Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Right, well, we could talk about that offlist if you really want,
OK, whatever, but if you don't want to talk about it here, maybe you shouldn't have brought it up here.
Maybe not. I only wanted to make a general point using your entry as an example. Sorry about that.
The only person here who seems to think the article is biased is you, for reasons that you don't want to discuss on this list.
That's not true. I'm not interested in boring everyone with a long discussion of how my politics and yours differ, and my own critique of your work. But I can tell you how I think the article is biased. The point is that your work *is* controversial and the biography doesn't give any suggestion of that.
Similarly, the solution to the problem you're posing isn't for me to stifle myself but for others to overcome their reluctance to edit boldly -- assuming that such reluctance even exists, which you haven't demonstrated.
I personally think that the article about you speaks for itself in terms of critics being reluctant to edit, out of courtesy to you, or fear of you having the same sort of outbursts that you've had at Ed Poor in the past.
But again, the issue is *not* your entry per se, but just your entry as a nice illustration of the problems of autobiography.
--Jimbo