they may even be sex-negative! I came to liberalism (for the second time) from a quasi objectivist-libertarian, and egoist/hedonist perspective; I view conservatives as being primarily antihuman, since most believe that humans are guilty of original sin.Shanoman 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize that not all, or even most liberals will become selfist or egoistic, but I see no contradiction. Liberals (and progressives and leftists) fought for the liberation of blacks and women because it was the objective, enlightened and humane thing to do; likewise for the environment. However, I don't think there was ever any significant movement, liberal or otherwise, that asked all non-blacks to sterilize themselves so that blacks can have the world all to themselves, or for men to do likewise so that women can use biotechnology to impregnate themselves with female children only; so why now is a prominent group asking all of humanity to do this for the sake of the environment? The environment sustains our lives; this much I get; humanity is probably wise to preserve as much of it as possible, in as natural of a state as possible, but why kill ourselves for it? My larger point is that extreme altruism is toxic for all life--not just us humans--what else could conceivably save the earth (and all its organisms) from a giant asteroid or comet; the sun's death; the universe's death? If someone says "Well it's not okay for anyone to interfere, because that would be against Nature's plan", it is tantamount (or at least very similar) to saying "It's God's will". I refuse to give up or give in; I'm very proud, vain, selfish, hedonistic, anthropocentric, geocentric (worldly)--and I think it's all good; call me a "satanist" if you like, but I'm really an agnostic humanitarian, who loves the earth, but I love humanity more. Shanoman 16:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not tell me that you indeed entertain the notion that humanity through reason could save the Earth from a natural or cosmic disaster, as you seem to imply in the following passage:
My larger point is that extreme altruism is toxic for all life--not just us humans--what else could conceivably save the earth (and all its organisms) from a giant asteroid or comet; the sun's death; the universe's death? If someone says "Well it's not okay for anyone to interfere, because that would be against Nature's plan", it is tantamount (or at least very similar) to saying "It's God's will".
I sincerely doubt that anything could be done by humanity to prevent even a relatively "minor" disaster such as a asteroid impact, certainly not with the level of technology we have now (yes, Armageddon unfortunately was just a Hollywood movie totally detached from the reality of physics). And certainly NOTHING can be done against the Sun's death when that huge fusion reactor is depleted of hydrogen, or the hypothetical thermal death of the Universe. Please. We lack the technology, the knowledge, in my opinion even the common sense to prevent the death of the planet's biosphere - which will ultimately come not by way of cosmic cataclysms, but by our own actions.
But then, perhaps it's a mentality thing and here in Europe, the problem at hand is perceived differently from the U.S. (I take it that you are from the U.S.?) Vargher (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misanthropology?

Why would we have an entry on a "proposed" study? How could that be notable? I have nothing against the idea but it just isn't encyclopedic or even remotely notable so why keep in here?PelleSmith 01:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Misanthropology

I've nominated Misanthropology, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Misanthropology satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misanthropology and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misanthropology during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -Nicktalk 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radical feminism

Could you please see my remarks at Talk:Radical_feminism#Sex-negative.3F_Etc.? You appear to be the primary author of the paragraphs I am questioning. - Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hippie chick pie wagons

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Hippie chick pie wagons, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Fang Aili talk 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This notice is a few days late. Sorry! Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. --Fang Aili talk 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peristalsis

What are you trying to do on Peristalsis? I can't figure it out from diffs. WLU 19:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to link it to the source, which is another Wikipedia article; please be patient; I'm still working on it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanoman (talk • contribs)

Give me the raw links on this page and I'll let you know what the proper format is, it'll probably spare you a bunch of time :) I can explain what I did and why afterwards.

