Phango - questions

[Jeff Nowakowski]

David B. Held wrote:
> In case you haven't noticed, I haven't been working especially hard to 
> win friends or standing in the D community.

Your posts are almost always thoughtful and refraining from animosity. 
Numerous times you have implored others to do the same.  Your personal 
attack/forgery was totally out of character.  No matter how wrong you 
think I was, you have no excuse for acting worse.

> Well, your backpedaling and equivocation is pretty transparent, in my 
> book.  First you say:
> 
>     "By the way, the charge that one of the posts following yours
>     was a sock puppet was legitimate."
> 
> Here, there is no "misconstruing" going on.  You clearly said: "Somebody 
> accused you of creating a sock puppet, and that accusation was valid, 
> not baseless."  I don't think it takes a lawyer to read it that way. You 
> made it about as unambiguous as could be.

Your interpretation is wrong.  When I said the charge was "legitimate", 
I meant as in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legitimate:

4. in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; 
logical: a legitimate conclusion.

> Then, you followed up with:
> 
>     "It was the first thing that crossed my mind."
> 
> Here, you say: "And I tend to agree with the accuser."  How do I draw 
> that conclusion?  Well, it's simple.  The first thing that crossed *my* 
> mind was: "Someone is playing a dirty trick on Janice, and then 
> exploiting it."  Which means that if you had a different first 
> impression, it must have been because you had already decided that 
> Janice was guilty until proven innocent.

Your analysis is wrong.  It "crossed my mind".  That's all.  It looked 
fishy, and an obvious possibility was a sock puppet.  There are other 
possibilities, and I reached no firm conclusions.  I filed it away in 
the back of my mind and continued reading the newsgroup.

> But you realized you had gone 
> too far, so you decided to try to smooth things over with a CYA clause:
> 
>     "Doesn't mean you did it, but it's a valid suspicion."

Wrong again, Mr. Holmes.  I'm trying to make it clear that there is no 
confirmed guilt, only suspicion. I think I'll stop here.  Believe what 
you want to believe.

-Jeff