On Nov 30, 2007 9:28 AM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:31:12 +0000, "Relata Refero" refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
And to be clear here, what they agreed with was that yes, this undoubtedly was indicative of a returning user. Which, as we know, is precisely the case.
How do you know that that was what they agreed with? Have you seen their personal communication on this subject with Durova? And if they read that 'evidence' and wrote enthusiastically to Durova "yes, definitely a WR troll! Good catch!", I'd like to know who these people are so I can examine their future admin actions a little more closely.
I saw no emails that said /anything like/ "definitely a WR troll! Good catch!" I saw no emails indicating that Durova was considering blocking !!. No evidence has ever been produced that said emails ever existed. All we have is repeated demands that the obvious and innocent explanation is not good enough, and calls for the emails that don't exist. But Alec can't have them because... they don't exist. Durova did not run the block by anybody, as far as I'm aware; certainly not on the lists that everyone is so wound up about. I have checked. None of her emails even hint at a likely block.
Durova has claimed she discussed the case in depth with five other editors - Guy, are you saying that Durova is a liar?
WilyD, Guy said "Durova did not run the block by anybody, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE; certainly not on the lists that everyone is so wound up about." (emphasis mine). Others have pointed out that "discussing the case in depth" is not the same thing as proposing a block. In that light, your statement appears, at best, to be an inflammatory non sequitur, and certainly a classic example of the Fallacy of many questions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions).