What on earth is wrong with you? Even if he is Vampire-Kim-Jong-Hitler, I'm not sure an outright ban from unblock-en is appropriate. What recourse can someone take from that point? -S On 3/8/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous > status of the Ainu. > > Regardless of whether or not Korean and Chinese claims have been > exaggerated, it is undeniable that those countries WERE invaded by > Japan. Whether the Empire was all nice and cuddly to its > non-ethnically-Japanese subjects is debatable, but it is not debatable > that these places were invaded without invitation. > > And stop being so arrogant, you are not "pure", you are not "special", > you are not somehow better or smarter than Koreans or Chinese people. > We are all human beings. > > And if you were blocked without a reason, as you claim, I'm sure you > would've been blocked very soon because of your explicit and unwelcome > racism. > > Mark > > On 08/03/07, Rocky 7 <freudianjungianp(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, I am Rocky7. > > > > Admins of unblock-en-l have not delivered mails of unblock-en-l since May > > 4, 2007. > > > > Admins of unblock-en-l have not allowed me to enter unblock-en-l Archives. > > > > Q1. Why have admins of unblock-en-l blocked me with no explanation? > > > > Q2. Why do you cling to closed unfair trial? > > > > Q3. Why do you stick to Chinese or Korean facism trial? > > > > > > Re: unblock-en-l identification? > > (Reply to Prodego) > > You(at least Luna and Prodego) have been stalking, indeed, and > > I don't think you(all admins) would be subjected to > > non-admins' stalking. > > How can we(non-admins) do stalking? > > We can't know even your IP addresses, unless you email > > me(us) personally. > > > > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Prodego <prodego(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >Errr, what? I don't think the idea of anonymity will go away soon, > > >a large majority of admins, myself included, would be subjected > > >to stalking, which has actually happened to quite a few people. > > > > > >Prodego > > > > He's a lying scoundrel...?! > > > > > > >On 3/4/07, Rocky7 <FreudianJungianP(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>Now admins' real identifications are needed to be revealed. > > >>Stop such a nasty intrigue, or all admins would not be > > >>trusted because of your timidness and wickedness.

Mark Williamson wrote: I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked, including many admins!

Mark Williamson wrote: I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked, including many admins! -Mark _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Hmm, sure. I also think administrative skepticism is > always < neccessary, regardless of the tally of charges. Demonization is always a very useful tool against people who have done something wrong, and is a very effective marginalizer. Your initial smarmy, condescending rant was totally inappropriate, and I was glad that George Herbert followed it up with a measured description of the problem. -S On 3/9/07, Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Of course you don't. The fact that continue it is equally pitiful. Please elaborate on your class-system idea of this list. I'm sure its very fascinating. -S On 3/9/07, Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > I don't think it was inappropriate. That's what matters here - what I > think, and what the list admins think. > > Mark > > On 09/03/07, Steve &lt;subsume(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > Hmm, sure. I also think administrative skepticism is > always < > > neccessary, regardless of the tally of charges. Demonization is always > > a very useful tool against people who have done something wrong, and > > is a very effective marginalizer. > > > > Your initial smarmy, condescending rant was totally inappropriate, and > > I was glad that George Herbert followed it up with a measured > > description of the problem. > > > > -S > > > > On 3/9/07, Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > It becomes an issue when somebody espouses racism in every post and > > > uses it to personally attack others. "You guys won't listen to me > > > because you must all be Koreans", for example. > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > On 08/03/07, Delirium &lt;delirium(a)hackish.org&gt; wrote: > > > > Mark Williamson wrote: > > > > > > > > > Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous > > > > > status of the Ainu. > > > > > > > > I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for > > > > holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I > > > > could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked, > > > > including many admins! > > > > > > > > -Mark