--- Mark Gallagher
<m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
WP:POINT doesn't trump WP:NPOV, and I never said
it
did. One is a core
principle, the other is a page which, like many of
our policies, acts
only to restate "don't be a dick" in more socially
acceptable language.
Now, there are multiple ways of making a point.
Some of them involve
being a dick. You appear to be choosing one of
those ways, as WP:POINT
makes clear. It would be nice if you could restrain
yourself.
No, WP:DBAD uses unsuitably dickish language itself
and thus had to be removed to meta. In the hierarchy
its probably lower than {{proposed}}, though the
typically dickish citing of it would leave newbies to
believe otherwise. Please dont mistake casual
terseness for dickishness. I certainly dont.
I disagree
with the lawsuit paranoia, and dislike
its usage as a crutch in arguments wherin a
plain
application of basic bonehead-level NPOV will
suffice.
Like Ilmari the other day, I just threw that in for
discussion's sake.
Discussion is this thing we have occasionally
although, I admit, not
very often.
Yes, this 'discussion' is in contrast with the
terseness thing.
You think the category is incompatible with NPOV. I
think you're right.
There are those, however, who do not (or who have
not considered the
issue, and gone along with the cat because it's
there). There are two
ways for you to get your way: you can either
convince them you're right,
or you can grind their faces into dust. Now, you're
not in much of a
position these days to do any face-grinding, so
we're just left with the
former option.
Dont make this personal. This seems to be a rarer
case, and this is why I brought it to the list. The
basic point is that "consensus" only works if its
overwhelmingly in one direction or another, and (as I
think Cobb was alluding to) AFD doesnt always work as
a discussion forum. Where there are sharp divides
between actual consensus and NPOV, speaks to a deeper
issue of leadership with regard to NPOV, and this
relates to the problem of newbie indoctrination.
The traditional approach taken when trying to change
someone else's mind
is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can I best
state my message to
convince you I'm right?" The approach *you* are
taking is, "your
opinion differs from mine. How can you be *so
stupid* as to disagree
with me? Can't you idiots see the bleeding obvious?
I'm disgusted with
the lot of you!"
I was simply stating my case in a clear and
incontrovertible way. I dont see the need to make an
argument weak just for sake of endless discussion with
those who hold to a relativist position, or to appease
those, who fail AGF and assume dickishness where there
is none. I dropped a note, to bring some attn to it.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com