On Apr 2, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 4/1/06, Philip Welch
<wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote:
Kelly, you seem to always ascribe bad faith to
people for no reason
other than the fact they disagree with you. I wish I had a solution
to THAT problem.
Nonsense. I have never attributed bad faith to Geogre, Johnleemk,
JayJG, Raul654, for example, despite disagreeing with them, in some
cases quite vehemently.
The comments you so pithily dismissed as "assuming bad faith" are
simply my observations on the political nature of the Wikipedia
community. You apparently don't like those observations, and so
you've accused me of assuming bad faith by making them. Talk about
the pot calling the kettle black.
You made a blanket assertion that anyone who opposes "special
administrator selection committees" are "more interested in Wikipedia
as an social experiment" for no clear reason other than the fact that
they oppose taking decision-making power out of the hands of the
common contributor. While that's an admirable way to trivialize
opposing points of view, it also marginalizes those of us who oppose
that sort of cabalism *because* we want to write a comprehensive and
accurate encyclopedia from the neutral point of view. Instead of
addressing opposing views, the sorts of blanket assertions you're
making serve only to dismiss them without consideration by attacking
people's supposed motivations.
If that's not a textbook example of assumption of bad faith, ad
hominem, and a straw man, I don't know what is.
--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch