On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
You still haven't responded to Fastfission's account. What dispute do
you have with it?
Its false portrayal of ta bu shi da yu as acting without direct and
full support, its accusatory tone, its abuse of a good and
conscientious administrator who came directly to Jimbo for support and
obtained it (I know this for a fact), it's blatant assumption, in
short, of bad faith. Its sheer unwikipedianness. I'm completely,
utterly shocked rigid to see this kind of thing openly on a wikipedia
mailing list. When I spoke of corrosive suspicion, this is precisely
what I meant. We cannot build an encyclopedia this way. Well, maybe
a huge hoard of copyright infringements, but *not* an encyclopedia.
No, not what issues with the tone do you have, but what dispute with
the facts of Fastfission's account?