Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:20, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
No, since when has attaching 'Nazi' to something been an acceptable way to argue? Don't quote Seinfeld to me. I'm not American, I don't watch it. That goes also for others on the list. You 'come on'. Stop being an ethnocentric jerk.
Oh, grow up.
It was funny. And appropriate.
If you're that thin-skinned that you find it upsetting, then you DESERVE to be upset.
Actually, it wasn't funny. It wasn't even a joke, as far as I can see. It wss intended to re-open the old deletionist-inclusionist schism. The Cunctator, having been a face of some eminence on enWP in the early days, pops up here again. Welcome back, I say; but please don't assume we're in the same timewarp as you. Matters such as reliable sourcing for articles are not now regarded as optional: we are more sensitive on the issue. Someone who posts here on the topic of unsourced articles about websites might expect a reasoned argument, in line with the current policies, rather than that.
Furthermore Godwin's Law applies: call someone a Nazi, you LOSE the argument.
And "If you're that thin-skinned that you find it upsetting, then you DESERVE to be upset" is not only crass, offensive stuff, if typical enough of the depths to which this list has sunk. (Can we please please moderate some of these folk? This is becoming troll city.) It seems to be aimed at everyone who might not understand the context.
I really don't think I'm the one who is maturity-challenged here.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 1/3/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:20, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.comwrote:
No, since when has attaching 'Nazi' to something been an acceptable
way to
argue? Don't quote Seinfeld to me. I'm not American, I don't watch it.
That
goes also for others on the list. You 'come on'. Stop being an
ethnocentric
jerk.
Oh, grow up.
It was funny. And appropriate.
If you're that thin-skinned that you find it upsetting, then you DESERVE
to be
upset.
Actually, it wasn't funny. It wasn't even a joke, as far as I can see. It wss intended to re-open the old deletionist-inclusionist schism.
Schism? Wow. I didn't realize we were getting to religious levels here. Bogdan's post was a bit, I felt, overblown about the inclusion of webcomics, websites, and other web content in Wikipedia.
The Cunctator, having been a face of some eminence on enWP in the early
days, pops up here again.
Well, thank you. I'm not sure "eminence" is a word anyone would ever use to describe my face, though.
Welcome back, I say;
I didn't realize I had left.
but please don't assume we're in the same timewarp as you.
Just a jump to the left....[1]
Matters such as reliable sourcing for articles are not now regarded as
optional: we are more sensitive on the issue. Someone who posts here on the topic of unsourced articles about websites might expect a reasoned argument, in line with the current policies, rather than that.
The topic wasn't unsourced articles about websites, if I remember correctly. Bogdan's complaint is primarily one of notability, I believe. There's also been quite a reasonable discussion about the definition of an acceptable source.
Furthermore Godwin's Law applies: call someone a Nazi, you LOSE the
argument.
That's not Godwin's Law.
--tc
[1] Obligatory ethnocentric American pop-cultural reference.
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 17:07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Actually, it wasn't funny. It wasn't even a joke, as far as I can see.
Tough shit. The rest of us don't have to modify our behavior to satisfy the irrational and capricious preferences of a few uptight jackasses.
Furthermore Godwin's Law applies: call someone a Nazi, you LOSE the argument.
What a wonderful example of your misundertanding of Godwin's law.
Godwin's law is, essentially: "As the length of an argument on $ELECTRONICCOMMUNICATIONSMEDIUM continues, the probability of a comparison involving Nazi Germany approaches one."
That's not the exact formulation, of course, but that's the gist of it. Nothing about "losing" the argument. Nor should there be.
Why?
Because there are times when comparisons with Nazi Germany are quite apt--such as in the case you're having a shitfit about.
I really don't think I'm the one who is maturity-challenged here.
You're the one getting upset about stuff that doesn't matter...