Guy Chapman writes:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:18:22 +0000, David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I assumed when it said that people would be judged on the merits of their contributions, and that evidence of bias in real life was no evidence of biased editing, that this meant what it said.
Indeed it does. And yet you steadfastly refuse to believe those who tell you that your *contributions* (including on Talk) are the problem, choosing instead to blame some notional external factors. Funny, that.
When you brought this issue to the mailing list your very second sentence was "We know from other evidence that Fys is an active member of the Labour party; this may or may not be considered relevant." You clearly did consider it relevant otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
I have asked you again and again why you continue to insinuate that my preference for including the disputed material in Anne Milton is due to political bias, and for you to substantiate your view. You have not. The time is past due for you to apologise for that. There is no finding that I am a POV editor for the very good reason that I am not.
I have steadfastly refused to retaliate in kind by saying that your known opposition to my politics has influenced your judgment. Nor have I told you to "fuck off" as you have told me. I think you know me well enough to know that I will not give up on this. I think you also know you owe me an apology.