[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[Anthony]

On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
> > on 10/12/07 8:23 AM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan at tobias.name wrote:
> >>
> >> it's the whole business that we need to constantly
> >> pussyfoot around these topics and not say what we really mean, for
> >> fear of offending somebody or being labeled as "blaming the victim"
> >> (or worse), that is a major part of the problem.
> >>
> > I agree with you, Dan. There is a huge difference between attacking
> > an issue
> > and attacking a person. If you want to attack an issue - do it
> > honestly, and
> > in public. If you must attack a person - make it a confrontation -
> > make it
> > verbally - and in private.
>
> I am, at this point, unconvinced that the line between the issue and
> the people is so easily drawn here.
>
> It is a pressing question, I think, how a complete nutter like Brandt
> can get taken so seriously by an utterly reputable news source. And I
> think the answer has a lot to do with the egregiously poor management
> of these accusations - management that was, in point of fact, led by
> SlimVirgin's refusal to answer any questions, no matter how well-
> intended.
>
Actually I think the depiction of Brandt as "a complete nutter" is
more a symptom of someone who gets too much of their information from
Wikipedia (and Wikipedia-related resources like this mailing list).
If you actually read what he himself has written or (God forbid)
actually have a conversation with him I think you'll get a totally
different view.  For instance, he doesn't push the MI-5 thing, and he
expressly is against using the term "spy".

So in that sense the efforts of Fred and company are working, Brandt
has been painted as "a complete nutter" to Wikipedians.