Draft Jimmy Wales for U.S. Senate underway

[Mike Renzulli]

Wikipedia founder and entrepreneur Jimmy Wales recently expressed an interest in running as a Republcian for Florida's U.S. Senate seat.

A campaign to draft him to run is underway: http://draftjimmywales.wordpress.com/

Edited March 16, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Peter]

Jimbo would make a good Senator, but his anarchism might get in the way of his being electable. And a lot of conservatives hate the idea of Wikipedia not being official like The Encyclpedia Brittanica. Some people have been really burned with bad Wiki articles.

Peter Taylor

[algernonsidney]

Jimbo would make a good Senator, but his anarchism might get in the way of his being electable. And a lot of conservatives hate the idea of Wikipedia not being official like The Encyclpedia Brittanica. Some people have been really burned with bad Wiki articles.

Peter Taylor

Trust me on this one. Jimmy Wales is definitely not an anarchist. He's also not particularly friendly to libertarians either. He is a believer in limited government generally, although I can't be totally sure about specifics. He definitely favors free markets.

Wales was once very active among these types of circles. In 1991, he founded the Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy on a listserv when he was in grad school at Indiana U. That group was up until at least 1997. Chris Matthew Sciabarra even gives the MDOP an acknowledgment in Russian Radical. A lot of the people who attended the IOS seminars back then were also on the MDOP. It peaked around 600 or 700 members. I also know that he attended IOS seminars from 1994 to 1996 and probably more than that.

He has taken one very principled stand. He has absolutely, positively refused to censor Wikipedia. He basically told China to got to hell, although he did it in a much more diplomatic way.

I will certainly acknowledge that Wikipedia is not perfect. Still, I love the spirit and the attitude behind it.

[sjw]

Has an atheist ever been elected to Congress?

Shayne

[sjw]

Has an atheist ever been elected to Congress?

Shayne

One, but he wasn't known to be an atheist until after he was elected:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark

Shayne

[syrakusos]

Some people have been really burned with bad Wiki articles.

... mostly undergraduates seeking to avoid homework.

[9thdoctor]

Wikipedia founder and entrepreneur Jimmy Wales recently expressed an interest in running as a Republcian for Florida's U.S. Senate seat.

Are you sure he's involved? I don't see where he's "expressed an interest". My feeling is that he won't be able to pay the lip service to religion that would be needed to get a Republican nomination in this state.

In 1991, he founded the Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy on a listserv when he was in grad school at Indiana U. That group was up until at least 1997. Chris Matthew Sciabarra even gives the MDOP an acknowledgment in Russian Radical. A lot of the people who attended the IOS seminars back then were also on the MDOP. It peaked around 600 or 700 members.

I was a member and posted a few times.

[Starbuckle]

Wales, an anarchist? Where does that one come from?

[jriggenbach]

Wales, an anarchist? Where does that one come from?

Ignorance.

JR

[George H. Smith]

The pre-Wiki Wales founded Bomis.com, an internet "ring" that specialized in porn sites. This background would probably cause serious problems for him in a senatorial race.

Ghs

[Reidy]

Scott Brown posed nude in Cosmo (though you couldn't call it porn) and won anyway. In the 70s, when Mike Curb was running for Lt. Governor of California, the news came to light that he had done the mezzo/contralto [sic; he was a man of many talents] vocal track for a porno movie, and he went on to win, too.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Reidy

[George H. Smith]

Scott Brown posed nude in Cosmo (though you couldn't call it porn) and won anyway. In the 70s, when Mike Curb was running for Lt. Governor of California, the news came to light that he had done the mezzo/contralto [sic; he was a man of many talents] vocal track for a porno movie, and he went on to win, too.

Mike Curb was defeated in his last two political efforts. This tune by the Mike Curb Congregation was probably the reason.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uLjbo1cPLP8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ghs

[Peter]

Starbuckle wrote:

Wales, an anarchist? Where does that one come from?

End quote

JR quipped:

Ignorance.

Not ignorance, Junior, you horse’s ass.

