Vicki Rosenzweig <vr(a)redbird.org> wrote:
At 11:03 PM 6/30/03 -0700, Anthere wrote:
Just for the record
Since Royal We and I are not able to directly discuss
using words, I proposed that we discuss uniquely
You might do better discussing things if you addressed
people by their actual names. The "royal we" is, in English,
also considered appropriate for use by editors.
Ah ? Then sorry. We probably do not have the same definition of Royal We then. I used it
because most of the time Robert is saying "we have been" when only referring to
him or "we think" when only expressing his opinion. I shall stop then but will
personnaly go on talking to me at the first person. As it should be in english. :-)
Everything I agree with, I keep. Everything I
agree with, I revert. Words are useless, and acts will
speak by themselves.
If you believe words are useless, why are you working on
an encyclopedia? This isn't just you and RK: the point, I
hope, is to create something that will be useful for people
who want to read it.
If anyone is interested in the
topic, that might be different.
I am interested, as, I assume, are others. What I'm not
interested in is listening to the two of you talk past each
other on this list.
but then, what do you suggest that I do?????
Are there people here that would say that I refused to talk to them on talk pages ? That I
refused all their propositions and reverted their changes all the time without any
explanation ? That I made changes without any consideration to other people opinions ? I
am serious here. Are they ? I might be a pain quite often, but I don't think I did
such a thing.
Really, what do you suggest me to do when whatever what I say to Robert, he is turning it
entirely in a fallacious argument. If you have read his arguments and his emails
commenting mines, what do you suggest I do ? Do you really consider he is discussing ? Do
you think this is constructive or destructive discussion ? Do you think it is useful that
we are spending so much time for that amount of uselessness ? Do you think we are building
an interesting encyclopedia while we exchange such nice comments to each other ?
I am ready to listen to suggestions here. Whatever suggestion. I am waiting for your help
please. Because in truth, I am damn near leaving the english project, and that is
*precisely* what RK is waiting for. So if you feel like helping, I recommand you do,
because very soon, there will be no help to provide. Either I leave now, or I will revert
so much that you will all decide to ban me. I expressed my opinion, I tried to give
arguments, several times. So what ?
I think I am plaguing this mailing list often for you all to be convinced I love talking
and discussing. RK on the opposite is on this list only to comment the contributors who
annoy him. Nothing else. But I doubt not he also loves discussing. So what about
suggesting him to go discussing with somebody else? But this is not the point. A little
bit of fallacy using is also fine by me. But there are limits. When a discussion is 100%
fallacies, entirely empty shell, I think we are losing our time. At least I am losing
mine. And yes, I also think that RK is also losing his, because if he is still around in
spite of his agressivity, he is probably considered a very good contributor. etter than
I am certainly losing my time admiring the empty discussion of RK instead of writing stuff
I want to write. Is it acceptable that some contributors are driving away other
contributors just by drowning them under tons of meaningless arguments ? Then is it okay
that I refuse to go on with meaning less discussion to try to alert people, and then be
said *I* am not having the right behavior ? Is it acceptable that Robert refuse to answer
my questions and to acknowledge my position, but instead keeps claiming I should not be
there if I understand nothing and write poorly ?
Is it acceptable that each time he says "black" and I answer "white",
he then claim "I never said I did not agree with white. Of course it is white.
Anthere is being false when she is claiming she said white, she said black all along of
course" ? Lucky enough when he does not add I am a vandal, a troll, and should be
Discussion ??? Please. This is not discussion. This is just driving people away.
Is it acceptable that most other contributors just look at that, perhaps not caring in the
least, perhaps deeply annoyed, perhaps greatly laughing and privately supporting RK,
perhaps feeling sorry but not knowing what to do ?
Is this a way to work together ?
So, if *you* and others are interested in the topic, please go, but go to the Gaia theory
talk page, and state that either everything not about science has to go away, or state
that Gaia is *not* only about science and other pov have room there. In any case, answer
to RK since he decided my opinion did not count. What am I supposed to do when he acts as
if I was not there ??? And please do participate in the topic. Any of you. Toby said he
thought Gaia was *not* only about science, but RK on the talk page claims that nobody made
any comment, which means everyone agrees with him. Well, I also said things, and similarly
nobody commented them, so that might also say that everyone agrees with me. No ? Steve
said RK had a point, but he did not say which point.
Make the effort to say something, whatever, on the topic, not to less us both alone. This
is not good to let us alone.
If the *agreement* among *several* people is that the only things to say about Gaia are
the scientific proofs, then let it be so.
If references older to 50 years must go away, as too old to be worth, please let us go
back to all the old theories and remove them from articles about these topics. Let us keep
only neodarwinian evolution, and remove the other theories.
If theories not supported by scientific proofs must go away, please let us go back to all
the arguments not yet supported, such as in the physical fields, and lets remove them from
If mysticism must go away from this article, please let us remove all articles dealing
with reading stars and other paganist articles.
If politics has to go away from this article, please let us remove any reference of
politics from all agricultural articles as well.
If everyone agrees that old theories, mysticism born from Gaia theories, political parties
and movements born from Gaia theories, and only science pov are welcome in this article,
why can't we just keep everything as it is now ?
If all this is removed with several people agreement, I will let it be so. Then I will put
a banner at the top saying the neutrality of this page is questionned, because it will be
only expressed from a scientific pov as Unique Truth. And I will try to find another place
to put *everything* I think really *belong* to an article on Gaia theories. Then, there
will be double information.
But if you all tolerate that RK does whatever he plans to do, without any consideration to
the only one working on these pages, and decide to call me a vandal because I just try to
express my disappointement and despair of what should be and not be
"discussion", and try to do whatever I can invent to make you all aware that RK
behavior is perhaps wrong, then I will just blank my user page, and go away.
You are most welcome to answer to me. I always read what others tell me and try to
understand what they say, and usually answer.
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!