On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:32:59 -0400, "The Mangoe" the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
No, it is not a "better source". It is a thread contributed to by a group of banned trolls, vanity spammers and other malcontents, all bearing substantial chips on their shoulders and harbouring enormous grudges. I fail to see under what circumstances it could be considered a reliable source. Let Brandt lay out his line of reasoning on his own website, without the additional bile and hatefulness.
Well, that's a flagrant ad hominem argument, but in any case we don't get the sources we wish but the ones that people actually write. And whatever other contributions lie within that thread, it does contain Brandt's transcript of his actions. There is no real reason to believe otherwise.
No, it's not an ad-hominem. I didn't say that Brandt is evil, for example, I simply pointed out the known and documented fact that WR is dominated by banned trolls, POV pushers and vanity spammers (like Looch, aka Jonathan Barber, aka JB196). Its user base makes it worthless as a source. If Brandt wants to post the transcript on his website then fine, but a post to a forum can't easily be edited afterwards to correct errors and omissions, for example, and followup from gleeful banned trolls makes the thread a cesspit, so as a source even this WR post is worthless. There is no rational definition of a reliable source which covers this site.
Guy (JzG)