On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:34:43 -0700, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:05:26 +1100, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote: Adam is a good and well-respected editor, and I did not
think that he would be blocked. I merely want to be able to explore opposing views without being subjected to personal attacks which are upsetting and distracting. I guess I want him to be aware of the community view on such things, as my own requests for him to moderate his behaviour seem only to enrage him further.
Peter, your comments cannot be allowed to stand. I can't get inside your head, but judging by your behavior, you goaded Adam into attacking you. He shouldn't have let you, it's true.
Judging by Adam's history on Wikipedia, he lets himself be goaded by quite a few of people. You are hardly suggesting that this is an isolated instance, are you?
Nevertheless, as he has to take responsibility for his actions, so should you for yours. You have gone round and round in circles with him and several others, using sophistry in place of argument; attempting to replace fact with your personal opinion; and replying to each question with a question of your own, rather than an answer.
This is simply not true. I grew tired of responding to Adam's questions when he so often evaded my own. Fair's fair.
My opinions are backed up with checkable quotes. I note on checking the discussion page that you have provided just one quote - the text of a link I myself provided. You accurately pointed out that it dated from a time when John Howard was not Prime Minister, so I provided one from when he was.
Adam's sources are generally an appeal to popular opinion, some partisan site such as the ARM, or his own individual interpretation of the Constitution, unsupported by expert opinion.
You have accused Adam of misrepresenting the constitution, when he was paraphrasing it very precisely. (Your subsequent claim that "shall be" and "is" have different meanings in this context is false, and you have offered no reason for your view.)
Again, this is simply not true. Several times I have pointed out the similar wording in s101 where "shall be" cannot be equated to "is". By saying that the Constitution says that the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen Adam is downplaying the historical aspect of the text, and my point, expressed several times, is that we have moved on. The Governor-General is no longer quite the representative of the Queen and her government that he was at Federation. The role in this respect has diminished and his role as representative of the people rather than the government has increased.
You've been told repeatedly what the community consensus is on the issue, both here and on the talk page of the article. The page has had to be protected because of the dispute. Slrubenstein and Ta bu shi da yu have both written excellent e-mails to this list refuting or questioning your position, yet you haven't addressed their concerns, offered additional source material, or withdrawn your argument.
Perhaps they should direct argument on this subject to the discussion page. I am addressing your points here because you seem to insist on it.
As for your claim that you didn't wish to see Adam blocked, you have, I believe, reported him twice on the admin noticeboard, and also, I believe, twice on this list. That's an odd way to behave if you harbor no desire to see him blocked.
I reject your interpretation. I have repeatedly asked Adam to moderate his behaviour and this only served to provoke further abuse, as can readily be seen. By making the issue public my intention was to get others to ask him to calm down. I hope that this has had an effect. I also note that blocks on Adam don't seem to last long, as he can always find a willing admin.