The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/13/06, Michael Snow
<wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
Delirium wrote:
How can we talk about things on a mailing list of
we aren't allowed to
use words and phrases?
Nobody's denying you the ability to use words and phrases. I'm pointing
out that these words and phrases are being used as rhetoric, and that
insisting other people should agree to and adopt your rhetoric is
counterproductive.
1) He never insisted that other people should agree to and adopt your rhetoric.
2) You're misusing the word rhetoric.
3) Contrary to your above claim, Jimbo wrote "Current policy does not
let anyone go "over the head" of editors and the Wikimedia Foundation
does not deal with them in a "top-down manner"." That is, he flatly
denied Delirium's words.
Not Jimbo's best moment, and it was followed up by an apology for his
tone. Still, I consider that a denial that Delirium's characterization
is accurate, as might be expected given Jimbo's position. Not a denial
of Delirium's ability or freedom to make such a characterization, which
would be a more serious concern.
The only thing that Delirium has been insisting on is
his right to use
that language himself -- not that others have to agree lock, stock and
barrel to it.
Well, that's not how I understood this message in particular:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/041721.html
Wherein Delirium calls Jimbo's response "blatantly counterfactual" and
with his insistent questioning, seems to indicate that there's no
alternative but to adopt his characterization. If that's an
overinterpretation on my part, and he's willing to agree that other
people can legitimately see these events as not "going over the head" of
editors and operating in a "top-down manner", then I would be glad to
hear it.
--Michael Snow