--- Phil Sandifer <sandifer(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think you're misrepresenting how this goes.
Let's
take, say, Adam
Carr and Skyring. Or Slrubenstein and Xed. Here is
generally how it
goes.
User 1: Forcefully stated idea
User 2: Polite disagreement
User 1: Hostility at disagreement
User 2: Continued efforts at disagreement
User 1: Increasing hostility. Some abuse.
User 2: Bewildered suggestion of a compromise
User 1: Rejection of compromise. Hostility. Claim to
being willing to
compromise. (We're about a month into the cycle now)
User 3: Protection of article.
Next month, on a new article...
User 1: Forcefully stated idea
User 2: Wincing, disagreement.
User 1: Accusation that User 2 is biased and
shouldn't edit this
article. Other abuse.
User 2: Stubbornness, some reluctance to discuss
this again.
User 1: Repeated statement to be willing to
compromise, coupled with
complete lack of compromise offered and streams of
abuse.
User 2: Requests for page to be protected.
User 3: Protects page.
Next month, on yet another article
User 1: Forcefully stated idea
User 2: Pointing out that to date, nobody has agreed
with User 1.
User 1: Accusation of a cabal.
User 2: Mild personal attack.
User 1: Arbcoms User 2.
Yout left out how User 1 accuses User 2 AND User 3 of
being members of the cabal out to get him.
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/