>Some slogans, even hateful slogans, are of sufficient historical
>(or other) importance that they can deserve a separate article.
I respectfully disagree with this. It does seem to be a vague "policy", and
begs for a test as to its consistency. But the tribe has spoken.
And my adding the second "slogan" article was to see if the informal
consensus was consistent, or if there was some sort of anti-gay complacency.
Given the controversial nature of the subject, not to mention that I did it
hastily and in what amounts to very, very, poor taste, I owe all an apology.
I was surprised to find that despite my explanations, my stated intent was
completely misunderstood and misrepresented. Nevertheless, this is not the
place for such frustrated experiments, and I was, as Vicki said, guilty of
'not being clear.' I am guilty, also of letting myself be distracted into
arguments for which there are no winners, and for which there is nothing to
gain, without willingness for mutual understanding. Ed was completely
correct in his description of my excess zeal; and I was wrong to treat Vicki
and Robert in a condescending manner for what, to them, were valid
questions.
>Are you accusing him of using sysop powers "in a fight" or >merely of using
ordinary wiki editing in a way that you don't like?
If you read the text attachment of the background of the VFD page, regarding
these articles, it shows some degree on Cuncators part of being a bit
monolithic in his treatment of the article. James even at one point, was
left to ask Cuncator himself to delete a useless page he made so he could
revert it back. I dont know how bad that got, or if its even the way i
characterize it.. nor do I expect you to be everyones babysitter and private
investigator... This is just an explanation. I wouldnt mind if it simply
rested here.
I generally find that if I keep my mouth shut for awhile, NPOV
emerges. In this cases, we went over all this with the "Aids" slogan, and I
thought the result was fine. I said my piece there.
Yes, I'm finding this out. -S