On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 18, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Guettarda wrote:
On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer
<snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 18, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Guettarda wrote:
More to the point though, since you brought up your experience
teaching
comp, wouldn't you fail a student for submitting an entirely off-
topic
answer to your question?
I have indeed stopped beating my wife.
Go back and read the intructions at the top of the question paper.
I'd invoke Hitler, but this particular line of thought Godwinned all
on its own.
So you are saying that, as a person running for the ArbComm, you are
unwilling to say
1. What you think about personal attacks here on the listserv? After all,
you have compared established editors (admins among them) to notorious POV
pushers. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but inasmuch as you have
chosen to run for the ArbComm, it makes sense that you should clarify your
positions, not further cloud the matter with unrelated material
2. You have drawn allusions to the LaRouche case, one of the most famous
ArbComm cases. Does this mean that you believe that the people involved in
this matter should be treated in a manner similar with Herschel...?
3. You have stated "I just have a lot of trouble with the idea that a
large-scale national issue like this - an allegedly stolen election - didn't
get national coverage. If there is something worth covering *in an
encyclopedia* in this, there is a mainstream, verifiable source for it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2004_U.S._presidential_election_controver…
As an ArbComm candidate, do you really think that anything that doesn't make
it to the NYTimes should not be in Wikipedia?
Should you, as an ArbComm candidate, expect to be able to just brush these
things off by with references to Godwin's law?
Ian