User talk:Childhoodsend

If you leave me a message here, I shall reply here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will expect a reply there.

Please feel welcome to use this space for feedbacks on my contributions or for any question you may have to which I can reasonably be expected to provide an answer that is likely to be correct.

I just wanted to remind you of the three-revert rule - if you revert an article to a previous version more than three times, you can be blocked from editing. Please review the link I provided. Thanks. Guettarda 21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the note, it was appropriate. I answered on your talk page. --Childhood's End 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Childhoodsend, I've been following the discussion on Talk:Twelve Monkeys and hope you'll find the following useful. The Journal of Religion and Film has an article titled Bruce Willis as the Messiah: Human Effort, Salvation and Apocalypticism in Twelve Monkeys [1]. The Journal Of Religion and Popular Culture article The Structural Characteristics of the Cinematic Christ-figure[2] also makes numerous references to Cole as a Christ figure. Cheers -- Rydra Wong 16:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful notes. I knew that a few religious papers discussed the Christ story hidden in 12 Monkeys but I thought we needed something closer to the film industry in order to add this to the movie's page. Again, what I wanted to support was the idea that the movie is more than only James Cole as a Christ-figure, but that it is a whole Christ allegory, with many more Bible characters represented throughout the story. The Cinescape issue with these notes will support adequately, I think. Thanks again ! --Childhood's End 15:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Valour In recognition of your defence of NPOV and fairness. When one man stands tall, the backbones of all others are stiffened. Remember you are not alone in believing Wikipedia should be free of censors and bias. Good luck & many thanks. -- Brittainia 20:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, friend. I'd like to inform you of the attacks and claims made by Raul654 to the administrator noticeboard regarding my actions. I whole heartedly believe my actions are just and warranted. Please review the current situation. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from my recent post, please go to the Admin noticeboard and post your views on this now exposed conspiracy by a group of Administrators. It is at: -- Brittainia 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC) [3][reply]

Raul654, this post [4] that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". The next step should be to stop this intentional diversionary complaint against UBeR and investigate your activities instead. Your entire group [5], [6], orchestrating these illicit activities should be thoroughly investigated by all those who have wasted a lot of their valuable time on your "getting this monkey off WMC's back". It is now clear that you yourself are guilty of most of the accusations which you have levelled at UBeR above, I believe that you and your co-conspirators should be permanently banned from editing global warming articles in order to stop the kind of bias, frustration and witch hunts which you are causing by your devious tactics. Everyone should know that this group are currently being investigated and exposed by a radio show for their hijacking of global warming articles as this group already knows [7] - thus they are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. -- Brittainia 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware of that discussion. I agreed with William and others. Hence I reverted. JoshuaZ 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the others? As I said, you certainly didnt read. Here's the last contribution :

"C'mon William I think even though you know the guy well you have to give way on that. Annan is referred to widely as a Climatologist (...)" --BozMo

