Delirium wrote:
Often parties to disputes will dump literally hundreds
of links to
edit histories, and engage in lengthy multi-page accusations and
counter-accusations. Someone has to sort through that and try to make
sense of it. It's not a particularly interesting job, of course.
IMHO much of this stems from an inability to impose a standard of
relevance on evidence. If you are discussing someone's specific
wrongdoing, it is usually completely irrelevant for an accuser to bring
up an event that was settled last year. So too is the accused's
behaviour toward a third person who is not part of the case. That third
person may have a higher tolerance level for silliness.
Ec