--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Andrew Skolnick has actually won awards for his > > > > journalism. > > > > > > > > > > About the time the wikipedia article on TM went into the formal > > mediation process, skolnick > > > flew up his hands in despair and flounced out: > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Askolnick > > > > > > Wikipedia is really not worth the enormous effort to write and edit > > articles and protect them > > > from the myriad of Vandal tribes seeking to plunder the popularity > > of this source. Fighting > > > against the dishonest changes of anonymous, often Single Purpose > > Account editors, is just > > > not worth it. > > > > I don't suppose there's any way of working something > > into the part in the TM article about the lawsuit > > showing how Skolnick lied about the settlement on > > alt.m.t... > > Nyah. Usenet groups are considered impossible to verify, so you can't use them as > primary/secondary sources.
You could certainly use alt.m.t posts from Andrew as a primary source to show that he lied *in those posts*. On the other hand, Andrew's own website, which quotes > usenet, might be an acceptable source.... Hmmm.... > > > > > (This is the same Andrew Skolnick, folks, whose > > "Junkyard Dog" Web page slandering me and other > > TMers Barry touted the other day.) > > > > He's a piece of work. Then again, in his mind, everyone who disagrees with him is a piece > of work, so he's justified in whatever he does. >