When he was moderating Atlantis Starbuckle, and OWL, there was a spirited debate about anarchism. I apparently went a wee bit ballistic about something and he wrote me saying to quit that. He not only had sympathy for the brave soldiers of anarchy, he was an anarchist at heart, hence Wikipedia which is anarchistic. I responded that extremism in the defense of Objectivism is no vice, but I toned down my rhetoric.

Jimbo said this offlist. I just looked for his letter but could not find it. I did find about a hundred or more letters from him in my archives.

Peter Taylor

Notes:

Jimbo wrote:

"I don't think any serious anarchocapitalist theorists dispute Ayn Rand's claim that "the use of physical force... cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens". Anarchocapitalists envision a set of _institutions_, a set of _principles_, including traditional courtroom features such as trial by jury, rules of evidence, appeals, etc. I don't know of anyone (serious) who thinks that non-emergency retaliatory use of force should be left to individual vigilantes.

I don't know of anyone (serious) who thinks that non-emergency retaliatory use of force should be left to individual vigilantes."

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: re: ANARCHY (JW)

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:55:13 -0800

Well, that's quite a story.

Maybe I can boil it down to a more conceptual (i.e. less concrete) idea? A person has a minor dispute with a business, and decides to use physical force to resolve the situation directly to their personal satisfaction, rather than going through any formal procedure.

> Question 1: Is my action considered retaliatory use of force?

Yes, taking someone's property without their consent is the use of force. If you did it in retaliation, then it was a retaliatory use of force.

It's a very *minor* use of force, of course.

> Question 2: Am I an individual vigilante?

"Vigilante" is a pretty loaded term, but one dictionary definition says "One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands". So in this technical sense, I'd say that, yes, this is vigilantism.

> Question 3: Was I justified in leaving the store without paying (for the second time) for those candy bars?

That depends in part on the exact nature of the contract between you and the store. Normally, stores rent movies based on a signed membership contract that gives them significant leeway in terms of refund policies. Typically there will be language in the contract saying that refunds are at their sole discretion, and that the

decision of the management will be final.

So, more than likely, taking the candy bars was not an appropriate use of force on those grounds alone.

> Question 4: What would the other Rand have thought of this action.

Good question.

--Jimbo

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: One Amendment

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:04:27 -0700

In the vein of the question about a bill of rights for a hypothetical Iraqi constitution, here's a similar question: if you had the power to put into place one amendment to the United States constitution, what would it be?

I got this idea from libertarian law professor Eugene Volokh:

http://volokh.blogspot.com/2003_02_23_volokh_archive.html#90381314

Be sure to read his post for all the "rules of the challenge" so to speak.

My own suggestion, as you might have guessed from my comments earlier today, would be an amendment modifying the Article I, section 9 power to spend money:

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."

My amendment would read:

---------

Section 1. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

---------

The essential idea here is to restrain the size of government by raising the bar. This would not result in overnight perfection, obviously, but it would help a great deal, I think.

--Jimbo

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Objectivism and judicial ethics

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 06:34:18 -0800

You are a brilliant legal mind who has been appointed to the Supreme Court.

A case comes before the court in which you think that a particular outcome is the right outcome. That is, a majority decision in favor of your position would protect individual rights as you see them. A majority decision in favor of the opposing position would be damaging to individual rights as you see them.

But, in this particular case, you think that the Constitution is wrong. (I can supply specific examples of what I have in mind if anyone would like to work with something more specific.) A long line of court precedent upholds the Constitution. The original intent is clear.

But, the court is evenly balanced. You are the deciding vote. Whichever way you vote, you will have to write an opinion justifying your decision, or at least you will have to join in someone else's opinion.

What do you do? What are the ethical considerations involved in doing one thing or the other?

If you're an anarchist who would refuse the job in the first place, don't bother answering in detail. We're not talking about that right now. :-)

--Jimbo

[Peter]

Hey Starbuckle!

I looked again, after supper, (delicious salad, and chicken parmesan over spaghetti, prepared by my lovely wife) for the letter from Jimbo expressing sympathy for Anarchism. I still can’t find it. I had a hunch he may have ended it “Jimmy” so I searched for that and found the following. Ouch! Jimbo let me have it with both barrels in his quote I used to write him back. Oh, oh, I see Mr. Wales ended one letter with "me." I may search for that after Jeopardy.

