On 24/09/2007, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Someone wrote:
No, I consider Wikipaedia an attack site, and do not wish to further Wikipaedia's attacks against individuals.
Sorry, but why is this person still being allowed to post here? It's enough of a firehose already without this kind of nonsense.
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
So let me get this straight. Wikipaedia has the right to emotionally hurt, emotionally harass, emotionally abuse, paint in a false light, defame, or violate the privacy of any individual it does not like, for whatever reason. These individuals, however, do not have the right to lift a finger in their defence, nor does anyone else have a right to speak on their behalves, nor do the Chinese have a right to say anything at all.
On 27/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 24/09/2007, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Someone wrote:
No, I consider Wikipaedia an attack site, and do not wish to further Wikipaedia's attacks against individuals.
Sorry, but why is this person still being allowed to post here? It's enough of a firehose already without this kind of nonsense.
So let me get this straight. Wikipaedia has the right to emotionally hurt, emotionally harass, emotionally abuse, paint in a false light, defame, or violate the privacy of any individual it does not like, for whatever reason. These individuals, however, do not have the right to lift a finger in their defence, nor does anyone else have a right to speak on their behalves, nor do the Chinese have a right to say anything at all.
Well, no, that's not what he said at all. But thank-you for proving his point.
On 26/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Well, no, that's not what he said at all. But thank-you for proving his point.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Well, if you do not think Wikipaedia should be called an attack site, I assume you will yourself refrain from calling WR, WT, WW, and ED attack sites?
On 27/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 26/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Well, no, that's not what he said at all. But thank-you for proving his point.
Well, if you do not think Wikipaedia should be called an attack site, I assume you will yourself refrain from calling WR, WT, WW, and ED attack sites?
I wonder why you're challenging me to agree to stop doing something I'm not (and something I couldn't care much less about, for that matter). One has to wonder if you actually read the content of this mailing list, or just skim it looking for comments you could use to launch off on tangents about your own pet topics from...
Please, for the love of peace and quiet, will you stop kicking up a vast amount of noise to satisfy your own self-importance, and let us get on with doing some work? There used to be actual discussions here that didn't promptly devolve into nonsense about privacy, ramblings about banning, and other thoroughly unrelated crap, you know. Somewhere or another, we may even have touched on an encyclopedia for more than three messages at a time.
I miss it. There are times this sad state of affairs makes it seem worth throwing in the towel on three years of work and taking up carpentry, just to get away from the sheer navel-gazing futility of it all. Come on, people, we can do better than this.
On 26/09/2007, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
I wonder why you're challenging me to agree to stop doing something I'm not (and something I couldn't care much less about, for that matter).
I said 'refrain from'. There was no implication that you had already done so. Others have, I don't really pay much attention to who says what. In any case, I guess you probably will. Good for you!
One has to wonder if you actually read the content of this mailing list, or just skim it looking for comments you could use to launch off on tangents about your own pet topics from...
And you consider 'the content' to be...?
Please, for the love of peace and quiet, will you stop kicking up a vast amount of noise to satisfy your own self-importance,
Self-importance? I asked WP to leave me alone a long time ago. Response? I had to be made to suffer for the good of WP. And I do care about others.
and let us get on with doing some work? There used to be actual discussions here that didn't promptly devolve into nonsense about privacy, ramblings about banning, and other thoroughly unrelated crap, you know.
I'd never have posted here if I weren't banned from complaining to OTRS on threat of AN/I.
Somewhere or another, we may even have touched on an encyclopedia for more than three messages at a time.
But do you consider the ethical impact of the encylopaedia? The consequences of running it?
On 9/26/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Others have, I don't really pay much attention to who says what.
We've noticed.
On 27/09/2007, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/26/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Others have, I don't really pay much attention to who says what.
We've noticed.
It has advantages. If someone says something that offends me, I will probably forget who it was soon enough, so I guess I won't be holding many long-term grudges against individuals.
On 26/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Well, no, that's not what he said at all. But thank-you for proving his point.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
But wasn't that what he was saying? He doesn't want the attacks to be removed from Wikipaedia, but he does want to censor people for complaining about them?
Unless you think he is in total denial of their existence? Seriously, do you think it is possible for a user- contributed site to be used extensively without some people making attacks on it?
On 9/27/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 26/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Well, no, that's not what he said at all. But thank-you for proving his point.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
But wasn't that what he was saying? He doesn't want the attacks to be removed from Wikipaedia, but he does want to censor people for complaining about them?
Unless you think he is in total denial of their existence? Seriously, do you think it is possible for a user- contributed site to be used extensively without some people making attacks on it?
I think this is all a big misunderstanding. We are talking about Wikipedia here. Armed Blowfish has problems with a site called "Wikipaedia" (apparently, http://www.wikipaedia.com ) which I can fully understand ;-)
Magnus