On 8/29/05, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: The difference here is not the content of the list, it's the medium in which it was posted. That Jay is Jewish is not some secret, he wasn't "outed" in the Stormfront post. But posting a list of Jewish Wikipedians on a neo-Nazi list by someone who was called Jews a "disease" which needs to be "eradicated" is comparable to posting the names of doctors performing abortion to lists calling for their assassination. In one case you are talking about informative lists, in the other you are talking about a hit list. I am baffled that anyone who has followed this discussion, either here or on Wikipedia, is still making these sorts of comparisons. If nothing else, please go back and read what Jimbo posted. Ian

As one who's name was once attached to a long list of Wikipedians claimed by certain right-wing extremists (and their apologists) as "anti-Semites," I can only contrast and comment on how this case is being handled versus how that one was. Just to pick a random example. Mark's point, and mine as well (while respecting the monarch's opinion on the matter) is simply that special treatment may be excessive in reacting to a so-called threat--when equivalent things have occurred, and when a determination of personal threat seems to be no more valid than in past cases. Just as its highly irrational to think that some wannabe-Mossad crank is going to blow up anyone for writing something nice about ("that rabid anti-Semite") Noam Chomsky, its equally irrational to regard Nazi windbags as a direct and imminent threat. Lets keep things in perspective --the group in question are just another bunch of right-wing assholes, who like to get together and shit on stuff. Just like other cranks weve dealt with. Should we pre-ban them all? Overreacting to 1-D dreams-of-swatting-flies-with-a-sledgehammer types is just plain dumb. The language of "eradication" and "disease" is par for the course for any right-wing asshole alliances. There's some "pot and kettle" there Im sure: "four legged beasts" etc. I personally dont read any right-wing nutjob sites because theyre all the same, and they all contain the same thing: assholes expressing a deep and self-centered fondness for themselves. IAC, disinclusion of anyone must be done with a clear determination that such persons would continue to be reprehensible, have no possibility for positive contribution, and have no future prospect for positive contribution. Thats something thats difficult for me to accept from a mere on-the-fly decision, considering we do have a process (called the Arbcom) which can (if people let it) make a more rational and deliberated decision. The Arbcom has proven to be adequate, fair, and responsive in dealing with problematic personalities, without even much dealing with their extremist affiliations and peculiarities, which are beside the point --the behaviour is the issue, and the behaviour is often plainly evident and can be held to account. If things would have been thus anyway, why the need to overreact? Why do overreactors like yourself take offense to the questions? SV --- Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote: __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

I regret my poor choice of terms in my last mail, and the tired state during which I wrote it. The point was that if we are balanced in our approach we should regard all extremists as equally reprehensible, and that merely being one of a designated reprehensible character (as such designations are too often subjective) should not preclude one from participating in the project. My definition of a "reprehensible view" (substituting for an unreasonable term) is simply anyone which considers anyone else inferior. Ironically, this would seem to include myself, as I am guilty of using (for sake of rhetorical emphasis) the very kind of reprehensible terms which I sought to oppose in principle. SV __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com