On Nov 27, 2007 5:16 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, gosh, lesse; is it possible, just possible, that any of the people who have commented might have said something in error? That they might believe (or have believed) something to be true, but were wrong? GASP!
That is up to them to say. Not you to say on their behalf.
Nonsense; when someone says "either A is lying or B is lying" it is *incumbent* on others to say "or perhaps one or the other is mistaken."
I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff on wikien-l; in any event, there are obviously far more eyes on wikien-l than the people on this other list. A number of people have stated publicly that they didn't read the e-mail, or merely glanced at it without looking at the detail. Is that now some sort of moral failing on their part?
That would depend on your system of morality.
Nonsense again; not reading an e-mail is not a "moral failing" in any meaningful sense of the term. On the other hand, insisting that we must assume people are lying, rather than perhaps being in error or mistaken, could well be seen as a moral failure.
Um, Matthew and Guy said the exact opposite, that Durova didn't propose a block. As far as I can tell these are imaginary "processes". Imaginary processes don't need fixing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Oh, so you think the AN/I process is broken, and that's what RR was referring to?