On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:20:40PM +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Chad Perrin said:
It's pretty clear that Kevin's statement isn't factually supportable with evidence at hand, but that doesn't change the fact that what could easily be a mere bit of sloppy phrasing was instead treated by Tony as a deliberate and specific accusatory attack.
It's quite clear that the intent was to discredit those who disagreed with Kevin by questioning their motives and directly attacking their good faith. It was a vile accusation, insupportable and unworthy of this list.
Considering that I basically disagree with him (it's not a black-and-white disagreement, but at minimum I disagree with his conclusions in this instance), I find it interesting that, despite this comment by you, I did not feel that my motives and good faith intentions had been attacked or discredited in any way. As far as I can tell, he didn't speculate about the motives of those who disagree with him: he just speculated about the motives behind some (possibly inaccurately perceived) class of postings to Wikipedia. Not everyone who disagrees with him has posted a photo to Wikipedia with a nipple in it, after all, and not all posted photos with nipples need be examples of what he characterized as a trend.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]