James D. Forrester wrote:
[[Sollog]] believes himself to be the son of God (AIUI,
or God
himself, or something), and there are very few, perhaps no, people who hold
this opinions of him; thus, we would not mention his claim in the article,
as it is inappropriately giving time and hence credence to a cause that does
not warrant it. This, indeed, is exactly what we do do. Common sense seems
to have triumphed. :-)
I've
never said that only one POV should be represented, only that
extreme minority POVs shouldn't be.
This is still treating truth as a numbers game. Sometimes great
scientific discoveries have come from people who stubbornly maintained
their opinions on a discovery. Verifiability is a more important
criterion than being the position of a small minority. Some
people who held the ridiculous minority notion that the earth went
around the sun were severely persecuted at one time.
So? It's not our job to trumpet minor views "just in case" they turn
out to
be correct all along. Yes, we're "treating truth as a numbers game":
it's
called showing editorial judgement.
If Sollog is the only source of evidence for his being God he has a
verifiability problem. Under those circumstances being a part of a
minority is moot.
Ec