My apologies, but I suggested only that you had "stretched" things a bit, though I did not, and do not, intend to posit dishonesty or maliciousness as the motivation. I'm a firm believer that one sees what they want to see at times, and you saw this case as "decisive action" where I think it should be better described as "hasty and in definite violation of policy and spirit." Perhaps the most articulate wording would have been, "I fear your perception has stretched things a bit," but anyway I think we do not need to discuss the pedantic points of it, since I think it should be clear by now what I meant. I've accused nobody of lying, implicitly or explicitly.
And I think I've well described my take on things. And remember that it was you -- and not I -- who brought it up here as an example in relation to "backchannel" dealings.
FF
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're stretching things a bit here about the facts in relation to the TIME magazine issue:
No. I have told you the complete and unvarnished truth. Do not dare to accuse me of lying. Do not dare. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l