--Childhood's End 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can find time to help out more on the Sandbox on AGW Controversy. The comment you left was more appropriate to the discussion page and so I will move it over there. If you think the outline will flow better by changing the order, go ahead and make the change. And if you know of any especially informative links on any of the subjects being debated, please add them in the appropriate spot. Thanks again! RonCram 21:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Childhoodsend, I do not know if you got a chance to watch the entire documentary. You are can find it on YouTube here: The Great Global Warming Swindle [8] Best wishes.RonCram 16:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I'll watch it. I saw the preview a few weeks ago. Regards. --Childhood's End 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article you are. Vote to delete this nonsense here. Quite obviously the article violates notability (a few journalist may have classified it as such), NPOV, verifiability (few sources actually concurring with the article), and POV forking. If you wish to disregard those who disagree with you, fine. Labeling them as conspiracy theorists is nonsense. ~ UBeR 05:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I looked at the article and I must say I had a hard time understanding the message it wants to deliver. Is it really pretending that the global warming skeptics are conspiracy theorists, or is it just saying that according to some skeptics, the global warming theory could be a conspiracy theory (in which case, I think there is some notable material)? Obviously, this article needs a lot of work if it is to be kept. --Childhood's End 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this Talk page, especially the part on "pseudoscience" and William's reverts. The POV of certain editors is preventing them from objectively dealing with the facts. The concepts involved are not difficult but they do take a little investment of time to understand. You may need to spend some time in the Pseudoscience article to be fully comfortable. I hope you are able to find the time to help out. Thanks! RonCram 14:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Childhoodsend, I am glad you agree with the section now. The new title for the section is indeed better than the previous one, regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the section - I am only satisfied now that it is not only sourced with a dubious blog. I tried to help it only because it survived a previous deletion request. This whole article, and mostly the section on "Other Bushisms", is funny, yes, but it is by no means encyclopedic. It is notable only in Bush-hating circles. This section is now made of quotes taken from the White House press releases and posted on Wikipedia as "Bushisms", but the fact is what is a "Bushism" is left to partisan views. I cannot give an exact count of how many WP policies are violated by this, but what is certain is that almost every statement of Wikipedia:Notability is violated by this article. --Childhood's End 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Childhood's End, this is to let you know that I believe these talk page edits [9] [10] qualify as personal attacks. Although we disagree on content, I hope we can both agree that comments should stick to the content, rather than commenting on the editors themselves, sarcastically calling their thoughts "awesome", or labeling them in ways that I can only assume you intended to be derogatory. I don't want to make a big deal out of this since I know discussions on controversial topics can become heated; but for that same reason I think it is doubly important in such cases to keep the discussion focused on the content. Thanks in advance for your consideration. --Nethgirb 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page edits you refered to (one of which was not even involving you) were perhaps made in the course of heated discussions about controversial topics, as you adequately present it, and could have been more "civil". But to qualify them as "personal attacks" is obviously far-stretched. Thanks for the note anyway, I'll consider it. --Childhood's End 14:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your recent comment on the FA Global Warming discussion. I also believe that you are contributing in good faith as you see it, though I have not always come across this way in our discussions. I can appreciate that you believe the science is being misdirected through political machinations, though I do not quite agree with you on the amount or the emphasis on the UN vs. the US, China, and other administrations that are uncomfortable with the opinions of the IPCC and major world science academies. Nevertheless, I do believe that you have a strong desire to seek the truth and respect that above all else. --Skyemoor 15:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. Unlike yourself, most editors involved in the GW articles find it hard to accept that I am not a mere contrarian and that, as honestly and as objectively as I can, I only seek the truth with a more philosophical approach that should not be extirpated from the scientific debate. I am aware that seeking truth involves a certain amount of subjectivity that I cannot entirely escape and that I have opinions about the matter, but all my edits are done in good faith, indeed. Thanks again for your note, and I look forward to further interesting discussions with you. --Childhood's End 15:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escaping subjectivity is indeed a monumental challenge; there have been times I have been quite comfortable in my beliefs, only to be exposed to information from sources of high veracity that forced reconsideration on my part. But reliable sources have come to be the main foundation for my beliefs (analysis a topic for another chat); home sick for a day years ago in college, I stumbled across DeBorgrave's "The Spike", which more fully opened up to me the concept of critical examination of information sources (and to good purpose). Indeed, I became a stalwart moderate Republican for the next 18 years, until the 2000 elections, at which time I decided to become independent and carefully sift each issue on its own merits. While I pull from many online sources, one of my all-time favorite news sources is "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer", due to the excellent selection of experts on both sides of the topics covered during a given broadcast (recording the show allows me to pick and choose the topics I want to spend time viewing). What are your thoughts on the news sources you like to draw from, and have you any opinions on [this study? --Skyemoor 16:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever read any of Jeff Cohen's works? ~ UBeR 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Assuming you are talking to me) I've not, though I've seen him in his various capacities on air, and am aware of his work at FAIR. Do you have any particular book of his that you recommend? --Skyemoor 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to take over your talk page today, I just wanted to touch again on how politics do interfere at times with the scientific process at the UN, though my reference will be in a different direction than you were implying. And if you did not see the SciAm article I mentioned last week, take a look here. --Skyemoor 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. No problem with discussing a bit on my talk page. Your first question is of importance. My view is that we should never fully trust any news source. News sources should not be seen as knowledge vehicules. They are all biaised to some point by an editorial stance. Some sources have a publicly known stance (such as Fox), which is fair. Some others are believed to be neutral (such as CNN or BBC), which is more "tricky". But as long as you have developed the ability to extirpate the editorial from the news you are getting, news are good for spreading factual events. The next problem is that they do not spread all the facts - they cherry-pick. You thus need several sources to get a better idea of what's going on. Finally, the only news that I will use as knowledge are those that I cannot refute.

