On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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.