On Oct 28, 2008, at 3:12 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
I wish people would acquaint themselves with the
facts.
Oh, this is rich.
On Oct 28, 2008, at 3:09 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
It was not unsourced. It was sourced.
You might not want to demand people acquaint themselves with the facts
a mere three minutes after blowing them yourself.
Here is the version immediately prior to Lanier's posting of his
complaint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaron_Lanier&oldid=53617698
Please point to which part of that article is a source for the claim
that he is a filmmaker.
Please point to which part of that article sources the summary of
McLuhan that forms the final portion of the "Philosophical and
technological ideas" section.
And as for
On Oct 28, 2008, at 3:08 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
However the Subject of a BLP you are claiming should
be treated
differently
than all other editors. That is, we should take their word as a
source in
order to modify their own articles. And not only should we do that
(which we
already do in part), but we should do it, without even the ability to
determine that they are *in fact* the subject of that BLP in the
first place.
I am not saying anything of the sort.
-Phil