On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
apply the same principles you applied to CharlotteWebb, including
AGF.
Very difficult, when you won't tell me when you knew she was violating NOP, nor why you did not bring it to her attention before her RFA.
It should be easy, though; you had no trouble applying AGF when CharlotteWebb refused to answer the simple question as to why he/she was using TOR proxies, even after he/she promised to do so but then reneged.
And
you still haven't made it at all clear why your questions are relevant
to
anything at all.
There are plausible explanations for why she should not have (although you will of course dismiss them, as everything else, as "conspiracy theories"). I cannot see a plausible reason why you would not have acted on her violation of NOP as soon as you discovered it.
I did. Whenever I find an open proxy I block it.
Strange how you view the implications "refusing to answer questions" so
differently when it comes to CharlotteWeb versus me.
I hold you to a higher standard, since you hold a higher position of responsibility.
Hmm. I think the phrase "double standard" is more appropriate.
It presumably seems that way to you because you have the higher authority of CheckUser but have not yet accepted that with authority must come responsibility.
Your false presumptions are quite in line with your double standard.
If you provide evidence that CharlotteWebb has knowingly broken NOP,
then I shall view her actions accordingly; so far, all I see -- despite repeated requests for evidence -- is innuendo.
From whom?
You and SlimVirgin, principally.
What specific innuendo from me?
As for the rest of your post, your snipping of certain parts of my
message is quite instructive.
Only to a conspiracy theorist. See also "double standard" above.
Conspiracy theorist. That's a joke.
A sad one.