I do not think he will mind if I use his offlist quote. Now I might mind, because he made me feel like a dunce )

OFFLIST

Hello Jimmy.

end quote

Content deleted March 22, 2011 at 10am est. After thinking about the morality of quoting a personal conversation, I decided to get rid of it. I tried once to contact Jimbo after Wikipedia became a success but could not get through to him. His remarks were well written so I did not think he would mind, but as Ted said, I did not get his permission.

All the other quotes from him were public. Ghs's comment about Jimbo's link to porn sites would be worse for his political aspirations than my quote.

Interestingly, no one picked up on an interesting point. Wikipedia is an anarchist "institution."

Thanks to Ghs for the clarification about Jimbo's thoughts about political anarchism.

I will leave the rest of my letter as is.

Peter Taylor

Thanks, Jimbo.

I have constructed a letter to illustrate points about the civility policy. Oh, and it is great having Bill Dwyer back! I will post the letter from this point onwards on Atlantis.

Bill wrote:

“Suppose, for example, that a drug company discovers a cure for cancer, which it refuses to sell to others without their agreeing not to reproduce it. In so doing, the drug company is exercising monopoly control over the sale of its product, but the monopoly is neither competitive nor coercive.”

Ayn Rand agreed:

“To claim that a man’s interests are sacrificed whenever a desire of his is frustrated – is to hold a subjectivist’s view of man’s values and interests. Which means: to believe that it is proper, moral and possible for man to achieve his goals, regardless of whether they contradict the facts of reality or not. Which means: to hold an irrational or mystical view of existence. Which means: to hold no further consideration . . . . A rational man never holds a desire or pursues a goal which cannot be achieved by his own effort. He trades value for value. . . . The only proper, *moral* purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence – to protect his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to his own *property* and to the pursuit of his own happiness. Without property rights no other rights are possible.”

Bill wrote:

“Allowing competition in the enforcement of a single body of laws may be considered a version of anarchism by some (insofar as there exist competing agencies of enforcement) and a version of government by others (insofar as there exists a single body of laws that these agencies are enforcing).”

end quotes

This is the end of the hypothetical letter.

NOW WHAT IF I SAID “OH, IF THIS WAS ANARCHISM, Bill, THEN AYN RAND WOULD NOT CALL IT SUBJECTIVISM, OR HOLDING IRRATIONAL AND MYSTICAL VIEWS OF EXISTENCE.”

I have capitalized the preceding sentence to illustrate the point that Ayn WOULD BE CONSIDERED UNCIVIL under the current civility policy. She thought some ideas deserved scorn. I hope Jimmy Wales considers this if he ever publishes his civility policy: This is an Objectivist list and “Extremism in the defense of Objectivism is no vice.” )

I think that as long as we are speaking about a class of people or ideas and not about any individual specifically, then we should be allowed to speak our minds. And lampoons of positions such as offered by Jeff Olsen should be allowed on Atlantis. They have enriched the lives and provided substantial laughs to many Atlanteans, even when they illustrate points contrary to our positions.

My last point about the civility policy is that people do get angry at each other and they should be allowed to express that anger, if they are advancing ideas and arguments. I am not advocating “flame wars,” just a reasonable amount of animosity in our posts, IF WE FEEL IT NECESSARY to put that flame in our bellies, AND to rid ourselves of a stress induced headache ) It is immediately apparent when someone is simply bashing someone else, to hurt and maim.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

NOTES

Bill wrote:

“Now it is true that if a government attempts to prohibit competition in the enforcement of its _own_ laws, then it _can_ be criticized for initiating force, since there is no principle by which some people have a right to self-defense but others do not, or by which some people have a right to engage in retaliation but others do not. Of course, if a crime is already being prosecuted by a justice agency, then no other agency has a right to interfere with it . . . . Allowing competition in the enforcement of a single body of laws may be considered a version of anarchism by some (insofar as there exist competing agencies of enforcement) and a version of government by others (insofar as there exists a single body of laws that these agencies are enforcing). It all depends on how one defines "government" – whether as an institution having a monopoly on the _use_ of force, or an institution having a monopoly on the _laws_ of force . . . . I wouldn't define this kind of monopoly as a "coercive," however, for the reasons just mentioned; again, what Childs is objecting to by a 'coercive monopoly' on enforcement is a monopoly that INITIATES force in order to keep its monopoly. But what a person regards as the initiation of force depends on his concept of rights . . . . As for finding fault with Childs' position, my principal objection is the logic of his argument, which commits the fallacy of the false alternative, and it IS a fallacy, despite what John says, because a monopoly need not be either competitive or coercive (i.e., aggressive); it can be both non-competitive AND eschew the initiation of force, as the examples I cited aptly illustrate.”

From: "William Dwyer" <wswdwyer@attbi.com>

Reply-To: wswdwyer@attbi.com

To: <objectivism@wetheliving.com>

Subject: OWL: RE: Freedom INVOLVES limits / Verbal attacks

Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 09:07:19 -0700

In my last reply to Rafael Eilon, I indicated that I did not regard a malicious insult as a violent act.

On 5/26, he replied: "A malicious insult _is_ a violent act [because] it is intended to cause damage. It is not the same as (or the equivalent of) physical violence, as some thought I was implying; but it is violent action nonetheless, even though only verbal. That is one important point I was trying to make from the beginning."

Okay, I see your point, but again I don't see its validity. Sticking pins into a voodoo doll is also _intended_ to cause damage, but it has no power by itself to produce such damage. Neither does a malicious insult, if the person does not take it seriously.

Besides, a malicious insult is not intended to cause _physical_ damage; it is intended only to hurt the person's feelings. Remember, a rights violation requires the initiation of _physical_ force. In order to prove that physical force has been initiated by a malicious insult, one has to show that the insult causes measurable damage to physical health or property independently of any effect contributed by the person's evaluation of it.

Moreover, I had previously argued that by the standard of intended emotional damage, severing a business or personal relationship is also an act of violence, if one chooses such an action, _knowing_ that it will cause emotional damage to the other party.

Rafael replied that "the examples of severing a business or personal relationship do not fall under this description, because 'intentionally' and 'knowingly' don't mean the same. It does not matter that the party who terminates the relationship _knows_ that the damage will result, as long as the damage is only a side-effect."

In her post of 5/26, Gayle Dean makes a similar point. She writes, "Just because one 'intentionally severs the relationship' does not mean that one 'intentionally causes damage'."

If I understand Rafael and Gayle correctly, they are saying that as long as the _primary purpose_ of the action is not to cause damage to the other party, the action does not qualify as the initiation of force or violence. If the damage is simply an unavoidable side effect that is secondary to the action's main purpose, then no force or violence has been initiated.

In that case, however, I think it would have been better to define an act of force or violence as one that is done "_primarily_ to cause damage" rather than as one that "_intentionally_ causes damage." Since a result is a logical extension of the action that causes it, if one intends to take an action _knowing_ that it will have a certain result, then one intends to cause _the result_ as well -- which doesn't mean that the _primary purpose_ of the action is to cause that result.

Nevertheless, most acts of thefts are not done primarily to harm the victim, but simply to gain a value from him. The harm (e.g., deprivation of the victim's property) is simply a side effect of appropriating the value. Does that mean that such acts of theft do not damage the victim or violate his rights? No, of course not. Choosing to initiate damage against someone's person or property is sufficient to violate his rights. It isn't necessary that the damage be malicious or that it be the _primary_ purpose of one's action.

I have argued, as against Rafael Eilon, that malicious insults do not violate rights, but that doesn't mean that I view them as appropriate behavior. They are certainly inappropriate in this kind of forum, because they divert the focus of the discussion away from the issue and toward the discussants. This not only alters the goal of the

discussion, but makes it more difficult to focus on the issue and give it a fair and dispassionate assessment.

Related to the issue of overt insults is the matter of tone. The tone of one’s posts can also affect the productiveness of the discourse. If one manifests an irritable, condescending or demeaning tone, that too can prejudice the discussion and interfere with the effective pursuit of truth. Of course, we are here dealing with an issue of degree.