Also, have a gander at WP:TALK and WP:SIGN for communication on talk pages - makes things easier for the rest of us. WLU 19:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lotus_and_the_Robot
Or, if that isn't correct, maybe you can find it by simply going to the article The Lotus and the Robot. Hope that helps.Shanoman 19:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent signature. Unfortunately you can't use wikipedia as a reference, oddly enough it doesn't count as a reliable source. You can cite the book directly using a Citation template, but you will need to put in a section like the one below:

==References==

{{reflist}}

By putting the citation template in [1] tags, it'll automatically appear below when you add the reflist template. For wikilinks, you don't need the full url, just the wikilink. I would say that the wikilink itself isn't really for a prominent enough subject to have a direct link in the peristalsis article. Also, you should look into WP:BOOK to see if the LatR page itself meets notability guidelines - it may not, or may not yet do so, and the policy will let you know what must be done to ensure the page will not be deleted. Also, when putting posts on the talk page, space them with a colon (:) to make reading easier. WLU 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

This is in regard to you comment on the Talk page for the article on "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" (Talk:Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil), under the section of "Christian Interpretations":

Also, this section needs to state more explicitly that the concept of original sin is almost exclusivly Catholic (and maybe Anglican) dogma. Few other christian religions believe in the concept of original sin. Padillah 15:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish you were correct, Padillah. Unfortunately, I believe you are mistaken. While it's true that most modern mainline denominations (or "liberal Protestant": Unitarian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Disciples of Christ, United Church of Christ, American Baptist, Friends (Quaker), Congregationalist, and yes, Episcopalian (Anglican)) downplay the part of Original Sin or else deny it altogether, it is a very prominent part of traditional orthodox Christian belief (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, and Protestant), since without it, why would Jesus-worshipers deem it necessary for Jesus to die for everyone's sins? It is most prominently preached today not only by Roman Catholics, but also by Southern Baptists, Assembly of God, Church of the Nazarene, and probably just about all other Baptists, Pentecostals, Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, nondenominationals, and just about all other conservative Christians, even those conservative individuals within the so-called liberal denominations I first mentioned (Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.). Back during the Modern Era (see also Modernity), from around the late 1800s (1870s-90s) until the 1970s, you would have been technically correct that at least the clergy of most churches that had the most members probably didn't believe in original sin---and perhaps from the 1920s to the 1970s---most church-goers didn't either. But the "Postmodern Revolution" has open the flood gates to anti-modern, anti-humanistic beliefs, and American Christians have swung dramatically towards the right-wing (conservatism) since the late 1970s/early 1980s; even with the Roman Catholic church losing members in the United States, conservatives have been on the rise. Even the moderates are way more conservative than they used to be. It makes me angry; I wish I could go back to my childhood when things were more comfortable, and that I could just dismiss the rise of the fanatics as just a few crazies on the outer fringe, but unfortunately, they are now almost mainstream. Sorry if I seem ranty; the last thing I want to do is to discourage you from using Wikipedia. Please keep at it; we need more people like us! Shanoman 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


My basic question is "Why would you post a comment on someone's main user page?" You may want to brush up on your Wiki etiquette. Padillah 12:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, please accept my apology. I was only trying to help. Perhaps I misunderstood where you were coming from; I interpreted your comments as being from one who is theologically liberal or even irreligious (as am I). Sorry if it offended you. As for the "Wiki etiquette", I don't care much for it, as I basically think most manners and rules are arbitrary, just like notions of moralism (chasity/virtue), vice, and sin. But I don't believe in being threatening, mean-spirited, or aggressively abrasive, so if that's how you interpeted it, I'm very sorry. Shanoman 17:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As to why I would do such a thing, it's just that I really want non-conservatives (or at least non-fundamentalists) to be educated and vigilant, not complacent or naive, because we are targets for religious extremists (fundamentalists/conservatives) everywhere! Survival depends on a simple maxim: Know your enemy!

