Re: since we are on legal matters ...

On 11/26/03 6:48 PM, "Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia-Sadi0fl/VCj2fBVCVOL8/[email protected]> wrote:

> The Cunctator wrote in part:
> 
>> Alex R. (Alex756) wrote:
> 
>>> Wikipedia automatically attributes original works. I can't imagine it being
>>> otherwise
>>> because then no one could make GFDL compliant derivative works. How would
>>> one determine who the five major contributors were?
> 
>> I can imagine it otherwise. Your inability to imagine it so does not make it
>> so.
> 
> Now, at this point, it would be /helpful/ to explain how you imagine it so.
> Even if the text that you write further down is such an explanation
> (as in this case I believe that it is), it would be helpful to note that,
> to say something like "I explain below how this can be imagined.".
> 
> Certainly, you've made your rhetorical point just fine:
> Alex argued against your position by saying that he couldn't imagine it,
> and you correctly noted that his failure of imagination
> is not any sort of argument against your position.  Very well.
> 
> But if your goal is not just to score points, but to /change minds/,
> then it would be useful to be helpful in your correspondence.
> This is a practical matter, since in my past experience,
> people have often interpreted your comments are mere curmudgeonliness.
> 
Considering that you snipped my /explanation/, I have trouble considering
your advice helpful. Please review the rest of my post.