On 6/17/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You are
proposing a theory that does not, on the face of it, assume
good faith, hence it is imperative that you provide evidence for it.
I had no theory when I asked the question, which is why I asked it.
You have a theory now, or so it seems: that CharlotteWebb knowingly
violated WP:NOP.
No, I have no theory, I simply pointed out that it was a simpler theory than
your own.
That you fail
to do so weighs against you.
You're really not in a position to make that kind of judgement.
Sure I am, when forming my personal opinion of your conduct.
"Forming"? LOL!
It matters because I'm trying to analyse your motives in this, to
understand your enforcement of NOP.
Rather than setting yourself up as judge and jury, apply the same principles
you applied to CharlotteWebb, including AGF.
Refusing to answer questions
really doesn't make you look good, though of
course you may not care.
Strange how you view the implications "refusing to answer questions" so
differently when it comes to CharlotteWeb versus me.