On 12/9/2010 4:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Assuming good faith, I think it crossed a line as
far as accuracy goes,
but being misguided or inartful hardly makes it sleazy.
Assuming good faith is
what Newyorkbrad did when he suggested that it was
simply a typo. There is no reason to assume good faith when you know that
people are intentionally creating banners and landing pages that are wrong.
They
don't intend them to be wrong. They may actually be wrong, as I've
said, but they are not intended to be wrong. That is why we assume good
faith.
And yes, it is
sleazy and underhanded to insinuate things like criminal
behavior about other people if you're not willing to commit outright to
a set of facts to establish a charge or an accusation that can be
defended against.
K. Peachey did cite both the law and the actions by Wikimedia
that he or she
believed to be in violation of it. I'm not sure why you seem to be
suggesting that there is ambiguity here.
No, K. Peachey avoided citing actions by
not "debating the whole wording
thing" that would establish what the action entailed, offering instead a
generic description of criminal law that would encourage people, in
passive-aggressive style, to "draw their own conclusions" about the
supposed criminality involved. I can't tell whether K. Peachey believed
the actions in question would be in violation of the law or not.
--Michael Snow