[edit] Talk:Modern liberalism in the United States (Progressivism: Strong Centrism, mild Social Democracy, & Some Very-Soft Leftism)

Nunberg

Does the following sentence really add anything to the article? "The full title of linguist Geoffrey Nunberg's 2006 book on the use of slogans by conservatives to reshape the image of liberalism, Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show is as an extended list of liberal slurs." I'm inclined to remove it… - Jmabel | Talk 22:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Slurs? I take them as compliments! I don't find anything wrong with any of those activities listed, with the possible exception of the tax-raising, but that's probably because I used to be a libertarian (yikes!), and I still think like one sometimes, but basically, I'm a real regular kind of liberal now; a wholesale liberal; I would much rather have the rich taxed at a higher rate all across the board than the current mainstream policy of higher fines for petty "crimes" (e.g. speeding, disorderly conduct, etc.) User:Shanoman 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion Tag

A tag has been placed on Silent generations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. shoy 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selfism

I stumbled across the selfism article. I didn't even think it was a word until I found it in Webster's 3rd. The article would be an interesting place to collect critiques of Nietzsche, Rand, "Selfist Psychologism", Dawkins[???], et al. I thought that the article needed a fuller presentation of Vitz's views. I assume that the emotional impact of his critique lies in simply calling his opponents "selfist" and "selfish". But he must have some elaboration on this. The publisher looked like a spin-off of Zondervan, the leading religious publisher, so I assume that the readers wouldn't have needed too much of an argument to believe that selfishness is bad. If you still have the book or your notes, please expand on his views. Also who are others who are anti-selfist? DCDuring 16:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I currently seem to have displaced my copy of the book. I'd hate to buy another one, since I am in profound disagreement with Paul Vitz's views, but I might cave-in if I see it at a discount or used book store. I wish I could tell you if there was anyone else who explicitly used the term or shared his views, but I currently don't know of any. However, I do remember him referencing another work by Christian authors---I can't think of their names---but it seems to me like it was a husband/wife team who wrote something that was critical of ALL psychology (insisting that religion is absolutely incompatible with any psychology whatsoever). If I happen to stumble across their names, I'll post it here. If you want to use the article as a place to collect critiques of Nietzsche, Rand, Dawkins, et. al, I don't mind. In fact, I'd love to see more material regarding these figures. Shanoman 20:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I've nominated the "Sex-negativity" page for deletion. Please see my arguments on the article's talk page. Just being courteous and letting you know, since you are the article creator.Wuapinmon (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sex-negativity

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Sex-negativity, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sex-negativity

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Sex-negativity, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Eliot Spitzer & Wikipedian Censorship

(I.== March 2008 ==) Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Eliot Spitzer, you will be blocked from editing. You are an established editor and should know better, so not many warnings for you. Jaysweet (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree to stop making changes to the page on Eliot Spitzer, although I am not really sure I agree that it should be called vandalism. After all, with the notable exception of cultural feminists, aren't people who oppose the legalization of prostitution pretty much conservative? Also, while calling Spitzer a political conservative, or even a conservative Democrat might be a stretch (since he actually was in favor of same-sex marriage), I see no problem at all with including Dr. Laura and Judge Judy. I wanted to include Howard Stern also, since he's such an over-protective father & prude towards his daughters, but I guess that would just be pushing it too far. Shanoman (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was more the fact that you were just adding descriptions that weren't actually really categories (and aren't likely to be). Also, your argument that Spitzer is inherently a conservative because he opposes the legalisation of prostitution is original research and opinion. You need to get a reliable source for that info if you are going to make that assertion in the article.
To be honest, you need to think twice about your goals here. If I am understanding you correctly, you want to add [[Category:Conservative]] to the articles about people who self-identify as Democrats but who you believe are actually conservatives? That is a really bad idea... see WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V. Your plan runs afoul of all of those policies/guidelines.
If you found multiple reliable sources saying that so-and-so's politics are more in keeping with the conservative viewpoint, then you could conceivably add that to the article text, with proper citations. But please, no opinion. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 month as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    I consider this vandalism, and since he was warned before, I want to risk further damage to WP. Any admin is welcome to review this block. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    I unblocked it myself. It's vandalism, all right, but I see that this user has not beeen warned sufficiently. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] <Gulp!>

I don't know what to say. At first I thought I was being targeted by a cabal of right-wing Wikipedian editors and administrators, but with fellow liberals (friends?) like you, who needs right-wing enemies? Yes, I know that we are supposed to be above all that: vandalism, dirty tricks, and other pranks are exclusively the signs of an inferior, juvenile intellect. At least I didn't delete anything, or post an obscene image.

