On 17/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/17/07, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I can
only remind everyone, again, that the allegations in The Register
were unknown to us prior to the story in The Register. Confidentiality
agreements were not what kept us from "getting the whole story out at
once"... it was that we did not know about the whole story until it was
published.
Confidentiality agreements have nothing to do with that.
When I tried to remind people of that, Mike Godwin told me I was
talking nonsense... I suggest you get your stories straight...
You said nothing of that level of specifity. Mike Godwin told you you had
omitted all the nuances of the actual case, which Jimbo has reiterated
in a specific way. You cannot omit context and get away with seeming
to refute specific points. You either address the specifics or do not have
any right to expect anyone to engage in refuting your malformed attempts
to frame the argument as something which it is not.
Speak to the specifics and do not mischaracterize what other people have
said or do not speak at all. Really.
Of what nuances do you speak? Either the WMF knew about Doran's
criminal record before being approached by The Register, or they
didn't, there are no nuances. Yes, they could have known about some
parts but not others, but that's an irrelevant point - either they
knew about the bits that make her unsuitable for the position, or they
didn't.