On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:31:12 +0000, "Relata Refero"
<refero.relata(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> And to be clear here, what they agreed with was
that yes, this
> undoubtedly was indicative of a returning user. Which, as we know,
> is precisely the case.
How do you know that that was what they agreed with?
Have you seen
their personal communication on this subject with Durova?
And if they read that 'evidence' and wrote enthusiastically to Durova
"yes, definitely a WR troll! Good catch!", I'd like to know who these
people are so I can examine their future admin actions a little more
closely.
I saw no emails that said /anything like/ "definitely a WR troll!
Good catch!" I saw no emails indicating that Durova was considering
blocking !!. No evidence has ever been produced that said emails
ever existed. All we have is repeated demands that the obvious and
innocent explanation is not good enough, and calls for the emails
that don't exist. But Alec can't have them because... they don't
exist. Durova did not run the block by anybody, as far as I'm
aware; certainly not on the lists that everyone is so wound up
about. I have checked. None of her emails even hint at a likely
block.
Alec is demanding emails. Everybody here who was on the list or in
communication with Durova has said that those emails do not exist in
the form Alec represents. We have said what actually happened, and
Alec's response is repeatably to come right back and demand, yet
again, the emails which we say did not exist.
I am becoming increasingly tired of people who were not on the email
list and not in active discussion with Durova, telling those of us
who were that we are wrong.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG