On 20 Oct 2007 at 23:38:39 +0000, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote: [long line rewrapped]

Well, yes, you add little to legitimate dialog, but part of what you see is the contrast between the very liberal rules which govern this mailing list and the level of tolerance on the talk page of the article about a subject who is actively being harassed. If you have something to say about such harassment, you are expected to be knowledgable about it. Cla68 adopted a pose of naive ignorance. You like that pose too, and it is an effective debating technique, in fact, Socrates often used in the dialogues published by Plato. However, when you get down to cases, and there you are, in the midst of an active dispute, acting dumb, well...

This isn't the first time you've referred to my "effective debating technique". In fact, when I was a kid, my mom always urged me to get on the debating team at high school because I'd be good at it; unfortunately, my high school didn't have one, and I had to settle for the math and quiz bowl teams. I guess being compared to Socrates is pretty impressive, at least if I don't dwell on the fact that his fellow citizens voted the death penalty on him.

Your statements in that area seem to imply that I'm logically correct in my views, but politically incorrect because those views offend the wrong people. Is that accurate?