On 5/15/03 6:15 PM, "james duffy" <jtdirl(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no point in clogging up the wiki list with a constant re-analysis
of the [[Communist state]] debate. But for the record, The Cunctator's
statement that his "impression was that 172 and Jtdirl were upset by the
claims about Communist states Fred was making and that they
then decided to use the argument that they knew what "Communist state" meant
and Fred and anyone who disagreed with them didn't" is factually incorrect.
I made it clear on over thirty occasions (if not forty occasions - I stopped
counting after a while) on the talk page that my problem was that Fred was
adding in material to the wrong page. I said it. 172 said it. Tannin said.
Tarquin said. Others said it too. If I was trying to censor Fred, I would
not have created a linked page containing his text.
Erm. Wasn't the argument that Fred's text was on the wrong page that he
didn't understand what "Communist state" meant?
That there was a problem with Fred's text was
admitted by Fred himself who
called it "unbalanced". I deliberately did not intervene in the debate on
the linked page. My only interventions there were in fact to recreate it
when The Cunctator decided to remove it and plonk it back on the wrong page.
The issue Fred was writing about was about a practical analysis of how how
communist governments behaved. That is an issue worthy of in depth
discussion, and has been discussed on the linked page, on which Fred and
others contributed. As that page would not exist if it was not for me, I can
hardly be accused of censoring Fred's opinions. All I did, as other people
did, was to point out that Fred was putting his text on the wrong page and
put it onto the right one.
And writing
"reverting to Shino's version to remove Fred's POV vandalism."
"reverting to Pratyeka's last version to remove Fred Bauder's constant POV
vandalism of this page. Do it again Fred and you'll be put on the annoying
users page"
"THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT A POLITICAL SCIENCE DEFINITION. IT IS NOT ABOUT
COMMUNISM. ATTEMPTS BY FRED BAUDER TO ADD IN POV ANTI-COMMUNIST RANTS WILL
CONSTANTLY BE REVERTED"
"dumping more of Fred Bauder's vandalism. If he keeps this up he will have
to be banned from wiki"
"PLEASE BAN FRED BAUDER FOR CONTINUOUS VANDALISM OF THIS ARTICLE. HIS
VANDALISM HAS HAD TO BE REVERTED NEARLY 20 TIMES HERE. HE HAS DONE THE SAME
ELSEWHERE"
"deleting irrelevant POV rubbish. How many times does Fred Bauder have to
vandalise this article before he is banned?"
"Is there any chance that Fred Bauder might some day grasp what NPOV means."
"THE STUFF YOU KEEP PUTTING IN IS ALREADY IN ANOTHER ARTICLE. STOP SCREWING
UP EVERYONE ELSE'S WORK TO PUSH YOUR OWN AGENDA"
to just name the comments used in your edit summaries. I can't help but
think that's something more than "All I did, as other people did, was to
point out that Fred was putting his text on the wrong page and put it onto
the right one." But maybe that's a blatant misrepresentation.
Now can we all please move on to other issues, and
stop having to respond to
blatent mispresentations of what happening and wild, unsubstantiated and
demonstrably untrue accusations.
Are you saying I'm making wild, unsubstantiated and demonstrably untrue
accusations? Good way to work constructively with others.
By the way, I didn't accuse anyone of censorship, even though you seem to be
implying that I did ("I can hardly be accused of censoring Fred's
opinions").