On 10/22/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)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".
--
geni