Hello. I heard about Wikipedia from a Newsweek article, and decided to check it out. My interests include Philosophy, World History and Chess.

My major contributions so far have been in philosophy, particularly Deterministic system (philosophy) and Nicomachean ethics.

I correct spelling and grammar in articles that I browse, which is easier when I'm not concentrating on editing content (ie: I'm a nitpicker who makes mistakes himself). I also edit for clarity, and try to write clearly myself... but I try to get content out first and make it easy to understand later (sometimes only when I find out someone has misunderstood me).

As a philosopher, I find the Socratic method quite valuable, and yet people subjected to it can often find it annoying. In fact, this annoyance was probably a major factor leading to the death of Socrates in Athens.

• Hi! Do you have any more information on that (possible) specific cause for Socrates' trial? I would lean to disagree--It was his dialectic that initially got him associated with the Sophists, but I think there was more underlying political reasons behind the trial. Ooh, where is that handout I have on this... --Nick 23:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• • For an excellent contrarian view of Socrates' trial, see The Trial of Socrates (Paperback) by I.F. Stone, ISBN 0385260326 [1] Remember, Plato was Socrates' propagandist and was bound to present things in a very biased fashion! ⇒ _normxxx| ^talk ⇒ email 20:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Continually asking questions can be annoying to the person being questioned, regardless of the reason for asking. Ancient Athenian youths, philosophers throughout history, gadflies, sophists, internet trolls and many ordinary people all enjoy the process of picking faults in other people's arguments. The process can teach you how to argue well, and can be used to discover truth (perhaps even through eventual agreement), practice arguing or just to annoy people (who cannot defend their positions as well as you can attack them).

So, I am always willing to respond to pretty much any argument covering a topic I am interested in. If the argument no longer concerns the article in this encyclopedia, then I will generally ask my fellow arguer to continue this argument on my talk page here... feel free. I might lose the argument, win the argument, or accept disagreement over facts or interpretation of those facts. But I am willing to respond to any argument, although I might not have time to respond to every part of the argument as fast as you would like.

'Dialog' may be a better term than 'argument', if only because it sounds less confrontational. One anonymous user has argued that the term 'discussion' as commonly used in Wikipedia can imply opposite points of view and confrontation... I try to keep my arguments impersonal, and to the topic of argument, rather than 'getting personal'.