In message , Jon 
O'Brien  writes
>In article <uNHhE+USCwlKFw$b@marage.demon.co.uk>,
>JFollett@marage.demon.co.uk (JFollett) wrote:

>And I think that experience, which I in no way condone, has warped your
>perception.

No it hasn't. It's sharpened it. They knew that setting up a
free for all Oh-Come-All-Ye-Wackos-And-Loonies would do just that and 
they did nothing about putting a few simple checks and balances in place 
to prevent such damage. They don't even bother to ensure that 
contributors aren't using Guard My Ass or Hide My IP programs. You want 
nice list of proxy servers? Take a look at Wacky Wiki's contributions. 
They don't even issue public apologies for the terrible harm that they 
and their gang of perverted keyboard terrorists cause.

> What I've tried to point out is that what you've done is the
>equivalent of insulting the people who have been tasked with removing
>graffiti from walls because you found one graffito deeply wounding.

All analogies that attempt to equate software with the real world are 
flawed. I may applaud the unpaid actions of hospital friends, splendid 
folk, but I sure as hell don't want them manning the operating theatres. 
I'd trust them with scalpels just as I trust BBC newscrews who like to 
point their cameras at Didcot's film cooling tower and run footage of 
the towers belching clouds of water vapour as evidence of global 
warming! Oops! Sorry. Off-message phrase. It's climate change this 
month. New term next month.

>You're blaming the newly appointed gamekeeper for the poacher's past
>actions, which is an utterly bizarre stance to adopt.

Another daft analogy! What the hell have gamekeepers got to do with it? 
A gamekeeper can usually be trusted to distinguish between a grouse and 
an grouch like me. Wacky Wiki have not given any undertaking to root out 
and stop stuff from proxies.
>
>> ...armies of wackos and loonies which are swarming gleefully around
>> the Wiki...
>
>So you think that anyone that has anything to do with Wikipedia is a
>wacko and a loony. All that does is highlight, as your snide and
>dismissive posts so often do, your own ignorance and bigotry.

Ooer, missus! A flaktoid! I'm losing the argument with this
appalling Follett character. What on earth shall I do? I know: I'll bung 
in some personal insults larded with unsubstantiated accusations about 
his other posts. I don't have to stand by anything I say because I 
worship at the great fountain of the Wikipedia. So fuck any need for 
accuracy.

>You may well have a genuine complaint about the way Wikipedia is run but
>throwing childish insults at people who volunteer to help correct the
>very problem you've been affected by is idiotic in the extreme and just
>makes you look like a pratt.

More personal insults? Oh dear. Thank God my questioning of the 
We'll-Only-Do-Sommat-When-Shit-Hits-the-Fan Standards of wacky Wiki 
makes me pratt in your eyes! It would be most grievous misfortune to 
have you agree with me!

Now there's a coincidence. A reference work have just sent me a 
biographically cutting .pdf file from a galley and asked me to correct 
any errors. I suppose I could say that
I'm spending a year dead for tax avoidance purposes.

Cheers

-- 
James Follett Proud to Prattish!

In article ,
james@marage.demon.co.uk (james) used various hackneyed debating tactics
in an attempt to avoid the main issue:

I'm not interested in your point-scoring games so you can go and exercise
your squirming and goal-post shifting tactics on someone else.

You may well have a genuine complaint about the way Wikipedia is run but
throwing childish insults at people who volunteer to help correct the
very problem you've been affected by is idiotic in the extreme and just
makes you look like a pratt.

Jon.

In message , Jon 
O'Brien  writes

>In article ,
>james@marage.demon.co.uk (james) used various hackneyed debating tactics
>in an attempt to avoid the main issue:
>
>I'm not interested in your point-scoring games so you can go and exercise
>your squirming and goal-post shifting tactics on someone else.

Er... You wuz the one who decided to resort to personal insults. At no 
time did I ever attempt to 'avoid the main issue'. You belated realised 
that playing hard ball with the appalling Jim Follett character needs a 
heavy bat which you don't have so you not only moved the goal posts but 
made off with them while laying down a smokescreen of wild references to 
'hackeyed debating tactics' and 'point-scoring games'. All the 
'squirming' is yours, my friend. You lost your rag and the argument.

-- 
James Follett.

"james"  wrote in message 
news:yh5s2xJun$lKFwvw@marage.demon.co.uk...

> All the 'squirming' is yours, my friend. You lost your rag and the 
> argument.


He's your friend?   Who'd have guessed eh?  Funny old world innit?

-- 
Dave (Sgt. Pepper)       Epsom, England
     My photo galleries at  http://www.pbase.com/davecq
    "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!"