----- Original Message ----- From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com
--- "Blair P. Houghton" blair@houghton.net wrote:
One of my favorite parts of the whole debacle was when GeorgeStepanek claimed I was a newbie. His account is dated December 10. Mine is dated January 1, but if I look around I can find edits I made over a year ago without having created a login.
Quite the guffaw around my keyboard, I can assure you.
Jim Cecropia, please note this. Your apologetics for him can end now.
RickK
Well, that's kind of a tepid smoking gun. I thought you were going to catch him admitting he was Usama bin Laden or something.
If you've read my posts, I've made two points: (1) I believe in engaging "problem" users, not banning them; I've said much the same about others users (172, GBWR, Rei come to mind) that I've been at polar opposites with; (2) 3RR is a new and abusive procedure in a Wikipedia that is moving to control minority users instead of improving the content.
Your post here illustrates part of the problem. If you can "prove" Blair is a bad guy (and assert that I am trying to "prove" him a good guy) you don't have to deal with the substantive issues. I think that's called a straw man, and a sort of convoluted way of begging the question.
--C
Jim Cecropia wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com
--- "Blair P. Houghton" blair@houghton.net wrote:
One of my favorite parts of the whole debacle was when GeorgeStepanek claimed I was a newbie. His account is dated December 10. Mine is dated January 1, but if I look around I can find edits I made over a year ago without having created a login.
Quite the guffaw around my keyboard, I can assure you.
Jim Cecropia, please note this. Your apologetics for him can end now.
RickK
Well, that's kind of a tepid smoking gun. I thought you were going to catch him admitting he was Usama bin Laden or something.
If you've read my posts, I've made two points: (1) I believe in engaging "problem" users, not banning them; I've said much the same about others users (172, GBWR, Rei come to mind) that I've been at polar opposites with; (2) 3RR is a new and abusive procedure in a Wikipedia that is moving to control minority users instead of improving the content.
Your post here illustrates part of the problem. If you can "prove" Blair is a bad guy (and assert that I am trying to "prove" him a good guy) you don't have to deal with the substantive issues. I think that's called a straw man, and a sort of convoluted way of begging the question.
--C
Did I ever vote "Support" for your adminship? I hope so! Cause then I would have been proved correct in my judgement of your suitability as an admin.
TBSDY
csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Jim Cecropia wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com
--- "Blair P. Houghton" blair@houghton.net wrote:
One of my favorite parts of the whole debacle was when GeorgeStepanek claimed I was a newbie. His account is dated December 10. Mine is dated January 1, but if I look around I can find edits I made over a year ago without having created a login.
Quite the guffaw around my keyboard, I can assure you.
Jim Cecropia, please note this. Your apologetics for him can end now.
RickK
Well, that's kind of a tepid smoking gun. I thought you were going to catch him admitting he was Usama bin Laden or something.
If you've read my posts, I've made two points: (1) I believe in engaging "problem" users, not banning them; I've said much the same about others users (172, GBWR, Rei come to mind) that I've been at polar opposites with; (2) 3RR is a new and abusive procedure in a Wikipedia that is moving to control minority users instead of improving the content.
Your post here illustrates part of the problem. If you can "prove" Blair is a bad guy (and assert that I am trying to "prove" him a good guy) you don't have to deal with the substantive issues. I think that's called a straw man, and a sort of convoluted way of begging the question.
--C
Did I ever vote "Support" for your adminship? I hope so! Cause then I would have been proved correct in my judgement of your suitability as an admin.
I'm inclined to agree, just based on the fact that it has been about a year since I've seen/heard anyone use the term "begging the question" properly. Considering how many times I've seen/heard it misused, that's really saying something.
Chad Perrin wrote:
csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
I'm inclined to agree, just based on the fact that it has been about a year since I've seen/heard anyone use the term "begging the question" properly. Considering how many times I've seen/heard it misused, that's really saying something.
How can you see someone begging the question?
TBSDY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote: | Chad Perrin wrote: | |> csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote: |> |> I'm inclined to agree, just based on the fact that it has been about a |> year since I've seen/heard anyone use the term "begging the question" |> properly. Considering how many times I've seen/heard it misused, |> that's really saying something. |> | | How can you see someone begging the question?
In a mailing list, for example.
- -- Mark Dobrowolski User:Markaci