Well, Steve, you appear to be a honest and consistent anarcho-pacifist (even if you possibly won't describe yourself as such). Very good for you - many self-proclaimed "pacifists" seem badly hypocritical and self-contradicting to me: they are against violence only as long as it is directed against the violent power-structure of the society, but not then it is used to maintain its existence. You are not among them.
I'm anarchist, yet not a pacifist, myself. While I, personally, not an active anarcho-militant, I'm not against people's armed struggle against oppressive powers, in principle. Will this sincere position of mine put me beyond your circle of friends, even distant / online ones (as we are already)? Would be really sad if it will - we have a lot of things to discuss! And I want to emphasis that I, even disagreeing with your pacifist position, respect it fully. Honest pacifists and sincere militants can both have a positive impact on society.
Compassion, pity and mercy, on one side; wrath, rage and fury, on the other; tranquility, patience and calm, in the center between: the triunity of the Healer, the Warrior and the Scholar. The paths of the Healer and the Scholar are not unquestionably good; the path of the Warrior is not necessarily evil. All three paths are needed in some situations, and not needed in the other ones. And only in recognising all three paths as a part of the human existence, as a natural and not pathological parts of ourselves, we could reach wholeness, power and lucidity - and, in their triunity, our freedom.