Those of us who are anti-wealth, such as myself and Christopher here, can get a bit carried away with trying to spread the anti-wealth message.
So initially - Sorry.
It's just that when you view the operating system in this way, it becomes very difficult to remain quiet, and any message that is even remotely pro-wealth gets our hackles up.
Of course we understand why people are pro-wealth, and on an individual level it makes obvious sense to be this way. However we have become convinced that the negative effects that wealth has on the human psyche (and society in general) are so great that they outweigh the benefits. Funnily enough, this was not true in the past, yet the evidence suggests that it may be true today.
Of course we are more than willing to be proven wrong in regard to this hypothesis. I'd really like to be... it would take a lot off my mind!
Anyway, I still have to agree with your response to Hurt Anderson, in that many of the perceived villains of history weren't so bad (and in this case good), while many perceived heroes were in fact pretty horrible. Che Guevara is a great example, and with so much information about him stating both sides of the argument, one often has to sit on the fence as to whether someone was "good" or not.
Although I'm of the opinion that you can't really place people into these categories anyway, and to do so is folly -
"I stand here for I stand on the shoulders of giants"
When you take this concept within the more general framework of "memes", the result is the evolution of ideas over time, with the great people throughout history being the ones who are able to evolve the idea (or at least understand the idea) better than anyone previously.
Not to take anything away from these great historical figures, many of them were indeed "great" people, however to determine "good" is only ever relative to ones society at the time, and is therefore not necessarily applicable...
Did any of my ramblings there make sense? Sorry, haven't had enough coffee yet today.