Thomas Dalton writes:
You're not even reading what I'm saying, are you? I was *defending* the WMF by pointing out that they didn't know in advance, then Mike comes along and contradicts me suggesting that they in fact did.
It seems to be the general rule, Thomas, that whenever you summarize what I or any other Foundation representatives have said, you get something wrong (and often several things wrong). This is no exception. My advice is to quit summarizing us in this way and go back to quoting, if you must persist in taking issue with us.
The Foundation did not know "in advance" of Carolyn's hiring of anything problematic in her background. We didn't know "in advance" of the Register story what claims it would make about Carolyn. The statements I made to the Register were carefully crafted and factually accurate. The same goes for my statements on this list.
If they didn't know, it's really not their fault, but if they did, failure to do anything about it is gross incompetence.
Precision in quoting and citation also would save you from creating false dichotomies.
I'm heartened that most readers of this list seem to be reading our actual words with a bit more care than you show here. (It would be a shame if they relied on your summaries -- doing so would, in my view, be a sign of gross incompetence. Not merely incompetence, but GROSS incompetence, the very worst kind!)
--Mike
If they didn't know, it's really not their fault, but if they did, failure to do anything about it is gross incompetence.
Precision in quoting and citation also would save you from creating false dichotomies.
That wasn't a quote or a citation, it was simply an assertion, and one I stand by. If you disagree, try actually refuting it.
On 12/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If they didn't know, it's really not their fault, but if they did, failure to do anything about it is gross incompetence.
Precision in quoting and citation also would save you from creating false dichotomies.
That wasn't a quote or a citation, it was simply an assertion, and one I stand by. If you disagree, try actually refuting it.
Yes, I know, I know, I am feeding a troll here... guilty as charged.
If that is considered as a simple bald assertion, it fails on many grounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions is likely the most relevant here.
Much of the context has been removed. The simplified form "didn't know" lacks quite a bit of the required specifity to be answered in any meaningful way, when the issues are as complex as they clearly are in this case.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org