I have found much inspiration in the Austrian School philosophers. Understanding what the free market is and what are its virtues is nowadays almost lost knowledge (which generates little interest). Few people still understand that, and why, civilization is an outcome of freedom, not a creation of governments. The news, no matter which source, certainly do not take this kind of lost knowledge into account and fail to ask questions that ought to be asked most of the time.

The UN was created as an ideal worldwide peacekeeping force. Few people will disagree that it has been hijacked by politics before it started overriding its original role. The UN is now a place where good and evil make concessions to each other in order to reach some middle ground on varying topics. In the end, both communism and freedom lose, leaving social-democracy, seen as more moderate, alone in the field. But it remains that the institutions of freedom are not emerging as winners out of the UN process.

This political process has created the Kyoto/wealth redistribution file. In 1992, the UN admitted that the science was uncertain but it nonetheless wanted action^[1] (see Principle 15). They needed to create certainty. Now, a skeptic like me thinks that all the scientists that could have cast doubts regarding the IPCC reports are left out of the process^[2]. He also thinks that all the other scientists are humans and have now understood that in order to get a nice career, public appearances, fundings^[3], invitations to UN-sponsored conferences and parties in Paris^[4] and such, they need to support the anthropogenic global warming theories. And once this has gone for long enough, it is now hard for any scientist to find scientific sources to develop any new avenue of doubt towards AGW. The science is now strictly one-sided and this inevitably leads to one-sided scientific reports.

Soon, if nothing else happens, there will not exist any more scientific grounds to support any dissenting opinion. Climate predictions will be considered as certain as the basic laws of physics (if they are not already, which shows that we have a political/propaganda problem). If this happens, my only hope is that these predictions happen to be right, as I admit that as of today, I simply do not know. After all, I am only skeptic...

Regards. --Childhood's End 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. If I may, I would like to interject on this subject at this point, as your full reply covers several areas that are in themselves substantive threads for discussion.

I agree that some news sources prefer to (somewhat) cloak their leanings in order to reduce the amount of filtration their readers/viewers actively employ. For example, the Washington Post appears to be relatively neutral on the surface, but by reading the Washington Times, I can see crucial data and application of logic upon it that is missing from some articles which would otherwise have affected the conclusion I would have drawn. The study of propaganda can be rather detailed, though there are several fundamental techniques that merit memorization that can be found here. Card stacking and omission are one of the most common, though almost always accompanied by one or more others. I see several used during any given exchange by politically motivated 'experts' on "The Newshour", for example, though these techniques are in use throughout the media by everyone who wants to establish a particular scenario as a popular perception (sometimes focusing on a particular demographic). This only scratches the surface of this subject, but we can always come back to this.

