I'm still willing to slosh around in the sewage for that undiscovered diamond.

More strength to you. I never criticized you for this. What I did criticize was to consider people who will be convinced by AnCap arguments to be closer to Anarchism (amongst other things)

I never said, nor implied, any such thing; straw man.

Really? because this quote to me says otherwise…

Educating the public has not worked… unions have not worked… direct action (both violent and non-violent) have not worked…

Moving forward to the crux of our dialog, I had indeed asked for something more quantifiable than a general rhetoric. This is not an unreasonable request, even in the face of socio-political dynamics. If you say {something} is working and I disagree, there needs to be some way to evaluate (in my terms, to measure) which of our claims may be closer to the truth.

And there is something more quantifiable than "general rhetoric" (Something wonderfully ambiguous which by now I take it to mean – "stuff I don't agree immediately with")

This whole post was to point out that you are looking for proof in the wrong dimention, you are missing the forest for the trees. My main argument was to point that you cannot judge whether something is working by whether or not it's here yet. In fact, you seem to ignore my arguments when you state:

Even in your posting, above, you referred to historical events that seem (to me) to have no continuity in this present day. They happened, they're over, so what?

They were valuable lessons? They proved that Anarchism can work practically and can be used as historical examples on the this? They serve are useful arguments? They showed the accuracy of Anarchist predictions? There's so many things that the historical examples of Anarchism are useful for and yet you seem to think that because we're not in Anarchy yet, they didn't really count. Anarchist tactics don't work or whatever.

I think "entirely" is an overstatement.

You misunderstand "entirely". It did not mean that you say someone should really be interested in such argument. I meant that if someone is convinced by such arguments, it will be a convert in the wrong direction.

You seem to have it into your head that this whole post was a denouncement of you for "endorsing AnCapitalist views" And thus keep looking all my sentences from this perspective, understand a totally different thing and trying to counter things I did not say.

In the future, I'll try to remember to be more explicit and maybe you could try to elicit more clarification in the face of uncertainty. Deal

I always elicit more clarification when I care. In this instance I neither cared nor did I ever accuse you of what my assumption was.

I can point to explicit statements by me that I was not endorsing Molyneux or An-Cap, and here you're saying it was my point.

Argh! Where? Where do I say that it was your point? I've said it already many times in these comments. I have not accused you of endorsing Molyneux! I mean, FFS the comment you are replying to makes it absolutely clear what I was criticizing your arguments for.

Without an explicit statement either way, assuming is the wrong attitude to use[...]

Sorry but unless I know someone, this assumption is perfectly valid. You're simply assuming a different set of social norms which are simply not true online.

And again, I didn't pass judgement on you for "endorsing" neither at the start, nor at the continuation of the discussion. In fact, this was never an argument of mine for anything, and it seems to me that you're caught on the more minor straw you can find sticking out in order to make an argument. As such, while my assumption might have been wrong, I would never use one initial assumption to make define a person I do not know online which is in fact why I didn't!

That being said, assumptions are normal part of human interaction with people we do not know. We take the things they say and gather them until we have a full picture. As someone I do not know at all other than your links, my initial assumption was perfectly understandable (and possible incomplete/inaccurate something I never denied)