A person’s tone can be blatantly or subtly irritable, condescending or demeaning. The more blatant it is, the more it can tend to interfere with understanding and the resolution of differences. Moreover, if one’s goal is to convince others, speaking to them in a disrespectful tone and manner can only sabotage that goal. An advocate for a particular point of view is a salesperson, who is trying to sell an idea. How many successful salespeople insult and demean their prospective customers and clients?

In other unmoderated forums like Atlantis and Atlantis II, the level of discourse has often degenerated into blatant ridicule and name-calling. What this indicates is that the posters are not trying to convince anyone who does not already agree with them. They are simply preaching to the converted and are ridiculing their opponents for their own sadistic entertainment. This kind of behavior is evident most often in children, who haven’t developed sufficient empathy or maturity to understand what’s wrong with it.

Awhile ago on Atlantis, the level of discourse had cheapened to such an extent that Kirez Korgan found it necessary to institute a policy of “no personal attacks.” He appointed Jimmy Wales to monitor the discussions with an eye towards enforcing the standard. The new policy prompted a wave of defections from Atlantis to another forum, Atlantis II, by most of the regular posters, many of whom were among the worst offenders. As

a result, there is not a lot going on in Atlantis right now, much to the delight of the defectors, who view Jimmy Wales as some kind of arbitrary and authoritarian censor, even though he has given the new policy a very liberal construction.

Having seen all of this, I now realize that there are too many Objectivists and libertarians who consider respectful discourse as beneath their dignity, and who delight in ridiculing those with whom they disagree. I can’t imagine that these individuals will have any kind of positive impact on the wider culture. In fact, I would expect that whatever impact they do have will be largely negative.

Given the kind of behavior that I’ve witnessed among our members, I am not optimistic about the future of the movement. People will judge us as much by our behavior as by our professed philosophy, and they are not

likely to be impressed.

-- Bill

To: Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com>

CC: objectivism@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: OWL: secession and anarchy

Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:38:50 -0700

Jimbo writes:

(quoting me)

> > Quite a lot of Objectivists who attack anarchism make strong arguments of the form "unless there is a single ultimate authority, objective law is impossible" or "if two disputants cannot appeal to a common authority, they will use violence instead" or something similar. The conclusion is supposed to be, not merely that a monopoly government along Objectivist lines works somewhat better than alternatives, but that anything short of that can be proved to work catastrophically badly. But those arguments, if true, should apply both to interactions between states and to interactions between citizens of different states, hence if the claim were really true it would imply the need for world government. But I think the people who make those sort of strong arguments will back them up, if asked, with specific examples that assume people living in the same geographic area. I think only a gross misrepresentation of the Objectivist argument for government can twist it into an argument for a single universal government.

There are two problems with that:

1. It doesn't cover the case of interactions between states, all of which live in "the same geographic area"--i.e. the world. The logic of the situation between the U.S. and Canada is the same as between neighbors within an anarchist society. After all, in a hypothetical anarchy, we aren't living literally in the same place as each other--there isn't room.

2. It assumes that disputes have a fixed geographical location, so the rule "the law of the nation in whose territory the dispute occurs determines the outcome" gives a determinate result. But that isn't even close to true--which is one reason why the subject "conflict of laws" exists. Hence the difference is one of degree--many disputes have a defined geographic location, many do not--rather than of kind.

>Right. Well, I don't know of any serious Objectivists who would argue that there's some kind of proof that A-C is impossible under "all imaginable circumstances".

You don't think that Rand's rather brief comments imply that? As best I recall, she both claims that it has to lead to violent conflict and that it isn't an idea at all, merely a floating abstraction. I can find no hint in her comments on anarchy that she regards it as an open issue in the sense in which I think you would and am confident you should.

>Let me concede right here, before we go any further: there's a large population of people on the Internet who speak boldly about issues that they don't really know anything about. Words like "public choice theory" and "threat equilibria" and the like are outside their realm of expertise. So, yeah, I'm sure that it's not hard to dig up some bad arguments.