I admittedly have not read any of the Austrian School philosophers, though if I may be so bold, I believe from reading the wikipage that they might be similar in outlook to writers such as Adam Smith and David Hume, whose works I have a modest exposure to. I strongly believe that free market principles are needed to enable innovation, personal initiative, community (at all levels) viability, and a number of other positive aspects of our society. However, a pure free market can run into a number of issues, many of them moral. For example, I find selling drugs to schoolchildren abhorrent, though it could be argued that we should not restrict this rightful free market. I also believe that my freedom to express myself stops at the point of imposing harm on others; for example, if one chose not to use their toilet to relieve themself, rather using their balcony railing or small urban backyard. Other issues are difficult for a society to manage without regulation; some in this country ran for office promising to shutdown government agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Aviation Administration. Complete and unfettered access to all frequencies and airspace could quickly make them unusable, and in the case of airspace, unsafe. So some government regulation, I believe, is necessary for society to function smoothly. The difficult challenge is to determine where to draw the line. For example, most people would agree that dumping trash along a road or sidewalk is unsightly and unhealthy. Still others agree that some levels of pollution impact the health of the population and merit some level of regulation. How much is too much? Should we care if it impacts the health or fiscal viability of other nations (e.g., downwind of Chernobyl)? I admit that I do not have answers that would be acceptable to all or likely even most. Identifying the probability and impact is the crucial first question; identifying and selecting the mitigation alternatives (if any) is the second step in the risk management process. Your thoughts? --Skyemoor 11:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever have the chance to read it, you will absolutely be interested in the thoughtful insights of Friedrich Hayek about state propaganda that he developed in his famous book The Road to Serfdom, chapter XI, The End of Truth. 60 years later now, and how precise and premonitory it was is striking us more and more as time goes by.

The Scottish Enlightenment (of which Adam Smith and David Hume were major figures) somewhat paved the way for the Austrian School. Its thinkers discovered the case for freedom and became an alternative to the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and his Leviathan (a book which William Connolley seems to have in high esteem!). As for the problems you raise, most Austrian School philosophers were not anarcho-capitalists but rather minarchists (I am one myself). Adam Ferguson said that “Liberty or Freedom is not, as the origin of the name may seem to imply, an exemption from all restraints, but rather the most effectual applications of every just restraint to all members of a free society whether they be magistrates or subjects.” I cannot address here all the important questions that your reply raised, but among others, an interesting idea has been developed by Milton Friedman in his Capitalism and Freedom, in which he suggested that alternatives to market forces such as government intervention should be explored when what he called "neighborhood effects" need to be addressed (a basic example would indeed be an owner who, in his rightful use of his land, pollutes the land of his neighbour - for such a case, rules and an "umpire" seem desirable). Regards. --Childhood's End 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reading recommendation; I note one of Hayek's quotes and WP observations of the minarchist caution, "'It is important not to confuse opposition against this kind of planning with a dogmatic laissez-faire attitude'. The Road to Serfdom mentions the provision or regulation of sign posts, roads, pollution and noise from factory, and the harmful side-effects of deforestation, for example, as issues that cannot be left purely to the unregulated market price mechanism." I would note that GHGs have been identified by some (WW!) as pollutants, so with this admittedly crude analysis, regulation of GHGs does seems to be in line with Hayek's philosophy. --Skyemoor 14:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all scientists know Karl Popper for his contributions to the philosophy of science. But few scientists are aware that Popper and Hayek read and cited each other often. Popper once wrote to Hayek that "I think I have learnt more from you than from any other living thinker, except perhaps Alfred Tarski" and dedicated his Conjectures and Refutations to Hayek.

Hayek was foremost an economist, but he had a scientific background, being knowledgeable in biology/evolution/Darwinism, as well as in psychology and Law. Hayek esteemed science, but certainly esteemed even more a person's awareness of the limits of science and of human knowledge.

I am not certain that Hayek would have supported regulation of GHGs, but I am quite certain that he would have opposed the appeals to consensus and the kind of regulations actually proposed by the UN (Kyoto). Hayek also believed in equality before the law and that legislation should apply to all equally rather than according to status. Well, unfortunately, we will never know for sure... --Childhood's End 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what kind of measures Hayek might have suggested (or concurred with) if he embraced predominantly AGW and acknowledged the risk of the projected impacts? I realize this takes us into the realm of pure speculation, but let's explore this regardless. --Skyemoor 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you said, this is pure speculation and I do not want to go very far into it. As I said, I am quite certain that Hayek would have opposed Kyoto, probably on the grounds that ultimately, it is designed to use science for social justice (or, in Hayek's words, redistributive justice) purposes rather than for purely scientific purposes. Granted what you hypothesize, he perhaps would have supported more investement in new technologies. I also suppose that as most economists worthy of that title, he would have dismissed the Stern Review as a pure fallacy, so he would not have given much credit to the presumed economic problems of global warming (not that he would have believed there is none to foresee, but rather that he would have believed that no economist can foresee what they will be).

