On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
there's a ton of useful information about this mess there. I should've skipped the RfC and ANI stuff and started with this. Good to see the ArbCom moving so rapidly.
One might speculate that the committee wishes to reach a final decision before any further quantities of meta-dubious evidence[1] are leaked (and I'm pretty sure more will be, sooner or later, stay tuned). Regardless of whether any of the other correspondence is pertinent to this particular case, regardless of whether it's being put to more rational ends than the ones we've seen, and regardless of whether the overall behavior there is ~95% defensible, even if laughable. Nobody would want to answer questions more questions about that, not today anyway. Can't blame 'em for that.
—C.W.
[1] i.e. dubious evidence of the covert trading of dubious evidence, in one dubious smoke-filled venue or another.