Thomas Dalton writes:
Just go through the emails on this subject from members of the board and from Mike, and many of them say, very explicitly, that they did not know about this under hearing from The Register.
You use the word "this" -- a singular indicative pronoun -- when the Register story includes many things. Your imprecision here possibly explains the incorrectness of certain inferences you have made elsewhere.
--Mike
On 16/12/2007, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton writes:
Just go through the emails on this subject from members of the board and from Mike, and many of them say, very explicitly, that they did not know about this under hearing from The Register.
You use the word "this" -- a singular indicative pronoun -- when the Register story includes many things. Your imprecision here possibly explains the incorrectness of certain inferences you have made elsewhere.
The Register story is about one thing: The COO of the WMF having a rather serious criminal record. Anything else mentioned is insignificant. It's quite clear what "this" means.
That said, are you now claiming that you did know about "this" (for whatever value of "this" you thing appropriate) before the register story? If so, you've just confessed to gross incompetence.
Thomas Dalton, can you please stop wasting our lawyer's time and patience with your constant nit-picking? You are not achieving anything by this.
In fact, I would like to ask the list administrators to put you on moderation if this continues. Seriously, grow up.
2007/12/16, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 16/12/2007, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton writes:
Just go through the emails on this subject from members of the board and from Mike, and many of them say, very explicitly, that they did not know about this under hearing from The Register.
You use the word "this" -- a singular indicative pronoun -- when the Register story includes many things. Your imprecision here possibly explains the incorrectness of certain inferences you have made elsewhere.
The Register story is about one thing: The COO of the WMF having a rather serious criminal record. Anything else mentioned is insignificant. It's quite clear what "this" means.
That said, are you now claiming that you did know about "this" (for whatever value of "this" you thing appropriate) before the register story? If so, you've just confessed to gross incompetence.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 15, 2007 8:44 PM, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton, can you please stop wasting our lawyer's time and patience with your constant nit-picking? You are not achieving anything by this.
In fact, I would like to ask the list administrators to put you on moderation if this continues. Seriously, grow up.
I agree entirely, this entire inquisition here is inappropriate. The WMF doesnt have a policy about performing mandatory background checks on it's employees, so there is no reason to expect them to know all the details about the lives of all their employees. If the foundation did not know "this", it's because of a failure on the part of Ms. Doran to tell them such pertinent information.
No money is missing, nobody knew about her record, there is no reason we should have expected anybody to have known anything, and the WMF did a decent job in responding to the story when they were alerted to. Any allegations of wrong doing or "gross negligence" are unreasonable and completely unfounded.
--Andrew Whitworth
On 16/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 8:44 PM, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton, can you please stop wasting our lawyer's time and patience with your constant nit-picking? You are not achieving anything by this.
In fact, I would like to ask the list administrators to put you on moderation if this continues. Seriously, grow up.
I agree entirely, this entire inquisition here is inappropriate. The WMF doesnt have a policy about performing mandatory background checks on it's employees, so there is no reason to expect them to know all the details about the lives of all their employees. If the foundation did not know "this", it's because of a failure on the part of Ms. Doran to tell them such pertinent information.
No money is missing, nobody knew about her record, there is no reason we should have expected anybody to have known anything, and the WMF did a decent job in responding to the story when they were alerted to. Any allegations of wrong doing or "gross negligence" are unreasonable and completely unfounded.
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. If they didn't know, it's really not their fault, but if they did, failure to do anything about it is gross incompetence.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org