On 5/30/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Back in the real world, someone claimed that
links to sites like WR
could benefit Wikipedia. I challenged him to provide examples of how
they could do so. What followed was a paucity of actual examples, but
an increasingly enraged set of posts, insisting that Wikipedia was
being damaged, people were being censored, babies being murdered, etc.
It has been pointed out from the very beginning of this, back in the
first week of April, that one of the links that was erased was in the
Expert Retention article, citing a quotation from that very site. This
has been pointed out over and over and over. Perhaps you want to
disparage that too-- plenty of people have been willing to, as the
whole anti-credential episode made abundantly clear-- but the evidence
remains.
The very beginning of this? I thought this started today.
> If, on the other hand, you can't prove
in a court of law that
> Wikipedia Review has actually done something illegal, you should just
> grow a thicker skin.
I think you are somehow imagining that the stuff
WR writes about me
actually upsets me.
Actually, I think it does bother you, or else you wouldn't attack me
so for posting on it.
Why, have you been posting about me there? Have you said anything
particularly nasty that you thought would upset me?
I think in the case of WR, it's more an issue of the adage being true,
you can tell a man by the company he keeps.