On 6/17/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, 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:
Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from
proxies
was
against policy.
Once again: Evidence?
James, you can't keep throwing up convoluted theories without any
evidence
whatsoever, and then challenge others for evidence when they present
much
simpler ones.
Jay:
Mine is not a convoluted theory; it simply assumes good faith and poor judgement.
And ignorance. It's convoluted.
You are proposing a theory that does not, on the face of it, assume
good faith, hence it is imperative that you provide evidence for it.
I had no theory when I asked the question, which is why I asked it.
That you fail to do so weighs against you.
You're really not in a position to make that kind of judgement.
And here are two more questions you still haven't answered: you
apparently knew some time ago that CharlotteWebb was violating NOP. How long ago did you know, and why did you wait until she was nominated for Administrator before bringing it up?
I've actually answered the second question elsewhere, but why does it matter?
Because otherwise, it makes it look like you are trying to systematically reduce the number of RFAs.
Trying to "systematically reduce the number of RFAs"? Because I asked a question on one RFA out of literally hundreds per year? Frankly, I think even proponents of these absurd conspiracy theories would start to feel a little embarrassed by their farfetched nature. James Farrar, why aren't you challenging this bizarre theory with incessant repetitions of "Evidence?"