On 1/3/07, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:20,
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.comwrote:
>
> No, since when has attaching 'Nazi' to something been an acceptable
way to
> argue? Don't quote Seinfeld to me.
I'm not American, I don't watch it.
That
> goes also for others on the list. You
'come on'. Stop being an
ethnocentric
jerk.
Oh, grow up.
It was funny. And appropriate.
If you're that thin-skinned that you find it upsetting, then you DESERVE
to
be
upset.
Actually, it wasn't funny. It wasn't even a joke, as far as I can see. It
wss intended to re-open the old deletionist-inclusionist schism.
Schism? Wow. I didn't realize we were getting to religious levels here.
Bogdan's post was a bit, I felt, overblown about the inclusion of webcomics,
websites, and other web content in Wikipedia.
The Cunctator, having been a face of some eminence on enWP in the early
days, pops up here again.
Well, thank you. I'm not sure "eminence" is a word anyone would ever use to
describe my face, though.
Welcome back, I say;
I didn't realize I had left.
but please don't assume we're in the same
timewarp as you.
Just a jump to the left....[1]
Matters such as reliable sourcing for articles are not now regarded as
optional: we are more sensitive on the issue. Someone
who posts here on the
topic of unsourced articles about websites might expect a reasoned argument,
in line with the current policies, rather than that.
The topic wasn't unsourced articles about websites, if I remember correctly.
Bogdan's complaint is primarily one of notability, I believe. There's also
been quite a reasonable discussion about the definition of an acceptable
source.
Furthermore Godwin's Law applies: call someone a Nazi, you LOSE the
argument.
That's not Godwin's Law.
--tc
[1] Obligatory ethnocentric American pop-cultural reference.