On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
I once defended you, never mind I have since learnt my lesson as that will never likely happen again.
That's fine. Being defended by you would be a bad sign.
People are entitled to have opinions without having to justify such opinions with Wikipedia or other references.
They are not entitled to their own facts though. If something is a matter of opinion then my opinion that Wikipedia is a useful resource is just as good as your opinion that it isn't. If you want us to take you seriously then you can't claim that things are a matter of opinion but that your opinion is more important than that of the vast majority of both members of this list and scientists who disagree with you.
If you don't agree with the opinion, then feel free to refrain from attacking the person with an opinion that differs from your own -- find your own proof and keep it to yourself; on the whole I am not much interested in your opinion these days....
There is no personal proof. There is a correct proof and an incorrect attempt at a proof. You are obviously very interested in my opinion, that's why you started this thread about me. http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/wikipedia.html Sam Vaknin has written the best critique of Wikipedia that I've ever seen. However please note that he is a self declared narcissist (and the only person afflicted with NPD to write books about it) and he has stated that he will always lie when it's in his best interests. If you read Sam's critique you will see some obvious inconsistencies, he complains about history being edited and also about copyright infringements being available in the history - he can't have it both ways. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-psychopath/ Sam is also the subject of the documentary "I Psychopath" which is worth watching - and it's free. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/