This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karmafist (talk | contribs) at 02:20, 25 October 2005 (beligerency). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:20, 25 October 2005 by Karmafist (talk | contribs) (beligerency)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Thanks
Thanks for the help in patrolling Derek Smart. I'm quite happy about where that article is now, it was a real mess 2 or 3 months ago and now it's in about as good of a state as could be expected, I think.
Also, pure speculation here, but I can't help thinking that the brief visit of Supreme Cmdr to the page may have been the illustrious Smartster himself :) -- Fox1 14:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Coercive Monopoly
Hi there,
I think it might help if you decided not to respond to any more comments by User:RJII. You can see on User talk:RJII I am one of a number of people asking to behave in a civil manner. If you feel that he is acting in a seriously offensive many you might want to consider instigating some formal procedure, and might well gain some support. If you don't want to do that, continuing to argue with him will not solve anything except making both of you more angry.
Thanks for reading The Land 15:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- "...continuing to argue with him will not solve anything except making both of you more angry." You may be right (although I'm not angry, just kind of exhausted). I keep hoping that he will come around and participate in a reasonable discussion: seriously, what's the alternative? We have to reach a compromise and a consensus, don't we? I don't really see any other avenue to that other than to continue reaching out to him. The only other alternative I see is for everyone else to give up any attempt at creating a NPOV article and stop editing completely (which was what had happened prior to the page being protected: everyone had more or less given up and abandoned the article to RJII). That's no good for anyone, Misplaced Pages least of all. So we have to keep trying to reach a compromise with him. Sooner or later, he'll come around. -- BBlackmoor 17:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- "Sooner or later, he'll come around." has not been my experience (Talk:Statism). The references page may help; good luck with that. You'll need it! Rd232 16:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Only suggestion I have is something along the lines of "some people say X, others say Y". As I said, good luck. Rd232 16:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- "Sooner or later, he'll come around." has not been my experience (Talk:Statism). The references page may help; good luck with that. You'll need it! Rd232 16:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Me again. There seems to be something like a consensus for saying broadly "Coercive monopoly is a monopoly which need not pay attention to market forces", without including anything about the nature of the power exercised by the monopolist. Setting aside entirely RJII's conduct, can I ask if you actually object to this general idea, or if you just feel it's less economical, or have some other reason to oppose it. Sorry if you've made this clear before but the, erm, 'confrontational' nature of the debates on the talk page make it hard to work out. Thanks! The Land 01:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- That doesn't address what makes a coercive monopoly different from any other monopoly. You may as well say "A coercive monopoly is a monopoly," and stop there. According to the few sources which mention coercive monopolies, the distinguishing characteristic of a coercive monopoly is that it is created and/or maintained through force or the threat of force. That's key. I don't mind adding other stuff, as long as it's at least plausibly supported by reliable sources, but unless it says that, it's not talking about coercive monopolies. As inconclusive as the straw poll was, it did support my position on this (and let me be clear: if it hadn't, I would let that go in the name of consensus without so much as a harsh word). -- BBlackmoor 02:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
As RJII said, his wording (in "definition", taken from the protected version of the article) and mine (in Two versions) aren't that far apart. Prohibited, banned etc conveys the government authority I was concerned with in my original alternative version, and which is the dominant meaning for the economic sense. I appreciate your various attempts to move the discussion forward (archiving, references subpage, survey), but we need to be clear on what differences there are in views (now, given how they've shifted). Is it just in how prominent the reference to force is? Would something like the wording in my alternative version (second sentence) cover that for you? Rd232 13:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Is it just in how prominent the reference to force is? Would something like the wording in my alternative version (second sentence) cover that for you? I am open to just about anything, as long as the reference to the use (or threat) of force is explicit. -- BBlackmoor 13:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
blue blistering barnacles
I'm not sure if it's "billions of blistering blue barnacles" rather than "billions of blue blistering barnacles" as Captain Haddock had it; maybe he used both. Anyway, I'm sure the barnacles should indeed be taken with salt. :) Rd232 15:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Coercive monopoly
I am out of ideas on how to proceed on Talk:Coercive monopoly. I have tried everything I can think of, but we aren't making any progress at all. The editors are arguing in circles and attacking each other and getting nowhere. I am open to suggestions. -- BBlackmoor 18:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Jossi Fresco suggested a survey, so I guess that's what we'll do. -- BBlackmoor 23:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I took so long to get back to you. Actually my advice, if I'd been able to give it earlier, would have been something like "whatever you do, don't put it to a survey." Those things are very divisive. There really is not substitute for listening to people and then seeing if they'll listen to you. RJII to me seems to be overly protective of the article, however, and I think it may be better if we go to him and ask him if he'd be more willing to allow others to get a word in edgeways. --Tony Sidaway 13:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Alleged disruption by RJII
Sorry -- in regard the latest disruption, I side with RJII. It doesn't appear to me that his Definition section was intended as a reply to the Survey section. I hope the "present" arrangement meets with the approval of all concerned, although one of Rd232's comments now appears to be taken out of context. -- User:Arthur_Rubin
- "It doesn't appear to me that his Definition section was intended as a reply to the Survey section. " It was a direct reply to the announcement of the survey: Everything he has done since has been nothing but a blatant attempt to disrupt that survey and any progress that may be made on it. -- BBlackmoor 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Re: POTW
Thanks, I don't know what to do with him. You ease up, he gets more beligerent, you choke down, he gets more beligerent, you do nothing, the beligerency continues. Karmafist 02:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)