User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive April 2004 2

Homofallaciousness

I am puzzled why you put Heteronormativity back on RfC. You have not been on the topic for several days, and did not object to the NPOV tag being removed. Snowspinner 02:59, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Hi Sam, you wrote on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation "I don't see how mediation is appropriate." Does this mean you are refusing mediation, or are you willing to participate in it despite this feeling? Angela . 09:22, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam, don't worry - you didn't annoy me, and yes, I believe mediation is for article content as well as behavioural issues, unlike arbitration which I believe has chosen currently to deal only with the latter. Angela . 02:59, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Matter of Paul Vogel accepted for arbitration

Please, if you represent Paul Vogel, make any request for relief on his behalf at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel. Please present any evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel/Evidence Fred Bauder 23:01, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Wetman

Thanks for your note about my nomination for Admin! Wetman 08:20, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the gem of my contributions is Truffle. Wetman 17:30, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nazism and socialism

I'm puzzled by your change to this page, claiming that the facts are disputed. It seems to me that the page may have POV issues, but I don't see the factual lapses (but maybe I did not read well enough). David.Monniaux 19:10, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John Kenney

Sam, using right and left isn't intended to "prove my POV" or whatever you think. As I've repeatedly said, the understanding of right and left used in the article was the way that people in Weimar Germany understood politics to be organized. To not mention these terms would be to make any discussion of such politics incomprehensible - not because the terms have meaning in themselves, but because people in Germany used these ideas to order their own understanding of politics. At the same time, I'd be willing to suggest that A) all references to contemporary left and right be removed; and B) that we should take steps to tighten usage. john 00:34, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I assumed bad faith, I apologize, as I have said some obnoxious things about you. I continue to suspect that you are, perhaps, rather cleverer than you let on, and may have an agenda of some sort that you're not explicitly saying, but I ought to deal with you as though you're on the level, both because it's more useful to do that and because I have no evidence that you are not. There's no point in getting to the point of ad hominem, and I'm sorry that I've allowed my irritation to get the better of me.

I do not believe that Wheeler is acting in bad faith, but simply that he doesn't understand the purpose of an encyclopedia, and is so focused on his own idiosyncratic beliefs as to be an almost entirely useless contributor to wikipedia. john 00:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nazism and Socialism

Why do you guys bother? Socialism is a utopian philosophy. Its proponents can define to include or exclude anyone on an arbitrary basis. Good luck, but I can't see you getting anywhere with them. - Nat Kraus e 15:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Complaining directly to you

Policy #1: Avoid bias Policy #3: Respect other contributors

• Quote from Talk:Heterosexuality: "The above is clearly not acceptable in its current state. This article is about heterosexuality, there are plenty of other places to discuss paraphiliac jargon. Sam Spade 18:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)"

Refering to historical terms for straight people and their origin in gay culture as "paraphiliac jargon" is biased and disrespectful.

• From Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 2004 2:"BS. Nobody defends a "heteronormative" society, we defend normalicy against horrors...Sam Spade 20:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)"

Taking a portion of an article personally, then attacking the article and other contributors as horrors is biased and disrespectful. Also, its normalcy.

Hopefully that was relatively sass-free. Hyacinth 18:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I should reply here or on my talk page, so I did both:

Sure, gay and straight are biased terms, as is paraphiliac and all other clinical terms. Clinical does not equal true or accurate. Clinical does not equal neutral. Neutrality is not being engaged in any dispute or fight between these terms and their proponents (us and others). Whatever bias I may have, you're blanket urge to rid wikipedia of certain terms is not even attempting to avoid bias. (By the way, I don't think that "straight" is meant to imply rigid, it actually is meant to imply "straight and narrow" as in correct moral non-sinful.)

Refering to sex reassignment surgery as genital mutilation is inaccurate, refering to transsexualism as a paraphilia is inaccurate, and refering to transsexualism as a bizarre paraphilia is disrespectful, with a clear implication that transsexual people are bizarre.

Many people have commented on your "horrors" comment, I would request that you refrain from making such comments in the future. I would ask that you not cut true and accurate content, but rather, if you have objections, edit it so as to neutralize it. I would ask that you not try to impose your terminology and definitions on wikipedia. Having asked, I may now consider examples of the last two actions as vandalism. Hyacinth 21:34, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you find the term/concept of heteronormativity offensive as it seems the only way to do so would be if one believed that no one ever disregarded gay people and same-sex sexuality and that no one ever thought that gay people and same-sex sexuality were wrong or unnatural. Notice one can't actually believe this is unnatural oneself, as one would then have to grant that heteronormativity is correct, and thus nonoffensive. Hyacinth 21:34, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality: Terminology

I invite you to participate on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality/Terminology. Hyacinth 06:27, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hindutva

Sam: You apparently "accept a minimum of sass" and yet you deal it with abandon. I am personally sick of hearing your righteous statements about how to act and how to post. First you make a ludicrous statement about my character, since you imply that I am not mature enough to conduct myself appropriately in an academic debate, and then you turn around and call me rude and silly. I disagree strongly with your entire approach and high-handed remarks. I have not once brought any personal comments to the table, as you have, and I have only dealt with issues. You group me with Graft, and while I will be cool enough to not cast comments about him, I will comment on my own posts in Hindutva. You may note that I have not brough emotion into this and for every statement I try to bring historical or scriptural support into the picture. I have not simply ranted about the worthlessness of an argument or its proponent, but have painstakingly set forth my views with as clearly-expounded rationale as possible. No one can do any better than that in such forums, and I believe your comments have been directed in the wrong direction. Thank you for your concern.--LordSuryaofShropshire 01:39, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

What's hot air is your slew of messages accusing me of POV. There is not one article I have written or helped written where I have failed to present multiple points of view. Most of my ideas and reasoning for them I place squarely on the talk pages. Your critiques of my objectivity are quite frankly wasted when their source is so clearly biased. --LordSuryaofShropshire 13:11, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Just wanted to drop in a quick note of gratitude for the back-up on assassin (your edits and comments as well as your backing-up of my own). The support is decidedly appreciated, and it's been a pleasure working with you on it. Wally 00:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What sort of lawyer recuses himself in the middle of trial?

Vogel See the comments I've left on Vogel's talk page. I really do think he has problems. His behaviour is both rigid (incessent repetition, inflexibility of thought) and shows a remarkable lack of self-control and self-discipline. He also seems addicted to blaming others for his problems (I suspect this condition is present in a lot of anti-Semites). Even Sam Spade has been forced to abandon him which doesn't say much for his skills as an advocate. What sort of lawyer recuses himself in the middle of trial because he suddenly realises his client's guilty?:) AndyL 23:27, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam, what is AndyL talking about?

"What sort of lawyer recuses himself in the middle of trial because he suddenly realises his client's guilty?:) AndyL 23:27, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)"

I am NOT GUILTY at all and all of the ALLEGATIONS by "Texture" etc. ad nauseum, I wanted to compliment you on your fine work arguing against paul. I'm almost swayed myself, I have to say. To be honest, the only reason I am probably defending paul at this point is that he hasn't been rude to me yet, and he has made improvements, which gives me hope about his character, for whatever reason. Cheers, Sam Spade 04:14, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC) have been mostly nothing but false slanders and lies or they where just deliberately and falsely distorted or twisted and TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

http://www.cosmotheism.net

PS--From how I see it, this whole hearing has been nothing but a "Kangaroo Court" and a "Travesty of Justice" and PC-"Witch Hunt". Why did you make that comment without any cross-examination by me?