On 12/2/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 6:35 PM, Alec Conroy
<alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
the evidence
is out, and "No one could ever have
known !! might be blocked" just doesn't hold water. Anybody
familiar with wikipedia who read Durova's "evidence" and didn't
"get"
that !! was in danger of a block is either incompetent or insincere.
Alec, do you think if you repeat this falsehood 100 more times it will
somehow morph into a truth?
How is it possible false. She accuses him of being part of a team of
ripened socks, of being the reincarnation of a banned user, and even
of gloating about it. Now, anyone who get that email is going to be
in one of three states:
State 1: Received the email, but didn't really read it, at least not
in any depth.
State 2: Receives, agrees with it, and recognizes that there is a real
danger of !! being blocked
State 3: Receives it, disagrees with it, and immediately takes action
to prevent a block.
The supposed state of "Read it in depth, but couldn't possibly have
imagined that !! might be in danger of a block" just doesn't pass the
giggle test
Anyway, it's a bit of a dead horse now, since the other sleuths are
either fictional or permanently silent. But, "Durova didn't say
ANYTHING that would make us think !! might be blocked" on the
Cyberstalking list just isn't realistic-- nobody's gonna buy it, ya
ought not be trying to sell it.
Alec