On Dec 3, 2007 2:54 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 6:35 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
the evidence is out, and "No one could ever have known !! might be blocked" just doesn't hold water. Anybody familiar with wikipedia who read Durova's "evidence" and didn't "get" that !! was in danger of a block is either incompetent or insincere.
Alec, do you think if you repeat this falsehood 100 more times it will somehow morph into a truth?
How is it possible false. She accuses him of being part of a team of ripened socks, of being the reincarnation of a banned user, and even of gloating about it. Now, anyone who get that email is going to be in one of three states:
State 1: Received the email, but didn't really read it, at least not in any depth. State 2: Receives, agrees with it, and recognizes that there is a real danger of !! being blocked State 3: Receives it, disagrees with it, and immediately takes action to prevent a block.
The supposed state of "Read it in depth, but couldn't possibly have imagined that !! might be in danger of a block" just doesn't pass the giggle test
Anyway, it's a bit of a dead horse now, since the other sleuths are either fictional or permanently silent. But, "Durova didn't say ANYTHING that would make us think !! might be blocked" on the Cyberstalking list just isn't realistic-- nobody's gonna buy it, ya ought not be trying to sell it.
Alec, do you think if you repeat this falsehood 100 more times it will somehow morph into a truth?
It's easy enough to play the blind assertion game. Here you go: Anybody familiar with the posts on this topic on wikien-l and who still insists that the only reasonable assumption of someone who read Durova's evidence was that !! was in danger of a block, is either incompetent or insincere.