On 12/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You said nothing of that level of specifity. Mike Godwin told you you had omitted all the nuances of the actual case, which Jimbo has reiterated in a specific way. You cannot omit context and get away with seeming to refute specific points. You either address the specifics or do not have any right to expect anyone to engage in refuting your malformed attempts to frame the argument as something which it is not.
Speak to the specifics and do not mischaracterize what other people have said or do not speak at all. Really.
Of what nuances do you speak? Either the WMF knew about Doran's criminal record before being approached by The Register, or they didn't, there are no nuances. Yes, they could have known about some parts but not others, but that's an irrelevant point - either they knew about the bits that make her unsuitable for the position, or they didn't.
I think you are still missing quite a few possibilities, but I won't spell them out, because that would be counter-productive in the absolute. I will say though that there is no a priori reason why anyone should have expected that what The Register was digging for was specifically criminal in nature. They have in the past stooped to much more petty and irrelevant stuff.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]