I see many links between economics study and climate study. Both the market and the climate are complex systems. In both fields, some "scientists" pretent that they possess the scientific tools and abilities to predict what is going to happen in the future, while in both fields, some "old guys" say that this is presumptuous and that these systems cannot be fully understood, let alone predicted. This could drive me into a long essay, but I will stop this here :-) --Childhood's End 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, we have fairly advanced energy technologies now, and I do not believe this is the crux of the problem. The Big 3 automakers in the US all came up with 5 passenger family car prototypes that achieved over 70 mpg. Volkswagen prototyped a 2 seater that acheived 285 mpg; it's evolving under tight wraps, though they've said certain expensive aspects are not yet marketable. The Big 3 convinced Bush to kill the PNGV program, because they wanted to continue making high margins on the light trucks they were advertising heavily. Engines are getting more efficient, though we've moved from 4 and 6 cylinders in the 80s and early 90s to 6, 8, and 10 cylinders. Houses in the US have gotten much bigger, and air conditioning is a given. Comfort is taken to higher levels in all seasons, so it's little wonder we're seeing an epidemic of obesity in most of the developed nations. Big screen TVs, riding mowers, and a gaggle of powered lawn tools are now becoming standard equipment. Houses are being constructed far out in what was once distant farmland, with 50+ mile commutes becoming ordinary. Every 10% we save in efficient design and implementation is swallowed up by a 25-50% increase in energy demand. There are no silver bullet energy solutions out there that will provide the equivalent of perpetual motion. Nuclear fuels themselves have eventually limited reserves. Biofuels take arable land out of food production for very marginal energy return (and so many barley acres are being replaced for biofuel planting that beer will become more expensive).

So technology is not the problem; it's consumption levels. Our two cheapest sources of energy, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, are conservation and energy efficiency ("A penny saved is a penny earned"). As one educated in power systems engineering, the best case I can forsee is limited nuclear and coal generation, with greatly expanded renewable energy production and energy storage. Europe alone has many energy challenges ahead of it, and to be beholdened to Russia for increasing amounts of natural gas and oil is almost like having the Sword of Damocles hanging over its head.

So like yeast in a beer brew, we face the dual peril of perishing from the effects of our waste (AGW), and not getting enough sugar (oil) in what amounts to an excruciatingly slow train wreck. Speaking of beer, if we were just around the corner from each other, I'd buy you a pint down at the local pub to hear your perspective. Cheers, --Skyemoor 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your informative view about this issue. We obviously cannot satisfyingly discuss this matter here as we could at our favourite pub around a nice pint, so I'll only add a few short comments.

I am sure technology investment alone would not solve the entire problem, provided AGW was true. But we cannot stop civilization either just like the environment activists ask (actually, what they mostly want is to stop capitalism, but they fail to understand that capitalism creates civilization and that to stop it would slowly bring us back to a primitive state). Big TVs, bigger houses, air conditionning, faster transportation to farther places, it's all become in high demand not because some evil rich people want to exploit other people, but because we demand these goods. If these products/services are successful, that's because some widely held needs or wishes are being satisfied, which is a good thing. That such goods are becoming available to more and more people is also indicative that humankind is getting more and more prosperous, not the other way around.

Economists worthy of that title would tell us that as the price of a resource goes up, demand for it goes down (it's not always that simple, but it's the idea). It is sometimes a long term process, but it works in every instance. That's how whales have been saved back in the 1800-1900's US. Whale oil was in high demand, but as whales were hunted down and their population getting scarce, the price of whale oil went up. This stimulated other people to find and sell a cheaper substitute, which of course worked and helped save the whales.

