On 17/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@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.