Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Right, well, we
could talk about that offlist if you really want,
OK, whatever, but if you don't want to talk about it here, maybe you
shouldn't have brought it up here.
Maybe not. I only wanted to make a general point using your entry as
an example. Sorry about that.
The only person here who seems to think the article is
biased is you,
for reasons that you don't want to discuss on this list.
That's not true. I'm not interested in boring everyone with a long
discussion of how my politics and yours differ, and my own critique of
your work. But I can tell you how I think the article is biased. The
point is that your work *is* controversial and the biography doesn't
give any suggestion of that.
Similarly, the solution to the problem you're
posing isn't for me to
stifle myself but for others to overcome their reluctance to edit
boldly -- assuming that such reluctance even exists, which you
haven't demonstrated.
I personally think that the article about you speaks for itself in
terms of critics being reluctant to edit, out of courtesy to you, or
fear of you having the same sort of outbursts that you've had at Ed
Poor in the past.
But again, the issue is *not* your entry per se, but just your entry
as a nice illustration of the problems of autobiography.
--Jimbo