User talk:Jeh/Archives/2011/February

ATA
RE Parallel ATA Maybe we're not hitting on the same use of 'official'. I was referring to the understanding that 'master', and 'slave', are printed on all major-manufacturer drives since ATA r2. I was looking at the history (where IDE is commonly confused to be ATA) as that few people would immediately recognise the channels without the more generic printed-on-device terms. Would you consider leaving both terms for the benefit of further understanding. Lostinlodos (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please raise this issue on the article talk page. That way others can see the discussion and, if they like, participate. Thanks. Jeh (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We're all here to make this bestest encyclopedia ever, yes we are
It occurs to me that speculating on an editor's motives requires me to suspend the assumption of good faith. I wonder if someone editing in the MP3 article who quarreled with every assertion on MP3s being popular, accurate, easy to use, etc.; was not sitting in a warehouse full of 8-track tapes he's trying to move? Rational people have discernable objectives; the assumption of rationality is less strict than the assumption of good faith. Assuming that every editor is a maniac bent on destroying the Wikipedia is probably not necessary...yet. Nothing like a little false drama to brighten one's Wikipedia day. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * AGF doesn't mean I have to assume anyone is correct, or even that they have a reasonably defensible position. I rather imagine that the Heaven's Gate people firmly believed they were doing the right thing too. Jeh (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had not thought of that. One may in all sincerity and good faith hold a belief which is totally nuts. The proposition that one can make a(n authoritative) encyclopedia from the contriubtions of a million annonymous volunteers may also be held in good faith, but practically speaking is hard to defend. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, if that's truly your belief, you might consider finding a more defensible project to contribute to. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A project doesn't have to be considered an authoritative encyclopedia to be worth contributing to. Jeh (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You phrased that like a truism, but it's really just opinion. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's in your opinion. Twice. Jeh (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, it's factual. Were you correct, there would be nothing other than opinion left. That's solipsism, and I reject it. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither part of your statement is factual. Whether or not I phrased "that" as a truism is something of which you cannot possibly have certain knowledge (i.e. you could be wrong), unless you were reading my mind when I wrote it. You reacted to it in the belief that I phrased it as a truism, but that's your reaction based on your interpretation. (I really don't think it should be necessary to add "in my opinion" to everything in order to preclude counters of "that's just your opinion," so I don't.) Conversely, something that is demonstrably true is not a matter of opinion, and there are a very large number of projects that are not considered authoritative encyclopedias, to which large numbers of people neverthless find it worthwhile to contribute time, resources, and even money. (Consider Yahoo Answers.) So while it may not be a truism in your opinion, it would seem to be a valid observation; its truth is most certainly is demonstrable by example. Especially since, the way it's phrased, I'd need only one. Therefore your claim that my statement was opinion is specious. Now, as the judges say on TV... is this going somewhere? Jeh (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fact: the statement "A project doesn't have to be considered an authoritative encyclopedia to be worth contributing to." is an opinion, as that which is "worth contributing to" is a subjective grouper. Opinion: you're using excessive verbiage to obfuscate the fact that you lack a basic understanding of the distinction between facts and opinion. Answer: unless you're about to have an epiphany about the distinction between objective and subjective assertions, probably not. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)