The discussion of 'anger=fear' has died down by now - as most of the people writing in the thread were thinking along the same lines I did.
I personally still wonder why somebody thinks this theory is correct. To most people it's obvious it's wrong by just thinking about their own experiences with fear in the past. We've even had a slight philosophical discussion by now which has also led us to the question what an irrational act is.
Some people, including me, have pointed out that an irrational act can't have a goal, because in that case the act would at least be rational for the person committing it. That doesn't make the act itself logical or even 'rational' for somebody else, but it means the act isn't what most of us will understand as 'irrational'. There are irrational acts, of course, but they don't have a goal - and thus do not fit with Schopenhauer and his philosophical views of mankind. Schopenhauer actually claimed that we always have a reason - or at least a goal - for doing something and the guy starting the thread took this as a basis for his 'anger=fear'-theory. So if somebody can prove that Schopenhauer is wrong, in essence the theory of the guy starting this thread also is wrong.
You probably can imagine the heated discussion about this point...
I still don't think anger equals fear and I guess I never will.