On Dec 10, 2007 8:41 PM, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 2:02 AM, Relata Refero <refero.relata(a)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