The European situation that you mentioned is a good example. As long as the situation with Russia will be tolerable enough to them that it does not become an incentive strong enough to find an aleternative, they will live with it. But my guess is that somehow, alternatives that we do not think of now would come to satisfy their needs if the situation with Russia would come to degenerate. We should not presume that we know in advance what could and could not be done in such events. Provided its innovative capacity is let free, humakind has an history for solving problems and satisfying its needs. Problem with large parts of Europe is that the free market is quite restrained and perhaps would not be as efficient as it could be in providing alternatives. Anyway... I agree we could have an interesting chat. Be well. --Childhood's End 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to the complex system article in the past. Currently there is a Call for Deletion for the associated Category:Complex systems covering this interdisplinary scientific field. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even try helping out with that article. There are a few people who lord over all additions, and usually revert them, thinking their sources are the best. I've tried making some useful additions during the past year, and seen most of them reverted. And I'm actually a meteorologist. It's a wierd, unwikipedialike, domain there. The article has been reported to wikipedia for its problems. Thegreatdr 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific examples of information that was not allowed? I would be interested in seeing this. ~ UBeR 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. i would be interested in helping with your material in any way. By the way, ch, i likeed your suggestion of including material from that Economist article. Let me know if you have further ideas. See you. --Sm8900 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it is quite hard to participate honestly in the global warming articles. Some people there have intense or vested personal interests in it and have an ownership attitude, while others sometimes add to the bickering with unrelevant comments/edits. We must agree that a certain "control" is welcome. But my fear is that Wikipedia is slowly but surely being turned into a Kyoto advertisement program, deprived of any ackowledgement of the limits of science or of the existence of scientific doubts. If I can say, Thegreatdr, these articles need people like you since you are scientifically knowledgeable and that this is what is sought for over there. Some good edits make their way through the process even though they do not come from the usual participants, and even though the process is usually exhausting, indeed. Regards. --Childhood's End 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. BTW, i saw your exchange at Bozmo's talk page with him and Raymond Arritt, re the whole edit pratices of Global warming. And I also saw you recent comment at the article talk page re that new editor, and the people already commenting. Just want to let you know, i posted the following comment at bozmo's talk page, in the same exchange as yours. Sadly, he deleted it. But I think you'll like it. Here it is, below.

Gosh, it's nice of WMC to bear the burden of the community which leaves him to sort out the details. It must be awfully hard when there are so many people who keep covering up their POV attitude with reasonable statements; thankfully the three of you can see through that. It must be tough for WMC when so many people beat up on him personally for always being the one contending with them, when they simply don't realize, that's his job. Only he possesses the expertise to express the true voice of Wikipedia. Only he possesses the knowledge to be able to critique and evaluate every single person's intended contribution, and to lay out the standard for them to meet, which he alone can judge. So I'm glad gou both set Childhood's End aright. it sure is important to point out that being cautious and objective is not as important as keeping in place the one editor who is the only one qualified to rule on each and every submission, and to relentlessly edit others when they do not meet your version the NPOV version of what this article should be. Thanks. --Sm8900 20:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope you like that. See you. --Sm8900 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that Mussolini and Italian Fascist opposed individualism and supported collectivism. Please explain, I have yet to see anything from them that supports collectivism over individualism. Especially given that the original decrees of the new Fascist government in Italy were to stop government interventions into the market economy. Full Shunyata 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand from your last comment in Talk:Collectivism#Articulating Divergent Views that you have now come to the conclusion that fascism is a philosophy centered on state authority and that this is anti-individualistic, so I may be late answering your request. Perhaps I could only add here that the word Fascism has "suffered" an important change of meaning since its early use by Mussolini and that it is now unfortunately used in a pejorative way by both the left and the right. But this should not lead us to forget what it really is and that it is at its core anti-individualistic. As Mussolini said :

• "If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."
• "We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become."
• "Liberty is a duty, not a right."

It is sad that humankind fails to remember the lessons of the past and what Fascism was really about - submission of the individual to state/collective authority. This progressive denial has inevitably been the work of socialism. --Childhood's End 14:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is a violation of WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Don't do it again.

Atlant 13:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered to this gratuitous accusation on your talk page. Please refrain from further such comments unless they can reasonably be considered legitimate. This is not funny. --Childhood's End 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no joke and I mean what I said; see my reply on my talk page.

Atlant 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand in waiting of your explanations on your talk page before I make any further reaction. --Childhood's End 14:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]