[WikiEN-l] One alternative

[Anthony]

On Dec 5, 2007 2:41 PM, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2007 12:54 PM, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Larry Sanger wrote:
> > > The notion of a *secret* body that actually has authority to determine
> > > cases is, needless to say, anathema in a project committed to the rule
> > > of law.
> >
> > Seems pretty clear it's anathema on Wikipedia too, based on the general
> > reaction when this came to light. And the secret body in this case
> > didn't even have "authority" in any sort of official sense.
>
> And in this case there was no "secret body" that "determine[d] cases",
> so "authority" was irrelevant. Odd how your comments were based on the
> false presumption that has been repudiated so often in the past few
> days. It's clear that my last comment to you about having a perfect
> record of assuming bad faith still applies.
>

Please, this is so boring.  You've said that there's nothing "secret"
about what happened (without adding anything new to your argument)
over and over again.  By now we've either bought it or we haven't.