On 17/06/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar
<james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
apply the same principles you applied to
CharlotteWebb, including AGF.
Very difficult, when you won't tell me when you knew she was violating
NOP, nor why you did not bring it to her attention before her RFA.
It should be easy, though; you had no trouble applying AGF when
CharlotteWebb refused to answer the simple question as to why he/she was
using TOR proxies, even after he/she promised to do so but then reneged. And
you still haven't made it at all clear why your questions are relevant to
anything at all.
There are plausible explanations for why she should not have (although
you will of course dismiss them, as everything else, as "conspiracy
theories"). I cannot see a plausible reason why you would not have
acted on her violation of NOP as soon as you discovered it.
Strange how
you view the implications "refusing to answer questions" so
differently when it comes to CharlotteWeb versus
me.
I hold you to a higher standard, since you hold a higher position of
responsibility.
Hmm. I think the phrase "double standard" is more appropriate.
It presumably seems that way to you because you have the higher
authority of CheckUser but have not yet accepted that with authority
must come responsibility.
If you provide
evidence that CharlotteWebb has knowingly broken NOP,
then I shall view her actions accordingly; so far, all I see --
despite repeated requests for evidence -- is innuendo.
From whom?
You and SlimVirgin, principally.
As for the
rest of your post, your snipping of certain parts of my
message is quite instructive.
Only to a conspiracy theorist. See also "double standard" above.
Conspiracy theorist. That's a joke.