Ray Saintonge wrote
The leader of Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can raise when they are completely factual. So when he irresponsibly uses data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still current the results are bound to be chaotic.
Ray, you're at a signpost, and one of the directions says 'this way for convinced trolls'. Suggest you pull back.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote
The leader of Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can raise when they are completely factual. So when he irresponsibly uses data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still current the results are bound to be chaotic.
Ray, you're at a signpost, and one of the directions says 'this way for convinced trolls'. Suggest you pull back.
I'm not about to be intimidated by your veiled threats.
Ec
I'm not about to be taken in by all this. Can't we have constructive discussion that don't culminate in...
DRAMA!?
On 11/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote
The leader of Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can raise when they are completely factual. So when he irresponsibly uses data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still current the results are bound to be chaotic.
Ray, you're at a signpost, and one of the directions says 'this way for
convinced trolls'. Suggest you pull back.
I'm not about to be intimidated by your veiled threats.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Nov 11, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote
The leader of Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can raise when they are completely factual. So when he irresponsibly uses data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still current the results are bound to be chaotic.
Ray, you're at a signpost, and one of the directions says 'this way for convinced trolls'. Suggest you pull back.
I'm not about to be intimidated by your veiled threats.
OK, you don't have to be intimidated, but you are totally wrong, and continuing to accuse Jimbo of lying or being irresponsible when evidence has been presented by several people, Jimbo included, that you're wrong.
Which, you know, is the sort of thing that one could reasonably call trolling.
-Phil
On Nov 12, 2006, at 12:31 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
continuing to accuse Jimbo of lying
That is a complete fabrication on your part. Show the evidence or apologize.
"The leader of Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can raise when they are completely factual. So when he irresponsibly uses data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still current the results are bound to be chaotic. "
That pretty clearly shows that you think Jimbo deliberately made unfactual comments.
Now, since the evidence that you were completely wrong in throwing your accusations around has shown itself, apologize period.
-Phil
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Nov 12, 2006, at 12:31 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
continuing to accuse Jimbo of lying
That is a complete fabrication on your part. Show the evidence or apologize.
"The leader of Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can raise when they are completely factual. So when he irresponsibly uses data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still current the results are bound to be chaotic. "
That pretty clearly shows that you think Jimbo deliberately made unfactual comments.
Now, since the evidence that you were completely wrong in throwing your accusations around has shown itself, apologize period.
Not at all. There is nothing in there to imply "deliberately". Lack of attention to details, or negligence, or erroneous interpretation are but a few circumstnces that can lead to statements that are not completely factual. I do not deny that I referred to an irresponsible action, which is why I was careful to remove that when I responded to you. Irresponsibility, nevertheless, is a substantially lesser sin than a deliberate lie, and your extrapolation is totally unwarranted and offensive.
If I want to call anyone a liar, I have no need to avail myself of circumlocutions.
Ec