Here is some more of what I was trying to say, before I got into an edit conflict on my own User talk page:

I wanted to include Howard Stern also, since he's such an over-protective father & prude towards his daughters, but I guess that would just really be pushing it too far---if he's conservative in any way at all, then perhaps there must be a little bit of conservative in everyone. At any rate, I admit that my main intent was to include some perhaps embarrassing individuals under the category of "Conservatives", and I was wanting to see just how far I could push it. Obviously, including Spitzer at this time was way over-the-top. As much as it pains me to do so (since I generally frown on ALL types of censorship), I wish to say "Good job!" on catching me "red-handed". Shanoman (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best thing for me to do would be to take a break from Wikipedia for a while. Well thanks for unblocking me. Shanoman (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eliot Spitzer & Wikipedian "Censorship", Part II.

Shanoman...Spitzer is not a moralist hypocrite. He rightfully busted some prostitution rings and rightfully upped the punishment...he just fell short on some of the standards that most people agree with. Most of what he was about was against White collar crime anyway, so stop caring so much. Spitzer was a good man that unfortunately was stuck in a couple of bad situtions, including his unpopular term as governor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemalp (talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nemalp, I will reply to your comment on two different counts:
(1) In regards to censorship from Wikipedian big shots: that really bites, doesn't it? It seems like they let so many get away with so much, but then Bam!, they zero in for the kill on just a few selected scapegoats, for a trivial "offense" or blunder, who they wish to make an example out of. Not fair at all! I sympathize with you there.
(2) In regards to Spitzer, I'm not sure where you're coming from. Do you really like the guy, is he a relative, friend, acquaintance, or what? I agree that the media made a circus out of it, and frankly, I think it's pathetic that a politician nowadays has to automatically and quickly resign just for something like this---or that there's now always such constant "witch hunts" to dig up dirt like this. However, since he himself went after prostitution rings so zealously as attorney general, I think this is poetic justice. Prostitution is only a crime according to: statuatory law, popular consensus, and traditional/religious criteria; it is not something which coerces or forces anything on anyone; laws against it interfere with the individuals right to consent to use themselves and their money in pursuit of happiness (see victimless crime). If Spitzer did not have sincere personal religious or moral beliefs regarding prostitution, then he must have broke up the rings only to pander to the prudery of busybody voters and to get the media attention and popular support to further his political career. I generally oppose all attorney generals and prosecutors, regardless of their party affiliation, but as a liberal, it particularly upsets me when a Democrat acts like a prude; if both major parties are for religious laws and against sex, what's the use in voting? Shanoman (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spitzer and Wiki Editorial Control

I wish to sincerely thank you, Jaysweet (talk), for taking the time to explain things to me and for not being overly harsh, vindictive, or prosecutional towards me. I can definitely be too rash and emotional at times. Also, I wish to reassure you that I did not deliberately delete your reply; I scrolled back to a previous screen to try to save something I had typed here earlier (that I thought I had already saved but hadn't); unfortunately, I saving my previous work inadvertantly copied over what you had recently posted here, and I am too ignorant and lazy (and literally, too slow) to know how or even if I can get your comments back, but if you know how, please feel free to do so. If you read my whole user page, you'll see that I'm a wholesale inclusionist and packrat, so I really do want to save everything, I generally despise all deletions (however, very occassionally, I do try to "purge" my user page of embarrassing encounters and episodes, such as this. I do this to make a more attractive superficial appearance; I fully realize that nothing on Wikipedia can ever really be fully deleted by lowly peons such as myself---and I'm in favor of it).

My apologies for being a vandal; wish I could reverse the flow of time and decided against doing it in the first place. Peace! Shanoman (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WIPE OUT!