Sticking to the topic: What "strand" of anarchism do I identify with. Let's see. I am on the side of the oppressed against the oppressors. I see the working class as central to a successful revolution, and therefore identify with anarchist-communist and anarchist-syndicalist traditions. But this is due to the strategic location of the working class in capitalist society--not to any moral superiority of the working class. Workers are not more oppressed than women or Gays or the Deaf. Since all forms of oppression prop each other up, it is essential to attack all subsystems of oppression at the same time.
I am for pro-organizational anarchism, which includes the tradition of Platformism, especifisimo, the FAI, Malatesta, and Bakunin. I do not regard myself as an orthodox Platformist and my organization, NEFAC, is not organized according to the structure of the Draft Platform--partially because we can use the Internet. I like to think that our structure has overcome the objections which Malatesta raised against the Platform. (However, he was critical of the Platform partially because he advocated an eclectic, synthesist organization--individualists and communists, etc.--which I believe was a mistake.)
I also identify with the humanistic and libertarian side of Marxism, and have been deeply influenced by CLR James, Paul Mattick, Sr., Cornelius Castoriadis. Having been a Trotskyist, I find that there are useful aspects of Leninism and Trotskyism in relation to theory, tactics, and strategy (not goals) which anarchists can learn from, if critically reviewed (I have been criticized for saying this). However, I do not regard myself as a Marxist because I think that Marxism as a total system is deeply flawed in several ways (as I have written elsewhere).
Other traditions which have influenced me include Malcom X, decentralism, radical ecology,and left Freudianism.
I am worried that I only engage with people when I feel threatened - which is not very honest, but I can't help feeling your grasping at straws there. 
and I understand the "can't choose who you work with, can choose yer friends" type argument..
. so while these DO happen you can still post a lot and not fall into these traps..if you wanna..as i choose to as best i can..
Can comment on articles and discussions
*I hate most people in the english speaking part of north america who call themselves anarchists.*
I usualy find myself describing my politics as wobbly, libertarian communist, labour anarchist or (mumbling under my breath) anarchist.
The only thing my politics revolve around are Direct Democracy and economic/social equality. I'll join any org anywhere witch I think can achieve this.
I've read many differant working class revolutionary libertarian left books, pamphlets etc. and think they are all worth folks time.
My acceptance of groups depends on the current situation in the "groups turf". I may support a Platformist group in one area of the world or the creation of one or I may think its pre-mature or rediculous in another.
Anything that isnt a membership organization with dues, referendum, ballots, elections etc. I usualy find my self calling it a poorly-organized cadre organization. Ive found many people who consider themselves anarchists in the US calling me controlling, too structuralist, workerist, too concerned with acountability etc.
I like anyone who is called a trot by anarchists and a anarchist by trots.
I'm against anarchists with-out adjectives but for the collaberation of all directly democratic revolutionary working class organizations. I think the with-out adjectives orgs can only agree on breaking things under spray painted banners and dancing in the street with face paint while the cops beat the shit out of all the people of collor.
I think orgs like food not bombs and other charity orgs like it end up trying to make capitalism worker friendly not abolish it and replace it with a worker run society.
I'm not opposed to taking a insurectionalist stance on certain issues or in certain situations but I think that it is most likly doomed from the start in the US due to the lack of the ability of american radicals to behave properly in a millitant street protest(we cant even defend our own demos). I think only past union gun fights and black panther related stuff where periods where insurectionalism was possibly sucessful because this insurrection grew out of the mass membership organizations of the working class.
I think unions are just one of many tools at the working classes disposal but not always the most important.
I think that each catagory of the working class will be interested in differant types of groups and for a revolutionary situation to happen in the US all of these orgs will have to work together.
I think what APPO did was brilliant and all revolutionaries in north/south american should take serious note. I thought they lacked in willingness to take up arms and/or more serious forms of defence of Oaxaca.
I suppose I'm a "big tent libertarian communist".