On Dec 5, 2007 3:06 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 2:41 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 12:54 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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.
What's boring are continuing snide insinuations. Why don't Bryan and anyone else who insists that the Cyberstalking list was used to co-ordinate !!'s block say straight out that they think Matt and Guy and Slim are lying, if that's what they think, rather than using weaselly innuendo to try to press their point? They should have the courage of their convictions. I'm not prepared to see them use this list as a vehicle for turning bad-faith imputations into accepted fact. There are whole fora devoted to just that purpose, where banned editors and related malcontents spew their venomous groupthink, and where their views will be most welcome. This list is not one of them, and if they keep doing it, I'll continue to call them on it.