[WikiEN-l] It remains true that some people are just impossible to "reason" with, Jimbo?

[Mr Paul Vogel]

Dear Jimbo,

You said:

"I'm not one to comment on detailed content disputes,
since those are beyond my realm of comfort for the
most part, but is it possible that there could be a
compromise that retains the link _where_ he wants it,
but in a section labelled "Examples of modern
anti-semitism" or something like that?"

That might be acceptable, but, that is not what would
actually maintain a NPOV within all articles, Jimbo.

In fact, the only real reason that I wanted to add the
http://www.Jewwatch.com pov link to the
other[[Judaism]] article under "criticisms" was only
to illustrate the double-standards and the lying
hypocrisy of Jews deleting that slanderous pov link to
Jewwatch.com, but then their double-standard of them
not also deleting the four slanderous pov links to
[[cosmotheism]].

It is very clear that the real "people" that are
actually being "just impossible" to "reason" with 
is not me and Sam Spade can actually attest to that
fact. :D  

"The problem with putting Jew Watch in the section
'Criticism' is that it lends too much credence to a
website that mostly consists of insane
rants.  It isn't "Criticism" in the sense of rational
respectful disagreement, it's just a huge pile of
nonsense."

Indeed, as are those slanderous and that huge pile of
pov garbage four "criticism" links to the religion
of[[cosmotheism]] article. 

If you delete one link to such pov insane rants, for
[[Judaism]] then you must do the same thing within the
[[cosmotheism]] article under the four linked and
slanderous and false [[criticisms]] of this religion
as well. That is maintaining the Wiki NPOV as I see
it, and doesn't reflect double-standards, but, only
fairness, Jimbo.

"As to Paul's rantings on the mailing list, I strongly
advise him to coooool it."

If you were being constantly and falsely slandered,
blocked, banned, and censored, would you have been so
"coooool" with it? 
I honestly do doubt it, Jimbo. LOL! :D

"If I were on the arbitration committee, and this came
before me, I'd vote for a ban and be done with it."

And then you would lose all credibility, Jimbo,
because you didn't "walk the talk" regarding NPOV.
Not very wise, Jimbo, being so "rash" is it?  

"Every time someone accuses us of censorship, etc., we
should take it seriously."

You should, but, you have not, which is disappointing.
I would have expected you to be a bit more "morally
courageous" and "fair", Jimbo. Perhaps, I was wrong.


"Are we being too quick to judge?"

Yes, you and some others surely are doing so.

"Are we giving in to a temptation to suppress
information that we aren't comfortable with?"

Obviously so.

"Are we being too harsh about something that is
essentially a personality conflict, or a user who
lacks social graces?"

Yes, indeed, but not actually on my part. :D
Some people just can't handle the WHOLE TRUTHS
of REALITY, but, only what they want to hear! :D

"But, after that, it remains true that some people are
just impossible, and it's a shame."

It remains true that some people are just impossible
to "reason" with, Jimbo, and that is a "shame".

I guess that is true, Jimbo, most especially, for any
of those people that are "rationally challenged" or
that are just such "moral cowards" that they will not
ever stand up for the TRUTH and for what is factually
ever RIGHT.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

http://www.cosmotheism.net

--Jimbo







	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover