QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:49am)
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 3:43pm)
QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:26am)
I wanted to minimize that point by putting under a hat, but yes, he lied to me. I don't think it's a good strategy to dwell on it. He's explained it and we've moved on.
The desire to have Wikipedian's be rats is a sad, sad thing. Why people expect others to dime out their friends is beyond me.
I would not lie to advance my friends. Maybe that's why I'm never entrusted with any of these open secrets.
Advancement of your wikipolictical career is much more important. That much is obvious. You don't have to tell it.
QUOTE(trenton @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:52am)
Looks like somebody doesn't understand the difference between being an "accomplice" and a "rat". When you and your klan buddies go out for a night of fun, that's called being an accomplice, and not going would not make you a rat.
Right, right. We already went over this. White par and all that. \o (I turned around for that one). (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
It would be optimal if you knew what was being discussed, but you don't. The lie Luke is talking about is in reference to him asking the_undertow if a specific person knew. Because he didn't rat out his buddy, Luke decides to call him a liar on AN/I while putting a hat on the thread. Yes, such a shady character.
At least Luke is open about the fact that he can't be trusted. Wikipolitics > all else. ArbCom at its finest, people.