[WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case

[jayjg]

On Nov 27, 2007 5:54 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/11/2007, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 2007 5:16 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 27/11/2007, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Oh, gosh, lesse; is it possible, just possible, that any of the people
> > > > who have commented might have said something in error? That they might
> > > > believe (or have believed) something to be true, but were wrong? GASP!
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is up to them to say. Not you to say on their behalf.
> >
> > Nonsense; when someone says "either A is lying or B is lying" it is
> > *incumbent* on others to say "or perhaps one or the other is
> > mistaken."
> >
>
> When someone says that A and B's statements contradict each other.
> That is a matter for A and B to provide an explanation for. Further
> speculation is pointless.
>
>
> > Nonsense again; not reading an e-mail is not a "moral failing" in any
> > meaningful sense of the term.
>
> Yeah the Enron non executive directors tried that argument. Legally
> correct but as I said it depends on your moral system.

Jeez, now it's an Enron situation? Fine, geni, name the "moral system"
in which failing to read one of hundreds of e-mails sent to various
mailing lists is a "moral failure".

>
> > On the other hand, insisting that we
> > must assume people are lying, rather than  perhaps being in error or
> > mistaken, could well be seen as a moral failure.
>
> We don't need any more hypotheticals.
>
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=172308730
> >
> > Oh, so you think the AN/I process is broken, and that's what RR was
> > referring to?
>
> Read the comment. Consider the timing. It suggests a process no?

Whoops, weren't you the guy who in this very e-mail said "speculation
is pointless" and "we don't need any more hypotheticals"? Take your
own advice, please.