Talk:Democracy & Nature/Archive 1

message: First of all, the text that you people keep deleting DID contain links to editorial responses from the journal. All those with a minimal grasp of the English language should be able to see that, a fact that explains why the D&N people couldn't figure it out (any freshman wishing to major in English Lit. would have bombed a test in which he used expressions like "I hope this puts the record straight" in numerous permutations/combinations). 
Before I move on to the content of the points raised by Fotopoulos: I hope that it is clear to all readers of this page how ridiculous the whole approach of these people is: they sign their points "(Member of the Editorial Board)", as if that couldn't be done by anyone else!!! While they're at it, they point out that I have "nothing to do with the Editorial Board" as if that is at all relevant!!! When will they realize that in Wikipedia their lies and falsifications cannot remain undisputed, given that everyone has the democratic right to present their own view? 
THE CRUCIAL DISTINCTION in this case is to see whether one is interested in the formality of what the names were that were printed in the front flap, or alternatively in what was actually going on.
:a) If we accept that we are interested only in the formalities, then 
:::i) The sentence "Takis Fotopoulos, as editor, was Democracy & Nature's locomotive power throughout the journal's existence." that is provided in the section "Editorial Board" should be removed. Formally, Fotopoulos was always a member of an "editorial committee" (as is also stated in his first letter to M.B. quoted above). Therefore, statements like this one are mere extrapolations, and have no place in a "neutral" presentation of the journal.
:::ii) The first section describing the history of the journal should be re-written from scratch: the journal got the subtitle "the international journal of inclusive democracy" only in 1999, therefore it is a complete distortion of the facts to claim that the focus of the journal was "Inclusive Democracy" from the start (even at the level of potentiality).
:::iii) Fotopoulos's claim that only 8 per cent of the articles published in the journal were written by Bookchin & Castoriadis (which is a huge distortion given that it isn't including texts written e.g. by Bookchinites like J. Biehl, D. Chodorkoff & H. Hawkins) could be reversed and used to prove that Inclusive Democracy has even less to do with the journal: only a small minority of all the articles published in the journal were written by Fotopoulos.
:b) If we are interested in what was actually going on, then the two paragraphs I have introduced should be re-introduced. The letters Fotopoulos has provided serve only to prove that Bookchin "can be said to have had great influence in promoting the journal during its first few years of publication" instead of "can be said to have had great influence in founding and promoting the journal during its first few years of publication". OK, point taken. But the relevant paragraphs should be used. In reality (i.e. if we are not studying in the Fotopoulos school of Stalinist falsification) Bookchin's name and Castoriadis's ideas (in a crude/distorted version) were what got the journal going, and also what gave it the little fame that it did have back in the day.
As always, Fotopoulos apparently wants to have his cake and eat it. But now people are watching...
User: PaulCardan 00:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: OK, this is getting nowhere. "Mr." Fotopoulos obviously has nothing better to do than to write vitriolic attacks and then give them to other people to upload, hoping that he can persuade somebody (anybody!) that there are other people supporting his views. 
This could go on forever, but I have better things to do than to try and oppose an armada of henchmen writing everything their master tells them to write, even though they know nothing about the issues involved. 
Therefore, I have decided to leave this whole thing to Fotopoulos's stooges. Democracy & Nature (although initially influenced by Bookchin & Castoriadis, like I tried over and over to point out) was simply a biased journal that Fotopoulos used to promote his own confused theoretical "line", and would accordingly punish people for disagreeing with it. 
History will hopefully let the truth shine. Personally, I cannot keep insisting on simple truths against blind followers of a dogma. With this then, I bow out...
User: PaulCardan 02:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Comment

message: There's a list on the page for the "International Advisory Board". Formerly, it was just a long list going down the page, but it has recently been changed to a long sentence, with each entry seperated by semicolons. Personally, I think this is harder to read. Comments? — mæstro t/c, 12:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  semicolons vs. linebreaks 

message: As user: John above put it, the result of the debate was a [[consensus : 
keep]] vote with 9 out of 12 votes in favour and EXCLUDING ALL THOSE (like 
yourself!) WHO WERE NOT ACTUALLY EXISTING Wikipedians at the beginning of 
the discussion. Here is the proof: 
Voted in favour to keep:  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Woohookitty> 
Woohookitty(cat scratches) 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woohookitty>  ; 23skidoo 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:23skidoo>  ; Capitalistroadster 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Capitalistroadster>  ; Lulu of the 
Lotus-Eaters <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters> ; 
Tupsharru <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tupsharru> ; Pete.Hurd 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pete.Hurd> ; Alf 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiki_alf> 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiki_alf> melmac ; Jmabel 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmabel> ; User talk:El C/Journals 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C/Journals> . 
Voted against: SarekOfVulcan 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarekOfVulcan>   (proposer), Just zis 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Just_zis_Guy%2C_you_know%3F>  Guy, you 
know? , Eusebeus <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eusebeus> 
I hope the administrators will at last intervene  to amend the above 
incorrect summary of the vote given by [[Extreme Unction {yakCCblah}]], so 
that the Goebbelian tactics could stop once and for all. 
--TheVel 09:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD - Goebbells would be proud of you! 

message: Two users, including myself, have proved that the result of the AfD discussion was not a “no consensus” vote, as it was wrongly described by an administrator, but a clear consensus to keep.  75% of votes cast (excluding all those who the administrator insultingly called “various sockpuppets and meatpuppets”) were in favor of keep. Note that WP guidelines clearly state on several occasions that a 75% (or even 60%) majority IS a consensus: “the threshold for consensus (as far as Requests for adminship. are concerned) is roughly 75-80 percent support”; “Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (60% or more)” etc. Furthermore, it is obvious that consensus cannot mean unanimity in cases of AfD debates since at least one user (the proposer) should be in favor of it! However, although more than 48 hours have lapsed since then, the administrators not only did not amend the obvious serious error, which raises doubts about the impartiality of some of them, but did not even bother to justify their judgement. Is this an example of the grassroot democracy promoted by Wikipedia? User:john 8:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the administrators are silent?