Dear Jimbo,
You said:
"I'm not one to comment on detailed content disputes, since those are beyond my realm of comfort for the most part, but is it possible that there could be a compromise that retains the link _where_ he wants it, but in a section labelled "Examples of modern anti-semitism" or something like that?"
That might be acceptable, but, that is not what would actually maintain a NPOV within all articles, Jimbo.
In fact, the only real reason that I wanted to add the http://www.Jewwatch.com pov link to the other[[Judaism]] article under "criticisms" was only to illustrate the double-standards and the lying hypocrisy of Jews deleting that slanderous pov link to Jewwatch.com, but then their double-standard of them not also deleting the four slanderous pov links to [[cosmotheism]].
It is very clear that the real "people" that are actually being "just impossible" to "reason" with is not me and Sam Spade can actually attest to that fact. :D
"The problem with putting Jew Watch in the section 'Criticism' is that it lends too much credence to a website that mostly consists of insane rants. It isn't "Criticism" in the sense of rational respectful disagreement, it's just a huge pile of nonsense."
Indeed, as are those slanderous and that huge pile of pov garbage four "criticism" links to the religion of[[cosmotheism]] article.
If you delete one link to such pov insane rants, for [[Judaism]] then you must do the same thing within the [[cosmotheism]] article under the four linked and slanderous and false [[criticisms]] of this religion as well. That is maintaining the Wiki NPOV as I see it, and doesn't reflect double-standards, but, only fairness, Jimbo.
"As to Paul's rantings on the mailing list, I strongly advise him to coooool it."
If you were being constantly and falsely slandered, blocked, banned, and censored, would you have been so "coooool" with it? I honestly do doubt it, Jimbo. LOL! :D
"If I were on the arbitration committee, and this came before me, I'd vote for a ban and be done with it."
And then you would lose all credibility, Jimbo, because you didn't "walk the talk" regarding NPOV. Not very wise, Jimbo, being so "rash" is it?
"Every time someone accuses us of censorship, etc., we should take it seriously."
You should, but, you have not, which is disappointing. I would have expected you to be a bit more "morally courageous" and "fair", Jimbo. Perhaps, I was wrong.
"Are we being too quick to judge?"
Yes, you and some others surely are doing so.
"Are we giving in to a temptation to suppress information that we aren't comfortable with?"
Obviously so.
"Are we being too harsh about something that is essentially a personality conflict, or a user who lacks social graces?"
Yes, indeed, but not actually on my part. :D Some people just can't handle the WHOLE TRUTHS of REALITY, but, only what they want to hear! :D
"But, after that, it remains true that some people are just impossible, and it's a shame."
It remains true that some people are just impossible to "reason" with, Jimbo, and that is a "shame".
I guess that is true, Jimbo, most especially, for any of those people that are "rationally challenged" or that are just such "moral cowards" that they will not ever stand up for the TRUTH and for what is factually ever RIGHT.
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
--Jimbo
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover