On Dec 7, 2007 12:42 AM, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007 12:26 AM, jayjg
<jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What prevarication? People have straightforwardly stated that !!'s
block was not co-ordinated on the cyberstalking list. What is unclear?
I am someone who does not believe there has been significant
prevarication beyond what Durova may have committed, and
that even is conceivably not prevarication but merely very
artfully telling the truth in a misleading way, rather than the
real genuine prevarication of telling falsehoods.
But I do have to say that the way you yourself phrase that
"straightforward" statement, leaves quite a few things not
clear.
If not coördinated on the list, was the posting by Durova an
impetus for private correspondance that though (due to its
off-topicness) wasn't enacted on-list, nevertheless brought
together or just simply in support individually with Durova
a group of members of that list in an unofficial task force
or whatever... these kind of questions are clearly not
exhausted by the "straightforward" statements you mention.
What on earth would private correspondence have to do with the list,
and how would anyone possibly know anyway?
The connection would of course only be the origination. Which, if one
thinks about it, could have easily been sidestepped by Durova, by
simply CC:ing the original e-mail to every subscriber, instead of
making an obviously off-topic post to the list. (Unless we are to
believe that such postings were the normal fare of the list, which
I do not.)
On the question of how can "we" know such a thing, of course
in no fashion at all, because it would of course be sealed in high
"privacy". Of course, if it did exist, it would be incorrect to say
that anyone couldn't know about its existence, because ofcourse
the participants would know, and if individual in nature, at the very
least Durova would know, though understandably would be bound
by the expectation of privacy, which she has already claimed for
herself.
Which does to my mind underscore the fact that there will likely
always remain things about this affair which will remain "unclear".
Which was the direct point I was adressing. Nothing further than
that. There are things which we most likely will not know anytime
soon, but it is clearly false to say that we know everything there
is to know about this affair.
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]