On Dec 10, 2007 8:41 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 2:02 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Jay, I can only suppose you've stopped reading Alec's emails, which is fine - I'm sure a lot of people have. Unfortunately, you haven't stopped replying to them. He quite clearly laid out the sequence of what was initially obscured and then leaked/clarified; you ignored it magisterially. Your caricature of his behaviour is unhelpful, misleading and inappropriate, and I suggest you stop it now. If you don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion, remain silent, as most of us have been doing.
RR, I can only supposed you've stopped reading Alec's e-mails. Alec was still making these claims a couple of days ago, which is why Jimmy called him on it. In fact, according to his last e-mail "Whether it was an email list, a Wikipedia list, a Wikia list, or what-- that I have never known." Did you notice that part about still not knowing if the block was co-ordinated on a Wikia list?
A couple of days ago? Where? What claim? And your paraphrase of the quote is inaccurate, and misleadingly out of context. The whole quote is "Similarly, I didn't create the idea of a 'list, the existence of which is unknown', I just quoted Durova. Whether it was an email list, a Wikipedia list, a Wikia list, or what-- that I have never known." He is defending himself against the specific accusation which you are making; further, within context, it is clear to most people (probably the same people who to whom the !! 'evidence' email was clearly bogus) that he is talking about not till now having the vaguest idea what Durova was on about. That is not clear from your misrepresentation of the meaning and relevance of the quote, and this is precisely why I think you had best drop out of the conversation now, as you aren't helping.
As for suggesting I stop responding on the topic, while the reason for your interest in ensuring that returning editors are not banned is obvious, nevertheless you are also not constrained to continue responding to e-mails on this topic. If you really want the discussion to end, direct your e-mails to Alec's posts, in which he continues to fight a valiant battle to preserve whatever shreds of the conspiracy theory he thinks he can still make stick.
If you notice, I haven't responded to many emails on the topic recently. Your last few emails, however, have been so egregiously inaccurate that I rather felt constrained to suggest that you refrain from that sort of thing.
Alec has moved well beyond claiming that there was any discussion on-list, which was what was specifically denied.
"Whether it was an email list, a Wikipedia list, a Wikia list, or what-- that I have never known." Alec Conroy
See above. Irrelevant response.
We all did that, weeks ago now.
We all did? Odd; I didn't get that impression from the article in The Register. Perhaps it's not a reliable source, though, what do you think?
It is a reliable source. Reliable sources are sometimes mistaken. Experienced editors know that. Verifiability, not truth.
RR