--- Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
WP:POINT doesn't trump WP:NPOV, and I never said it did. One is a core principle, the other is a page which, like many of our policies, acts only to restate "don't be a dick" in more socially acceptable language. Now, there are multiple ways of making a point. Some of them involve being a dick. You appear to be choosing one of those ways, as WP:POINT makes clear. It would be nice if you could restrain yourself.
No, WP:DBAD uses unsuitably dickish language itself and thus had to be removed to meta. In the hierarchy its probably lower than {{proposed}}, though the typically dickish citing of it would leave newbies to believe otherwise. Please dont mistake casual terseness for dickishness. I certainly dont.
I disagree with the lawsuit paranoia, and dislike
its usage as a crutch in arguments wherin a plain
application of basic bonehead-level NPOV will
suffice.
Like Ilmari the other day, I just threw that in for discussion's sake. Discussion is this thing we have occasionally although, I admit, not very often.
Yes, this 'discussion' is in contrast with the terseness thing.
You think the category is incompatible with NPOV. I think you're right. There are those, however, who do not (or who have not considered the issue, and gone along with the cat because it's there). There are two ways for you to get your way: you can either convince them you're right, or you can grind their faces into dust. Now, you're not in much of a position these days to do any face-grinding, so we're just left with the former option.
Dont make this personal. This seems to be a rarer case, and this is why I brought it to the list. The basic point is that "consensus" only works if its overwhelmingly in one direction or another, and (as I think Cobb was alluding to) AFD doesnt always work as a discussion forum. Where there are sharp divides between actual consensus and NPOV, speaks to a deeper issue of leadership with regard to NPOV, and this relates to the problem of newbie indoctrination.
The traditional approach taken when trying to change someone else's mind is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can I best state my message to convince you I'm right?" The approach *you* are taking is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can you be *so stupid* as to disagree with me? Can't you idiots see the bleeding obvious? I'm disgusted with the lot of you!"
I was simply stating my case in a clear and incontrovertible way. I dont see the need to make an argument weak just for sake of endless discussion with those who hold to a relativist position, or to appease those, who fail AGF and assume dickishness where there is none. I dropped a note, to bring some attn to it.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com