On 28/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Durova quite rapidly admitted the screwup in this case, and I don't see anyone defending the original action as correct.
Given that this is the case, why are you acting like there must have been some sort of evil back-channel conspiracy to be rooted out and destroyed?
Because there was support for avoiding answering to the community.
Yes, clearly there's a disagreement between statements made about the nature of the back channel communications that did happen. Given the nature of the mistake, it's reasonable for you and others to inquire further to try and clarify and understand how that communications disagreement happened, and whether anyone is trying to lie about things or if it was just a misunderstanding or oversight.
The thread has not proceeded along the lines of a skeptical but good faith inquiry. If you want to reduce the rhetoric and continue to pursue the matter along those lines you have my support, and I suspect given Durova's other commentary will have cooperation on that front as well.
We can find out what happened without dragging anyone in the mud. We should find out what happened. We should not drag anyone through the mud.
A little late. I understand the mass Durova mud dragging has already taken place (well the formal arbcom bit is still ongoing but other than that).