On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Charles Matthews<charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > stevertigo wrote:
> Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree with you? > (See your attitude to Cary Bass.) How have I bad-mouthed anyone? My "attitude" toward Cary has actually been quite positive - before I ever tried to communicate with him, I had already imparted to him such human qualities as a bright and an outgoing personality, and a fair and balanced approach to new concepts. Hence when I made my plain and open request - via wikein, mediazilla, and a private email - I had no doubt that we would soon get a response from him. I was simply expressing my disappointment in how things turned out, and in fact I attribute his lack of responsiveness not to him, personally, but to whatever behind-the-scenes artifices may be constricting his degrees of motion and general sense of freedom. > I seem to remember a thread with a very different feel. You had some support > from Fred Bauder, who likes > the idea of discussing dispute resolution. Fred's an intelligent being, and when I'm not deliberately pouring fuel on the fire - he might even agree with me. He understands this is an open project, and that in all but a few special cases, its issues that are best discussed openly. Pretty simple, actually. > You had very definite opposition from me. You can call me sub-articulate all > you like, but I > don't think it will stick. I would never call you sub-articulate, Charles. In fact you are one of the most articulate people I've ever dealt with. However, with that said, as I recall in this case you just didn't have much of a point to make other than you didn't like it. I would not say this means that you were sub-artculate, personally, but rather that your posting on the matter lacked the substantive and articulated argument we've generally come to expect from you. > And my point is that your broad brush means the second sentence would > self-contradict, in a welter of meddling and advocacy. If that's the > intended remit (everything up to and including the kitchen sink) then > there was no misunderstanding at all about the scope. I don't see the contradiction. A large part of 'being helpful' is in fact just being open and available. If a private, closed, proprietary system thinks that openness is unhelpful, then the fates usually demand that such system get retooled. I understand that you were Arbcom for a while, and you might suspect that resolution-l would just be a forum by which I could lambaste Arbcom, inline with the points I have been making recently about its lack of openness and responsiveness - concepts made clear in the WP:RFAR/OAR case. The real point here is that we don't need to get into that territory too much more, if we establish an open forum - not a closed one, mind you - at resolution-l. -Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l