On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:29:21 -0500, steven l. rubenstein
<rubenste(a)ohiou.edu> wrote:
Skyring's response is, in my opinion, bizarre:
Yikes! It appears that way, doesn't it?
If you were to go back through the history of that particular talk
page, you would see that Adam at one stage misquoted a line of the
Constitution, substituting "is" for "shall be", at the same time
using
boldface to emphasise his opinion that it was a fact that the
Constitution said it.
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&…]
I corrected him and there was some discussion, Adam quoting the
correct text and apparently unable to detect the misquotation I'd
pointed out. He then began a new section, divorcing his argument from
the misquotation I'd complained about:
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&…]
There was some more discussion, and then Adam deleted most of the
discussion page. I presume he added it to the existing archive though
I have not checked. This edit made his original misquotation vanish
from ready gaze:
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&…]
I responded, and then Adam made the comments to which I earlier objected:
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&…]
In between Adam's generally distracting contributions, it is a
pleasure to see the discussion from other editors proceed smoothly
towards consensus, where we agreed that stating baldly that Australia
is a republic is not going to fly, but that using sourced quotes from
the Prime Minister that he considers Australia to be "a crowned
republic" is appropriate.
--
Peter in Canberra