Oh, dry up. You always say this or that doesn't belong on the mailing list, and then you turn around and say that we *didn't discuss* things enough, like the slogan naming policy.
I don't mind your being curmudgeon -- we need at least one! -- but would you please do it in a consistent way?
-----Original Message----- From: The Cunctator [mailto:cunctator@kband.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 4:36 PM To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Iraq and chemical weapons
<US, Iraq, France discussion snipped>
This discussion does not belong on the mailing list.
On 3/25/03 5:36 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Oh, dry up. You always say this or that doesn't belong on the mailing list, and then you turn around and say that we *didn't discuss* things enough, like the slogan naming policy.
I don't mind your being curmudgeon -- we need at least one! -- but would you please do it in a consistent way?
I am consistent.
Maybe you can explain how an argument about US vs. French views of the believability of the US military is pertinent to Wikipedia policy.
When did I say that we *didn't discuss* the slogan naming policy enough?
If you're going to claim that I'm a curmudgeon, and tell me to dry up, maybe you should the facts first.
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Oh, dry up. You always say this or that doesn't belong on the mailing list, and then you turn around and say that we *didn't discuss* things enough, like the slogan naming policy.
I think your original question was perfectly fine. "Here's a controversial issue, how do we NPOV it?"
What Cunc was talking about, I'm pretty sure, was the discussion of the *content*, i.e. of justification for war, etc., etc.
We shouldn't talk about that here.
--Jimbo