On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:34:43 -0700, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:05:26 +1100, Skyring
<skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Adam is a good and well-respected editor, and I did not
think that he would be blocked. I merely want to
be able to explore
opposing views without being subjected to personal attacks which are
upsetting and distracting. I guess I want him to be aware of the
community view on such things, as my own requests for him to moderate
his behaviour seem only to enrage him further.
Peter, your comments cannot be allowed to stand. I can't get inside
your head, but judging by your behavior, you goaded Adam into
attacking you. He shouldn't have let you, it's true.
Judging by Adam's history on Wikipedia, he lets himself be goaded by
quite a few of people. You are hardly suggesting that this is an
isolated instance, are you?
Nevertheless, as
he has to take responsibility for his actions, so should you for
yours. You have gone round and round in circles with him and several
others, using sophistry in place of argument; attempting to replace
fact with your personal opinion; and replying to each question with a
question of your own, rather than an answer.
This is simply not true. I grew tired of responding to Adam's
questions when he so often evaded my own. Fair's fair.
My opinions are backed up with checkable quotes. I note on checking
the discussion page that you have provided just one quote - the text
of a link I myself provided. You accurately pointed out that it dated
from a time when John Howard was not Prime Minister, so I provided one
from when he was.
Adam's sources are generally an appeal to popular opinion, some
partisan site such as the ARM, or his own individual interpretation of
the Constitution, unsupported by expert opinion.
You have accused Adam of
misrepresenting the constitution, when he was paraphrasing it very
precisely. (Your subsequent claim that "shall be" and "is" have
different meanings in this context is false, and you have offered no
reason for your view.)
Again, this is simply not true. Several times I have pointed out the
similar wording in s101 where "shall be" cannot be equated to "is".
By
saying that the Constitution says that the Governor-General is the
representative of the Queen Adam is downplaying the historical aspect
of the text, and my point, expressed several times, is that we have
moved on. The Governor-General is no longer quite the representative
of the Queen and her government that he was at Federation. The role in
this respect has diminished and his role as representative of the
people rather than the government has increased.
You've been told repeatedly what the community
consensus is on the issue, both here and on the talk page of the
article. The page has had to be protected because of the dispute.
Slrubenstein and Ta bu shi da yu have both written excellent e-mails
to this list refuting or questioning your position, yet you haven't
addressed their concerns, offered additional source material, or
withdrawn your argument.
Perhaps they should direct argument on this subject to the discussion
page. I am addressing your points here because you seem to insist on
it.
As for your claim that you didn't wish to see Adam blocked, you have,
I believe, reported him twice on the admin noticeboard, and also, I
believe, twice on this list. That's an odd way to behave if you harbor
no desire to see him blocked.
I reject your interpretation. I have repeatedly asked Adam to moderate
his behaviour and this only served to provoke further abuse, as can
readily be seen. By making the issue public my intention was to get
others to ask him to calm down. I hope that this has had an effect. I
also note that blocks on Adam don't seem to last long, as he can
always find a willing admin.
--
Peter in Canberra