On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:29:21 -0500, steven l. rubenstein rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
Skyring's response is, in my opinion, bizarre:
Yikes! It appears that way, doesn't it?
If you were to go back through the history of that particular talk page, you would see that Adam at one stage misquoted a line of the Constitution, substituting "is" for "shall be", at the same time using boldface to emphasise his opinion that it was a fact that the Constitution said it.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
I corrected him and there was some discussion, Adam quoting the correct text and apparently unable to detect the misquotation I'd pointed out. He then began a new section, divorcing his argument from the misquotation I'd complained about: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
There was some more discussion, and then Adam deleted most of the discussion page. I presume he added it to the existing archive though I have not checked. This edit made his original misquotation vanish from ready gaze: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
I responded, and then Adam made the comments to which I earlier objected: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
In between Adam's generally distracting contributions, it is a pleasure to see the discussion from other editors proceed smoothly towards consensus, where we agreed that stating baldly that Australia is a republic is not going to fly, but that using sourced quotes from the Prime Minister that he considers Australia to be "a crowned republic" is appropriate.