>

>I neatly dispose of those by refusing to define those people as "serious Objectivists". ;-)

Of course, you could argue that Rand isn't a serious Objectivist. More reasonably, you could argue that she hadn't thought about the question seriously and wasn't familiar with the actual content of the system she was dismissing.

--

David Friedman

From: Johnny Wales <wales001@aristotle.bomis.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Insane Morality (re:Why be Moral?)

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:00:34 -0600 (CST)

> My main point is that I think that it is possible that people exist who SHOULD steal and or kill. People whose psychological make-up is just very different from normal. And that's something that Objectivists should probably have an answer for.

Such a person can be seen in an upcoming movie "Hannibal".

Hannibal is about Hannibal Lechter, of Silence of the Lambs fame, who is really really nuts. He's brilliant and got away with killing and eating several people. Eventually, he was caught and thrown in prison in one of the more bizarre looking prison cells anyone has ever seen.

Personally, I think this is precisely the Objectivist answer to things. Generally speaking, I'd say if you planned it you could get away with one murder of a random innocent. Find a homeless person, convince them you want to help them, convince them to come back to your house for some food, a shower, and a change of clothes. When you get there, close the blinds and whip out a knife. Realistically, the police and neighbors would have no idea that anything at all was going on in there, nor would they have any right or capability to find out. Then, you'd just have to be careful about where it was in the house you killed them, so you didn't get blood on the carpet, etc. There is plenty of evidence that people can get away with this type of crime for quite a long time. Dahmer and other serial killers did it for quite a while, and without being nearly this discreet about the killing or being this selective in their victims.

Now, what should be done with someone who derives huge amounts of pleasure from this? (Most serial killers seem to derive sexual pleasure from it...) Can they be considered moral because it's within their nature to do this?

-->No<--

They are still violating the rights of others, no question about that. And that, really, is the only question we need ask. The same thing should happen to anyone who does this sort of thing, crazy or not, for pleasure or not: If we ever catch them, we toss them in jail or execute them because they are clearly too much a danger to all of us. To do otherwise would be the equivalent of letting loose a tiger on the street. It might just become. someone's pet, but far more likely it'd just eat someone. That, my friends, is wrong, and these people (independent of their nature) must be locked up or otherwise removed from the population.--Me

Edited March 22, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[kiaer.ts]

I do not think he will mind if I use his offlist quote.

Do you know this? Did you ask? This is not the first time you have done this. Not only is it quite rude to reproduce people's private correspondence, doing so wholesale is a violation of copyright.

[9thdoctor]

I do not think he will mind if I use his offlist quote.

Do you know this? Did you ask? This is not the first time you have done this. Not only is it quite rude to reproduce people's private correspondence, doing so wholesale is a violation of copyright.

I'm with Ted on this one.

[George H. Smith]

I do not think he will mind if I use his offlist quote.

Do you know this? Did you ask? This is not the first time you have done this. Not only is it quite rude to reproduce people's private correspondence, doing so wholesale is a violation of copyright.

I'm with Ted on this one.

Can the reproduction of private email correspondence, if done in sufficient quantity, really constitute a violation of copyright law? This is not a rhetorical question. I honestly don't know, and I'm curious.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Hey Starbuckle!

I looked again, after supper, (delicious salad, and chicken parmesan over spaghetti, prepared by my lovely wife) for the letter from Jimbo expressing sympathy for Anarchism. I still can’t find it. I had a hunch he may have ended it “Jimmy” so I searched for that and found the following. Ouch! Jimbo let me have it with both barrels in his quote I used to write him back. Oh, oh, I see Mr. Wales ended one letter with "me." I may search for that after Jeopardy.

Wales is not an anarchist. I had a number of exchanges with him about anarchism on the same list, and I recall they got pretty heated. Dig those out if you want to give a fair representation of his views on anarchism.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

I do not think he will mind if I use his offlist quote.

Do you know this? Did you ask? This is not the first time you have done this. Not only is it quite rude to reproduce people's private correspondence, doing so wholesale is a violation of copyright.

I'm with Ted on this one.

