Re: [UUPoly-L] Epistemology and Polyamory

["Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net>]

Thank you!  Which is *Where* the entire conversation about epistemology and
the LOA attraction got started, and the discussion that Desmond jumped into
the middle of, tried to take off track, and ignored the entire context of!

The whole point is that if you are going to take a Neutral Point of View
(which Wikipedia policy says that articles must do), then you can't lean
towards one epistemological POV over another, as epistemology *is* a "POV".
Again, Desmond continues to either miss or obfuscate that entire point.
Now, whether or not this is because he has such a strong epistemological
view that he can't entertain the idea of a Neutral POV (which is my concern
with a group like "The WIKI Rational Skepticism Project" watch-dogging
articles) and thus simply can't grasp "the point", or he sincerely believes
that the idea of having a Neutral POV in a Wikipedia article is a bad thing.
He can't grok that I'm not trying to tell him that my epistemological view
is better than his... I'm simply stating (and have from the beginning), that
you can't rely on a Wikipedia article which has so obviously been hijacked
by one philosophical position (*ANY* philosophical position - including, if
it were doing so, my *own* philosophical position) and which does not
maintain neutral POV. 

And to bring it back to polyamory... that would be the equivalent of
allowing a "The Wiki Tapastry against Polygamy Project" or "The Wiki Focus
on the Family Project" to watch-dog the polyamory definition and to edit
that article to ensure that it only showed their POV. 
-----Original Message-----
From: uupoly-l-bounces+catdeville=cox.net@uupa.org
[mailto:uupoly-l-bounces+catdeville=cox.net@uupa.org] On Behalf Of Timothy
McKee
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 4:25 PM
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Epistemology and Polyamory

In other words my epistemology is better than your epistemology.  Don't
think that is enough to float the boat of anyone, myself included.
Tim