On Dec 7, 2007 11:34 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007 3:44 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
If mapped out in outline, the line of argument seems to go:
- Bagley claims that [list various claims of his, such as that the
Weiss article is non-NPOV] 2) Bagley is a sociopathic, evil harasser. 3) Therefore, the claims in (1) are all false. 4) Thus, anybody who repeats the claims should be dismissed out of hand.
This does not follow logically.
So that we're clear on this, I agree that this does not follow logically.
However, IMHO, Bagley's claims are false, for reasons unrelated to him being a sociopathic, evil harrasser.
They're definitely not *all* false. Many of his claims have checked out. Bagley isn't the only one with old copies of the database.
I don't agree with completely stifling discussion on whether they could be true... There's some sense of "echoing harrassers is bad" but we have to be able to move beyond "X was harrassed and therefore is now untouchable."
The problem with allowing open discussion is that most of Bagley's claims involve revealing the real identity of Wikipedians, which most seem to agree is not permitted in open discussion.