[WikiEN-l] Arbiter involvement on the Durova affair

[jayjg]

On Dec 3, 2007 2:54 AM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 2007 6:35 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > the evidence is out, and "No one could ever have
> > > known !! might be blocked" just doesn't hold water.    Anybody
> > > familiar with wikipedia who read Durova's "evidence" and didn't "get"
> > > that !! was in danger of a block is either incompetent or insincere.
> >
> > Alec, do you think if you repeat this falsehood 100 more times it will
> > somehow morph into a truth?
>
> How is it possible false.   She accuses him of being part of a team of
> ripened socks, of being the reincarnation of a banned user, and even
> of gloating about it.   Now, anyone who get that email is going to be
> in one of three states:
>
> State 1: Received the email, but didn't really read it, at least not
> in any depth.
> State 2: Receives, agrees with it, and recognizes that there is a real
> danger of !! being blocked
> State 3: Receives it, disagrees with it, and immediately takes action
> to prevent a block.
>
> The supposed state of "Read it in depth, but couldn't possibly have
> imagined that !! might be in danger of a block" just doesn't pass the
> giggle test
>
> Anyway, it's a bit of a dead horse now, since the other sleuths are
> either fictional or permanently silent.  But, "Durova didn't say
> ANYTHING that would make us think !! might be blocked" on the
> Cyberstalking list just isn't realistic--   nobody's gonna buy it, ya
> ought not be trying to sell it.

Alec, do you think if you repeat this falsehood 100 more times it will
somehow morph into a truth?

It's easy enough to play the blind assertion game. Here you go:
Anybody familiar with the posts on this topic on wikien-l and who
still insists that the only reasonable assumption of someone who read
Durova's evidence was that !! was in danger of a block, is either
incompetent or insincere.