On 10/22/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Nothing to do with that. We know that people can do a lot of damage when acting in good faith.
So you are saying, in effect, that we should consider the people that you describe as "paper admins" as potentially damagingly stupid? I'm sure they'll be very happy to hear that.
Unaware would be a better term. Certainly not stupid.
If you're motivated enough to comment, you can't be disinterested, by definition.
No I can comment (say making a factual correction) and still be completely disinterested in the result.
I don't understand what is to be taken into consideration from a neutral comment when making a verdict (sorry, I mean "tallying votes"). From reading my RfA, quite a few of the "neutral" votes seemed to actually be mealy-mouthed "oppose" votes. Is the bureaucrat's job to divine what the voters were actually trying to say?
No. Neutral !votes are normally ignored. They only come into play when there is a close result.
Common sense specifies what batshit means. Anything else should be supported with expository links.
"Common sense" has no place in rational theory. To start with algebra starts to break down and you can't do calculus. There is a reason why intuitionism has never been widely accepted.
Straw man. This is an encyclopedia written by consensus, not mathematics.
The problem is that once you adopt a system within which maths breaks down everything else breaks down (of course maths isn't the only thing that breaks down under a system based on "common sense" but it is a fairly critical example). I would be happy to defend the position that it is foolish to use a system in which maths does not hold.
It would be advisable to use logic rather than "common sense".