On 12/3/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think a more realistic version is believing that
Durova didn't
intend to block YET because she hadn't enough evidence.
That's certainly a valid possibility-- readers might not have thought
block would happen immediately. My point is just that it's clear to
anyone reading the email that blocking certainly something under
consideration. I mean, that's the whole point of the email-- a guide
to finding users who should potentially be blocked as socks. And I'll
just have to leave it to faith that had anyone actually read the
email, they would have immediately had the judgment to raise a red
flag and inform Durova her sleuthing was a bad idea-- certainly, the
community vocally responded in that direction once THEY get to read
her email.
Now, there were a lot of people on the cyberstalking- but as
misfortune would have it, none of those people gave Durova's email
more than a cursory glance. No recipients replied, and certainly no
one 'enthusiastically' endorsed the block (except for the five
figments of Durova's overactive imagination). So apparently the only
one who had any judgment problem is Durova, and she's now be
desysopped, so that is that.
So, recognizing that that horse is most dead, I'll just nod my head
agreeably and move on-- the identities of anyone else who was
involved in the incident will just remain the subject of quiet
speculation rather than public confession. That's okay-- Durova has
agreed to be the designated sacrificial lamb for the sleuthing
meta-issue, and I'll try to shut up about the whole "who were the
other sleuths" issue.
Just don't anyone try to claim Durova didn't even discuss the !!
situation on the list in a way that might indicate a block was coming
down the road. The evidence on that one is already out, and there's
only SO much spin I can hear without overtly snickering. :)
Alec