[WikiEN-l] Invitation for review

[stevertigo]

George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This dispute looks either like some combination of original research,
Stevertigo wrote:
>> I think its great George how you can just throw out an accusation like
Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> And I think it's astonishing, Stever, that someone who is as fond
> of wordplay and intellectual arguments as you seem to be could so
> blatantly miss the distinction between "looks like" and "is".

Well, in your view, would George normally say what something "is" (ie.
"this is a combination of"), or would he normally  just tell us what
something "looks like" (to him)? I mean if he can clarify his point in
this context further, in accord with your suggestion of what "is," you
might be even more astonished by my subsequent response.

And I don't do "wordplay." I do something quite.. different.

George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> You threw the question of your disruption block out here on wikien-L
> for comment.  You cannot reasonably object that people have responded
> with their impressions of the situation.

Well, Steve (above) thinks I should have taken you literally, or
perhaps seriously.

> My impression, to expand, is that you're playing language games and
> attempting to support something which violates OR and is to me morally
> repugnant.

Again with your "impressions."
Yes the subject matter is repugnant.
No I am not someone who thinks the subject matter is good stuff.
Yes, I likewise find the very insinuations, accusations, and
implications repugnant, when misdirected, misfired, or misapplied.
Yes, I think the over-efficient usage of the accusation itself
demonstrates an intellectual dishonesty, and perhaps inadequacy, on
the part of my peers.

> I know better than to assume of anyone in this crowd that the
> appearance of such a stance automatically equals that the person in
> fact does hold the views which are appearing in the argument.
> However, I see what I see, and I responded to your request for
> comment.

Hm. And now you know better.

> At the very least, you have successfully identified a hot button that
> you can push to the extent that it gets you blocked for some variation
> on disruption.  The normal reasonable human response to "Doctor, it
> hurt when I did that" is "Don't do that."

No, I simply made a editorial argument about the conceptualization of
subjective concepts, the necessity for explanations, the reliable
usage of extant sources, and the problem that defending subjective
concepts makes for flimsy, disingenuous arguments.

> If you have underlying arguments that do not appear to be OR, semantic
> lawyering, or supporting holocaust denial, I am willing to hear a more
> general articulation of the problem and I invite you to take a few
> steps back and clarify.  What you've done at every step so far,
> however, has been to dig yourself in deeper.

Ah, so your "impression" is that the "underlying" part of these
"arguments" to you "appears" to be all sorts of nasty things ranging
from 'leaving the toilet seat up,' to 'Hitler-love.'  Certainly you
are right: I don't want give you the "impression" that I "appear" to
be digging myself "deeper."

> Again - I know better, in this crowd, than to assume that such deeper
> hole digging behavior is anything more than intellectual stubbornness.
>  Hence AGF.  But at some point admins on wiki need to react to what we
> see and not what we hope is actually underlying.

Finally something I can't take apart to the bolts. I will have to
consider this though as just 'admin AGF only goes so far' before they
'react' to something they don't actually understand.

> Whatever your deeper point is - you've presented it in a monumentally
> inappropriate manner for the venues, and you're making yourself look
> horrible.  I advise you to stop, or to start over again from the very
> general description of the problem.

Actually there isn't (a "deeper point") and I haven't ("presented it
in a monumentally inappropriate manner"). I edited. Got
reverted/slandered. Responded. Got dissed. Argued. Got misconstrued.
Got slandered some more. Responded. Taken to ANI. Responded.  If you
could say how any of these satisfies your monumentally hyperbolic
characterizations, please take the time to read the discussion and
then comment about your "impressions."

-Stevertigo