Talk:Dianetics: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:41, 25 April 2006

Revision as of 18:44, 25 April 2006

Line 728:

::::::::::Unfortunately for Terryeo, his assumption was completely wrong. How do I know this? Because ''a month ago'', I saw what I suspected ''was'' a transcription error, and to check it and if necessary correct it, I obtained a copy of the book myself, and checked the accuracy of all the material that came from the book. Therefore, the fact that a transcription was done by Heldal-Lund, and posted on Heldal-Lund's website, is ''completely irrelevant'' -- what is in the article came directly from the hard copy of the book as published by Dover in 1957. But Terryeo even ''ask'' where the transcription came from? '''NO HE DID NOT.''' He leapt '''directly''' and '''incorrectly''' to the conclusion that the ''existence of'' a transcription on a "personal website" meant that the material was only as reliable as that personal website -- without making ''any'' attempt to check his assumption that the material existing in the article had come from the transcription that existed on a "personal website". If he didn't bother to ask, that can only mean one thing: '''he thinks it doesn't matter.''' He thinks that he can push an absurd interpretation of the rules under which if someone like myself has ensured that all material quoted from the book is 100% letter-by-letter faithful to the book, ''and'' someone else has done a separate transcription of the material onto a "personal website", the existence of the first person ''doesn't matter''.

::::::::::For the record, I don't even think Terryeo is correct in interpreting the prohibition of "personal websites" as meaning the prohibition of material that ''came from'' sources such as ''Time'' and ''Scientific American'' or from highly notable figures such as Martin Gardner, but were accessed ''through'' transcriptions found on "personal websites". But by his actions Terryeo is trying to claim an absolutely '''ludicrous''' principle, that ''if it is possible'' that material from an absolutely usable source ''might have been'' accessed through a transcription found on a "personal website", it must be deemed as unreliable as if it were the opinion of the owner of a personal website ''without any evidence that that website's transcription was ever used.'' Does that make sense to ''you'', Spirit of Man? Would you like it if you were on trial and the prosecution said "We can't rely on the testimony of this witness, because he's not reliable; therefore it's absolutely irrelevant that we ''do'' have the ''same'' testimony from ''reliable'' sources?" No? Well, then, what sense does it make for Terryeo to say "Oh, I choose to believe that Andreas Heldal-Lund is so unreliable you can't even rely on him to correctly transcribe from a Martin Gardner book -- therefore I'll remove ''all references'' to this Martin Gardner book even though I have ''no idea'' whether it came to this article via Heldal-Lund's transcription and didn't even bother to ask"? -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

<small>For the record,</small> I have quoted directly from the guideline. For the record, Fahrenheit451, in attempt to get the guideline modified, edited the guideline 27 times in 48 hours. For the Record, Wikipediatrix, in an effort to circumvent the guideline, posted to a main editor of the guideline, which discussion was taken to the [[WP:RS]] talk page where her attempt was replied to. For the Record, ChrisO has entered his two cents at [[WP:RS]] and a great deal of the stuff we have confronted in these articles has been discussed. The guideline stands. Further, Xenu.net is specifically being voted on by the arbitration committee as part of the arbitration I am enjoined into. The evidence about Xenu.net may be viewed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Tony_Sidaway.2C_as_clerk here] and the voting of the arbitrators on the issue of Xenu.net (Clambake.org) may be viewed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed_decision#Xenu.net here]. So there is really no reason to get ruffled, the arbitration committee will eventually proclaim whether Xenu.net is a personal website or a website which may be used as a secondary source of information. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::With a personal website, some of its information may be wonderfully valid. Its hard work to transcribe a lot of information. Right next to the good information may be information which has been modified to suit the website's POV. If it was all good information, if it was of good repute, the website would attempt to present it as nothing but opinion. You explain some examples of good information, that some good information exits on Xenu isn't the reason that Personal Websites shouldn't be used. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 08:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::Terryeo isn't even making any sense. "If it was all good information, if it was of good repute, the website would attempt to present it as nothing but opinion" -- what kind of messed-up logic comes out with ''that'' result?? Terryeo is simply getting desperate and arguing that even when he has ''no evidence whatsoever'' that a particular website was relied upon as a source, he can ''assume it to be so'' and remove anything he likes which is mirrored on that website as a consequence. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 15:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)