You may want to read up on what "reductio ad absurdum" actually means...

I cannot speak for the integrity or review process of Slashdot or its editors, as I don't have any facts or documentation on the entire process. Unless you are willing to claim firsthand knowledge on said process, and supply facts/documentation, your assertions aren't very reliable. Reliable sources have been reporting news, events, etc. in much quicker time than this review has been accepted, for well over a decade... its a sign of the times and technology available. Moreover, is it that difficult to concede that perhaps my review might be noteworthy to some, even if *you* don't think so? The overwhelming consensus based on replies to the published version, at the moment, is yes... it is noteworthy. It won't cure cancer, AIDS or any other large scale issues... but it is at least noteworthy, and therefore *notable*.

Based on your reactions at Wikipedia regarding this particular situation and the people involved, you seem like you are seeing "red" now. In short, whether you realize it or not, you have lost your objectiveness of the situation at hand. Again, I wrote this review independently of the need to "save" the Wikipedia article. If it happens to "save" it, then fine. If not, that's just as fine. However, posting here to Slashdot is in itself a worthy endeavor... I've often come to this place to find interesting tech stories. PS: The day I bribe someone to do something out of character, instead of informing them of something they may be interested in, is when you can justifiably attack my character.

"Gamed support" is rather a foolish and insulting notion. The request was that anyone truly interested in JWASM (including usage) post a reply here. No one was asked to spam this place. If JWASM is notable, it will be in its own right and reporting it to Slashdot is just another means of measuring the current level of notability/interest. My effort to write this review is a result of an AfD situation that occurred at Wikipedia, yes, but my desire to do so is for the sake of the tool itself, i.e. personal interest. I am an assembly language developer and I am always evaluating different tools whenever I get the time. So, as you can see Unitanode, your shortsightedness in assuming bad faith is not warranted or appreciated. Also, it would be much appreciated if you keep from dragging Wikipedia issues (and seemingly personal vendettas) over to Slashdot, such slander is unprofessional at best. I would appreciate responses about JWASM (positive and negative) from anyone wiling to be objective about this article/story. Thanks.