On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 01:27:20 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> There are those who consider "academic expert
on webcomix" to be an
> oxymoron. There are also others who claim expertise in DRV right now
> who support deletion.
To be specific, Dragonfiend is claiming expertise but
singularly
failing to substantiate said claim when asked directly several times;
in the meantime conducting increasingly shrill personal attacks on
Phil.
For sure. I have asked Dragonfiend to calm down, these comments are
out of line. And I apologise to Phil for not doing that yesterday,
because I certainly did notice.
> We have an ongoing RFAR on pseudoscience where an
expert has been
> pushing his novel theories. How am I supposed to ell if Phil is using
> a novel interpretation of what is significant? Secondary sources, not
> "I know better". And actually I trust Phil's judgment, just as I
> trust Tony Sidaway's, but Tony usually brings better arguments than "I
> know better".
Well, yes. But does an expert count more than five
people who know
nothing about a field? I submit it does. Wikipedia is supposed to
respect experts, after all, not say "fuck off, you were outvoted by
us."
Like I said, I trust Phil's judgment, but the style was excessively
brusque.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG