On Nov 30, 2007 10:47 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 10:41 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:21:13 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen
(on
the
Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not*
receive a
copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first
saw
Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
My mistake: *some* arbitrators had it, and the rest could have had it for the asking.
Oh, and Giano could have mailed it not posted it publicly.
Plus that wasn't the crucial piece of information that exonerated !! (that was never published).
But I guess the words "Giano" and "email" were accurate :-)
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Guy, it was clear that you had it too, from your posts. It seems absurd that you would hold Giano to a higher standard than you would hold yourself. I repeat - NOBODY on any side of this debate emailed that
post to
the Arbcom mailing list. Not one.
Why do you keep repeating this claim when it's simply not true?
It's perfectly true. The individual who forwarded us the post was not a party to the debate.
I see you've focussed on the "any side of the debate" part of the sentence, rather than the "NOBODY... emailed that post to the Arbcom mailing list" part. Based on Risker's earlier statements, it was clear he did not think the post was e-mailed to the ArbCom list at all. There's a difference between "any side" and "a party to". The ArbCom is also a side in this debate; it's the side that is currently officially rendering judgement on the affair.