[WikiEN-l] User Leumi

Wed Dec 10 00:25:29 UTC 2003

I've been following the Leumi debates with some interest without butting in, 
and I actually find them quite interesting. Here is a determined contributor 
who wants to ensure that another side of a very complex issue gets heard, yet 
he manages to do so in a very civil and polite manner, accepting criticism and 
showing willingness to compromise, while still standing up for his position 
and his right to express it--even though most of the other people dealing with 
the materials disagree resolutely with him. The fact that it is done civilly is 
in itself commendable, and I believe that given time an acceptable compromise 
will be reached. 

Furthermore, when asked to give sources, he has done so. The fact that his 
sources have been challenged is irrelevant--the fact is that there are plenty of 
people who accept those sources, very often blindly, just as other people 
accept the opposing sources, very often blindly. For example, how many of the 
people who are discussing Finkelstein have actually taken the time to read 
Finkelstein (lots of people admitted that they hadn't actually read the book)? Of 
those that did read it, how many people really read it critically? By the way, I 
would say the same thing about Peters, Pipes, or whatever sources Leumi 
brings. 

Unfortunately, when it comes to neutral point of view, we all tend to place 
our positions somewhere near the middle ground. However, given the good nature 
of the debate between the parties (and we all know how badly a bad-natured 
debate can go), I think that this is a perfect venue for mediation. Regardless of 
any issues of age or medical conditions (which I think are irrelevant and 
border on the ad hominem), Leumi is defending his position admirably--even though 
I might disagree with him on certain key points. I mean admirably not in 
terms of his position but his demeanor.  I hope the mediators can work their magic 
here. 

My suggestion would be to have each side (Leumi and Viajero) pick a mediator 
each and have them both agree on a third mediator. That way there can be no 
claims of bias by either side over who the mediators are. 

Good luck, guys,

Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031209/8b4212af/attachment.htm 