On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:32:59 -0400, "The Mangoe" <the.mangoe(a)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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG