On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark <jeffrey.latham(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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?
No, they're mostly based on other tells, including over-familiarity
with a number of aspects of Wikipedia.
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.
I just called you bluff, that's all. You were hoping we would all just
agree the discussion is about a new policy, which is the way you (and
a few others) are trying to frame this. I reject your framing.