On Nov 29, 2007 3:17 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 4:14 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Your summary of the discussion regarding this seems reasonable, but unfortunately doesn't jibe with the facts. For days now several individuals have been insisting that the cyberstalking list was used to discuss and co-ordinate a block of !!, along with various other wild accusations (e.g. "stealth canvassing", whatever that means).
Rot. After the denials that the block was discussed on-list, the discussion has moved on. Move with it, don't keep on making the point you can make.
By the way, the denials were issued early on the 27th. Here are Alec's statements from late on the 28th:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbi... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbi... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbi...
Guy tells him again, he's wrong about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbi...
No, but Alec knows better: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbi...