On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
apply the same principles you applied to CharlotteWebb, including
AGF.
Very difficult, when you won't tell me when you knew she was violating NOP, nor why you did not bring it to her attention before her RFA.
It should be easy, though; you had no trouble applying AGF when CharlotteWebb refused to answer the simple question as to why he/she was using TOR proxies, even after he/she promised to do so but then reneged.
And
you still haven't made it at all clear why your questions are relevant
to
anything at all.
There are plausible explanations for why she should not have (although you will of course dismiss them, as everything else, as "conspiracy theories"). I cannot see a plausible reason why you would not have acted on her violation of NOP as soon as you discovered it.
I did. Whenever I find an open proxy I block it.
And did you also inform her of the violation?
You seem to keep mistaking yourself for some sort of prosecutor and judge. Of what relevance is your current line of interrogation?
If you provide evidence that CharlotteWebb has knowingly broken NOP,
then I shall view her actions accordingly; so far, all I see -- despite repeated requests for evidence -- is innuendo.
From whom?
You and SlimVirgin, principally.
What specific innuendo from me?
"she knew editing from proxies was against policy."
Actually, I withdraw the word "innuendo". That is a flat accusation, still without any evidence provided.
How delightfully dishonest of you, James - you didn't even bother to include the entire sentence, much less the context. The context, of course, was that you were proposing a very convoluted explanation of CW's failure to explain why he/she was using TOR proxies. I then noted that your theory wasn't nearly as simple as some other rather obvious ones. Here's the more complete conversation:
James, why didn't he/she just respond "there's nothing wrong with that, is there?" Occam's razor is often a helpful tool.
Probably because as soon as you fired the torpedo at her RFA, she went and looked it up and realised it was against policy. So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
That's a pretty far-fetched explanation. Occam's razor, James.
Actually, it's fairly simple. Jay.
Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from proxies was against policy.
The conversation is also a nice little segment because it shows yet again the lengths you will go to AGF of others, in stark contrast to your treatment of me.