On 28/11/2007, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)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).
--
geni