mav writes:
>No! You are reading too much into my words. You never said that it is
>possible for us to keep from bickering and wrangling so my above
statement
>was not directed at you but at Wikipedia skeptics in general who /do/
say
>exactly that (and then fault us for not accomplishing this artificial
ideal).
Well, my point was that it seems wikipedia could be more collegial.
Some conflict is to be expected, yes, but I rather suspect some people
look forward to it when it comes. Some people live for it, some
merely tolerate it, some people are bothered by it and avoid it. I'm
formerly of class 1 (horrible arrogant troll I was 5 years ago),
recently of class 2, moving towards class 3. I guess this is my
problem, not everyone else's, except I wonder how many people really
_enjoy_ acrimony--fewer than 12 on the 'pedia, I imagine, probably
fewer than six, and I wonder how many of the other several hundred
active contributors truly are put off by it. Those kind of people
tend to be quieter about it until they've had enough, and then they
leave, with or without explanation. I think Julie was one of those
people; and losing her was a considerable loss.
>As usual I was only thinking about the larger picture and was majorly
>insensitive in how I presented myself.
I don't know about all that. And currently I am the champ of sloppy
writing.
>Please except my sincerest apologies for being so stupidly unclear.
That's ok. I'm sorry for reading it wrong. :-) Offense taken,
momentarily, then put back down.
best wishes, I will see you all (except the lurkers) ;-) in a few weeks.
kq