[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[Blu Aardvark]

jayjg wrote:
> Actually, a number of arguments have been put forward supporting this claim.
>   

A number of arguments, but none based on hard evidence. It has been 
argued that DennyColt was a single purpose account, and that certainly 
supports the claim, except that the argument has no evidence to back it 
up, and indeed, a close examination indicates that the evidence points a 
different direction. What other arguments have been put forward 
supporting the claim? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they *all* 
based on the insinuation that DennyColt proposed the policy in an 
attempt to disrupt the policymaking process?

> You specifically talked about a "policy they support", which was not
> BADSITES, but was very similar to it. Please explain where I can find
> that policy.
>   
As I said, I'm not referring to an actual policy, or proposed policy, 
but a practical policy or concept. I told you exactly what I was 
referring to. Please don't get into word game manipulation.