"

Comment about JJ Bulten

Greetings,

I would like to mention that I added 0% of the ""OR"" tags and thus am innocent. I realize that when someone is trying to find a compromise, it is easier to blame ""both sides"" for a conflict. However, on closer inspection, I would be willing to bet that a judge or jury would find that I am arguing on the merits of the Wiki-policies and outside sources, while JJB is using scorched-Earth tactics. Please consider this example:

    The evidence does not favor backing off from requesting a move, for compliance's sake, in some other polite way. First, the ""vote"" remains 6-4 by my count: no consensus. Second, your unsourced statement of thousands of ""longevity myths"" cites is probably a Google exaggeration based on estimated mirrors; see above where I sourced the real numbers as 92 vs. 91. Third, this exaggeration only reflects the fact that a vast number of ""myth"" mirrors stem from Ryoung's wholly unsourced 2005 insertions. (The User:Shii/Hoaxes page normally considers this as evidence of hoaxing. See User talk:Shii/Hoaxes#Longevity, ticklish situation for 26 phrases originating from Ryoung that have exactly zero Google support outside his 2005 insertions.)

            Yet another FALSE accusation. There is no ""hoaxing"" here at all, nor has there been any attempt at ""hoaxing."" I am not responsible for third-party sites, but if they choose to copy my work, might it be because they consider it a reliable source?Ryoung122 

                Comment: Looking closer, we see that it was JJB that listed this as a ""hoax"":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shii/Hoaxes#Longevity.2C_ticklish_situation

Citation of one's own accusation is a circular argument, and thus invalid.

In other words, JJBulten first adds material to Shi's page then cites his own add as ""proof"" of hoaxing. Actually, it's only proof of his fanaticism, of hitting 'below the belt' in an attempt to radically remake this page in his own image. "