Can the reproduction of private email correspondence, if done in sufficient quantity, really constitute a violation of copyright law? This is not a rhetorical question. I honestly don't know, and I'm curious.

Ghs

Yes, it is a patent violation of copyright to reproduce correspondence such as letters and email (rather than just report the contents, perhaps using short excerpts) as well as internet posts at length. That fact might be of interest to the owners of this forum in regards to this and prior instances of Taylor's lengthy reproductions. See http://www.google.co...ight+private+co for leads.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Ted Keer

[jriggenbach]

Hey Starbuckle!

I looked again, after supper, (delicious salad, and chicken parmesan over spaghetti, prepared by my lovely wife) for the letter from Jimbo expressing sympathy for Anarchism. I still can't find it. I had a hunch he may have ended it "Jimmy" so I searched for that and found the following. Ouch! Jimbo let me have it with both barrels in his quote I used to write him back. Oh, oh, I see Mr. Wales ended one letter with "me." I may search for that after Jeopardy.

Wales is not an anarchist. I had a number of exchanges with him about anarchism on the same list, and I recall they got pretty heated. Dig those out if you want to give a fair representation of his views on anarchism.

Ghs

Oh yes he is! I have incontrovertible truth in the form of an email from Jimbo that I made up and now can't find!

Sincerely,

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

Hey Starbuckle!

I looked again, after supper, (delicious salad, and chicken parmesan over spaghetti, prepared by my lovely wife) for the letter from Jimbo expressing sympathy for Anarchism. I still can't find it. I had a hunch he may have ended it "Jimmy" so I searched for that and found the following. Ouch! Jimbo let me have it with both barrels in his quote I used to write him back. Oh, oh, I see Mr. Wales ended one letter with "me." I may search for that after Jeopardy.

Wales is not an anarchist. I had a number of exchanges with him about anarchism on the same list, and I recall they got pretty heated. Dig those out if you want to give a fair representation of his views on anarchism.

Ghs

Oh yes he is! I have incontrovertible truth in the form of an email from Jimbo that I made up and now can't find!

Sincerely,

Peter Taylor

JR,

Are we supposed to be happy or sad that Wales is not an anarchist? I haven't quite figured that out yet. He is being treated like a kid that neither team wants on its side.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

Are we supposed to be happy or sad that Wales is not an anarchist? I haven't quite figured that out yet. He is being treated like a kid that neither team wants on its side.

He's worse than an anarchist, he's a anarchist tolerationist. See Peter Schwartz's Libertarianism article for the process of "reasoning" needed to arrive at this conclusion.

[kiaer.ts]

Are we supposed to be happy or sad that Wales is not an anarchist? I haven't quite figured that out yet. He is being treated like a kid that neither team wants on its side.

He's worse than an anarchist, he's a anarchist tolerationist. See Peter Schwartz's Libertarianism article for the process of "reasoning" needed to arrive at this conclusion.

LOL!

[Peter]

After thinking about the morality of quoting a personal conversation, I decided to get rid of it. I tried once to contact Jimbo after Wikipedia became a success but could not get through to him. His remarks were well written so I did not think he would mind, but as Ted said, I did not get his permission.

All the other quotes from him were public. Ghs's comment about Jimbo's link to porn sites would be worse for his political aspirations than my quote.

Interestingly, no one picked up on an interesting point. Wikipedia is an anarchist "institution."

Thanks to Ghs for the clarification about Jimbo's thoughts about political anarchism.

I will leave the rest of my letter as is.

Peter Taylor

[kiaer.ts]

After thinking about the morality of quoting a personal conversation, I decided to get rid of it. I tried once to contact Jimbo after Wikipedia became a success but could not get through to him. His remarks were well written so I did not think he would mind, but as Ted said, I did not get his permission.

All the other quotes from him were public. Ghs's comment about Jimbo's link to porn sites would be worse for his political aspirations than my quote.

Interestingly, no one picked up on an interesting point. Wikipedia is an anarchist "institution."

Thanks to Ghs for the clarification about Jimbo's thoughts about political anarchism.

I will leave the rest of my letter as is.

Peter Taylor

That's admirable.