QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 17th January 2009, 9:48am)
No, and ditto the others. My claim was that certain of your edits were biased and slanted. Having been through many of your edits, I can confirm absolutely that there is no evidence whatsoever you have practised any of the things you talked about.
So let's have this said formally. Am I hereby acquitted of being a criminal sexual abuser and cultist, in your most insightful and penetrative gaze? Can I go back to being "an editor who likes tough articles", who has awareness of that topic area via anti-abuse work, and who also positively salivates at the prospect of good quality information? As opposed to say, a cultist POV pusher who likes to get his leg over in weird ways? (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I mean, I've lived with you saying things for a long time now. But if that's what you're saying then let's hear it properly.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 17th January 2009, 9:48am)
I already said this while discussing the issue in private with WJBScribe last year. But you nonetheless put a positive and (to my mind) biased slant on many of those edits.
What seems to happen is, your "mind" doesn't seem to conceptualize "neutral" when your emotions get in the way. It tends to reason along the lines
"I don't want it that way, it shouldn't be that way, so it can't be that way."QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 17th January 2009, 9:48am)
My main concern at the time and afterwards was the Neurolinguistic programming articles, and I bitterly regret having brought the other matter up at all.
Virtually every last email to me, every post, everything you alleged on Wikipedia and wrote to "activists" off Wikipedia at that time, was about "the other matter". N'est-ce-pas?
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 17th January 2009, 9:48am)
I put forward the view (on a page which is now unfortunately also oversighted) that having someone promoting these views in this way on the Arbcom would turn out to be a public relations disaster, and would split the community. A view which turned out to be entirely correct.
Deleted, not oversighted. And no, it was about as
incorrect as it gets, as many in the community told you at the time: 1/ The media didn't care, 2/ when you tried to make them care, they still didn't much care, 3/ the community still didn't care, 4/ your entire success has been to use David Gerard's mistake to get one article written by Cade Metz, and his interest was the use of Oversight - otherwise even
he wouldn't have cared.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 17th January 2009, 9:48am)
"If it helps, can I apologise to FT2 here and now. I am sorry for the intemperate comments I made during the week of Dec 4 2007. I have an appalling temper and should know better. I bitterly regret all those remarks."
I'm sure you are, but this is still completely a "political" apology. It's worthless. You need to make good by actions, not words - and probably a lot of them over an extended period. You "apologized" every time the heat round you grew or when you wanted something, and it didn't change a thing. Crossref
The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I doubt you mean a word of it now either - except the regret that you didn't do it differently and with more success, more subtlety, less backlash. Am I roughly right?
I would accept a genuine apology. My apology after Orangemarlin was to take the backlash for the committee without arguing, and spend 6 months trying hard to get Arbcom process modified so it couldn't happen again. Was that fair? No. But it was right. And not making a public deal of it to get "capital", just doing it anyway to try and ensure it could never go that way again, quietly and in private.
That's an
apology to the community. That's what genuine
regret looks like, Damian.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 17th January 2009, 9:48am)
Should we not move on? (Snip)
It is Gerard and Jimbo whom the focus should be on now.
"Lets walk away from that umm.. unfortunate feedback - next slide and next hanging party!"
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 17th January 2009, 9:59am)
And I am not splitting hairs. The distinction between accusations about 'promotion' and 'practice' is about as important as you can get.
I blanked the evidence page I prepared. But any user who wishes to check your actual allegations (on wiki and to third parties) to confirm they were actual allegations/implications of criminal activity, contrary to everything you have tried to claim since, can do so.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 17th January 2009, 9:59am)
I have admitted the blame for the intemperate remarks. I apologise. I retract nothing else.
/no comment/
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 17th January 2009, 9:59am)
Any follow-up on the issues that concerned me - pseudoscience and all the rest - were thereafter treated as 'harrassment'.
Which, of course, they were. You took up editing them because you believed I cared about the topic, a mere 3 days after your unban -- and you made sure to
post little "Dear FT2" love-notes to my talk page about it just in case I might miss the point or not realize you were trying to "get" at me (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
This post has been edited by FT2: