User talk:Blahblahblahblahblahblah

etc etc

eh?[edit]

eh?--64.12.116.133 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The next time you want to post to my talk page as a non-registered IP from multiple anonymous users of AOL please do me the favor of forming a complete sentence. Or, at the very least, if you are only semi-literate, feel free to hypertext to whatever is confusing you. Thanks!

Lol. No, that wasn't me, I just happened to read your awesome reply. :) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Blahblahblahblahblahblah, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! .--John Lake 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII and Vision Thing[edit]

I had suspected that Vision Thing was a sock puppet of RJII, yes. It's certainly possible, and the circumstantial evidence points to it. I suggest reading up at WP:Sock or posting on WP:AN. I believe that there is a process, called "checkuser," where this can be better determined. --AaronS 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was doubtful that Vision Thing was an RJII sock until reading you're post at AN/I. Although I won't say I'm convinced, I will say that there seems to be strong reason to suspect it. Either way, I commend you for taking the time to research it--seems like you did an extensive job. The Ungovernable Force 05:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-C FA review[edit]

Good call. --AaronS 13:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re talk[edit]

Page 47, but this was in reference to Proudhon. Page 49, but this was in reference to Jeffersonian democracy. Page 50 first explicit mention, i.e.: "Emerson's cadenced encomiums of self-reliance and the sovereignty of the individual echoed firmly through the crowded lyceums from Maine to the frontier. This emphasis on man rather than on the state his young friend and follower Henry David Thoreau carried to its logical extremity with a clarity and conviction that gave classical expression to the philosophy of anarcism."(emphasis mine) Page 53, in reference to Warren an implicit mention of individual sovereignty with "...he devoted himself to the advocacy of his doctrine of the stateless society and complete and equal liberty for all." (emphasis mine). Then it says that Andrews, Spooner and Greene were discples of Warren. Page 54, implicit mention in Benjamin Tucker quote: "the belief in the greatest amount of liberty compatible with equality of liberty." (emphasis mine). Then page 65: "Yet they do not conceive of a society without order, but of an order arising out of the natural law of association, preferably through self-governing cooperation. Nor do they ignore the advantages of economic combination; yet they insist that such combination must be voluntary and without compulsion of any kind. From their standpoint every individual is a sovereign who finds it desirable to cooperate with his peers for the common good."

If you're not yet convinced, I'll give you another reference... Intangible 14:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevehs[edit]

Mah man. How are you? --AaronS 02:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, tell me about it. Yeah, I'm just starting my senior year. How's things? I haven't been to Flag in ages.

That's great to hear. Sounds like things are going very nicely. I'm very happy with my studies. I've got a great major and grad school advisor at Dartmouth who is really pushing me to go to grad school for French philosophy, which I think I'll do. In the end, I hope to teach and write. I've found myself enjoying poststructualism and postmodernism very much. In terms of anarchism, I've probably moved on to post-left anarchy or post-anarchy. I got a little sick of the exclusiveness that often comes with "solidarity," and with people trying to one-up each other with how authentic and working class they are.

I'm currently a philosophy and comparative literature double major, with a minor in French. Come fall, I'll be starting my thesis on philosophy and literature, i.e. how literature can be used to convey philosophical ideas. I'll be focusing on Sartre and Camus, as well as their respective German philosophical influences. --AaronS 16:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that would indeed be interesting. Academia could use a couple more anarchists, anyways. ;) You'll have to tell me how everything goes. I have yet to take a class in women and gender studies, because I switched majors halfway through (I used to be a government and french double major), and now don't have room to take courses that don't count towards my major. Luckily, I get a lot of feminist and gender theory through my French philosophy and literature classes. --AaronS 11:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude[edit]

I actually kind of feel bad. I mean, someone like that has got to be koo-koo. --AaronS 18:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Initiation of force[edit]

Hey, Kevin. I just read your essay[1] discussing the initiation of force and its relation to property on Flag, which, for some reason, I decided to drop in on today. You probably wrote it years ago. Drop me an email (just use the "email this user" function) after taking a look at what I just wrote today[2] while discussing something very similar with Henry (not sure if you remember him). I think that it comes close to the conclusion that you were implying in your essay. If you look at in terms of restriction instead of force, then it starts to become very clear. To appropriate property is to place restrictions on others; restriction is what anarchism seeks to regulate. The terms become quite clearer, and it's much easier to see what's going on. --AaronS 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I like that Blah. I also like the label "radical skeptic", I think I'll have to remember that. It reminds me of the anarchist I met who was absolutely convinced that Emma Goldman and other anarchist philosophers presented the Truth^TM and that there could be no argument with that. Although I was glad they chose those ideas to be "Truth", I still was pretty worried about their absolute conviction, and what kinds of negativity they may lead to. Oh well, what can I do? Have you read the rant on my userpage titled "Objective Truth and Worldviews"? I've been wanting comments and no one has offered any yet :( Maybe you can be the first. The Ungovernable Force 20:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why didn't you just use your old account? Didn't like the name or something? The Ungovernable Force 06:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]