Arbcom follies, Arbcom is totally blown away by the leaker Options

[chrisoff]

How can arbcom be so totally in outer space regarding the leaker. Their answer are pathetic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ity_Speculation


Are they really as dumb and inadequate as they come across? Even the super techie ones? And these are the people deciding the fate of wikipedia and its editors?

Giano, my hero! Dear clear sighted one!

[Anna]

powercorrupts --

Thanks for the link. Now I have confirmed that I am disinterested in Encyclopedist's level of fruitcakiness. It seemed to me that the Arbitrary Committee members were overly obsessed with gossiping about someone, but that was hardly unique to that particular conversation.

And no, I'm not going to offer an opinion on how fruitcakey Rod is. If I don't perceive any threat, I fail to see how it would accomplish anything other than gossip.

Sxeptomaniac --

Mostly, it just looks pretentious on the part of the Arbitaries.

[powercorrupts]

powercorrupts --

Thanks for the link. Now I have confirmed that I am disinterested in Encyclopedist's level of fruitcakiness. It seemed to me that the Arbitrary Committee members were overly obsessed with gossiping about someone, but that was hardly unique to that particular conversation.

And no, I'm not going to offer an opinion on how fruitcakey Rod is. If I don't perceive any threat, I fail to see how it would accomplish anything other than gossip.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) I really don't expect you to offer an opinion on anything!

I merely pointed out to the muddled SB_Ronnie that you haven't actually given your opinion - as he just assumed I was reprimanding you for giving a poor one. Of course I was simply telling you that people have reasons for having the opinions they do, and you need to look into it before saying they shouldn't have them, or shouldn't express them.

Whether RodHull/Encyclopedist was really linked to child porn or not (complete with conviction) isn't something I'd want to debate on this site, and I think Peter Damian probably put it best - just lay out the facts as we know them, and form you own opinion. Maybe his various fruitcakery (inc working for British Intelligence etc) is just a kind-of double 'front' to make him appear like he could 'delusionally' pretend he was into distributing child porn (as he claims - somehow without 'technically' admitting to it) - while simultaneously claiming it was in the service of the Queen as well. It's all so changeable and wobbly it's hard to remember (or indeed follow) how it is supposed to work - or work in theory, I should say.

If you simply see it as uninteresting gossip then OK - we all have our own levels with these matters. But I would expect you to at least understand that others have a right to a strong opinion on him - on his unquestionably unbalanced comments at least - even if you don't agree with it, or have no opinion yourself.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Encyclopedist]

powercorrupts --

Thanks for the link. Now I have confirmed that I am disinterested in Encyclopedist's level of fruitcakiness. It seemed to me that the Arbitrary Committee members were overly obsessed with gossiping about someone, but that was hardly unique to that particular conversation.

And no, I'm not going to offer an opinion on how fruitcakey Rod is. If I don't perceive any threat, I fail to see how it would accomplish anything other than gossip.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) I really don't expect you to offer an opinion on anything!

I merely pointed out to the muddled SB_Ronnie that you haven't actually given your opinion - as he just assumed I was reprimanding you for giving a poor one. Of course I was simply telling you that people have reasons for having the opinions they do, and you need to look into it before saying they shouldn't have them, or shouldn't express them.

Whether RodHull/Encyclopedist was really linked to child porn or not (complete with conviction) isn't something I'd want to debate on this site, and I think Peter Damian probably put it best - just lay out the facts as we know them, and form you own opinion. Maybe his various fruitcakery (inc working for British Intelligence etc) is just a kind-of double 'front' to make him appear like he could 'delusionally' pretend he was into distributing child porn (as he claims - somehow without 'technically' admitting to it) - while simultaneously claiming it was in the service of the Queen as well. It's all so changeable and wobbly it's hard to remember (or indeed follow) how it is supposed to work - or work in theory, I should say.

If you simply see it as uninteresting gossip then OK - we all have our own levels with these matters. But I would expect you to at least understand that others have a right to a strong opinion on him - on his unquestionably unbalanced comments at least - even if you don't agree with it, or have no opinion yourself.

Let me make this quite clear: I have no criminal convictions in relation to child pornography or anything like it. I cannot comment on Peter Damien's post in relation to that, because that is currently with my counsel for consideration. He's unlucky in that (a) he lives in the same legal jurisdiction as myself, (b) has made no attempt to retain his anonymity, and © has assets within that jurisdiction. I know a weak position when I see it.

There is a different argument as to how some *other* fruitcakes might want to denigrate someone whom they think is me (IRL), and that, too, is outside the scope of this discussion board. Let's just say that it won't happen again.

This post has been edited by Encyclopedist:

[powercorrupts]

Let me make this quite clear: I have no criminal convictions in relation to child pornography or anything like it. I cannot comment on Peter Damien's post in relation to that, because that is currently with my counsel for consideration. He's unlucky in that (a) he lives in the same legal jurisdiction as myself, (b) has made no attempt to retain his anonymity, and © has assets within that jurisdiction. I know a weak position when I see it.

There is a different argument as to how some *other* fruitcakes might want to denigrate someone whom they think is me (IRL), and that, too, is outside the scope of this discussion board. Let's just say that it won't happen again.

You clearly don't even remember what Peter said, you nob. He didn't offer a 'position' at all. No 'council' would spend a second looking at it that way (even ones taking the money you don't have), though they might be interested in following up the various leads. And neither did Arbcom offer a postion, despite Anna calling it "gossip" (though I doubt she properly read it somehow).

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Encyclopedist]

Let me make this quite clear: I have no criminal convictions in relation to child pornography or anything like it. I cannot comment on Peter Damien's post in relation to that, because that is currently with my counsel for consideration. He's unlucky in that (a) he lives in the same legal jurisdiction as myself, (b) has made no attempt to retain his anonymity, and © has assets within that jurisdiction. I know a weak position when I see it.

There is a different argument as to how some *other* fruitcakes might want to denigrate someone whom they think is me (IRL), and that, too, is outside the scope of this discussion board. Let's just say that it won't happen again.

You clearly don't even remember what Peter said, you nob.

- Oh yes I do, and since it's still recorded here, I can still refer to it, as can my legal advisers, although obviously there is now an offline copy forming part of the case papers. And I think you mean "knob", meaning "incompetent", rather than "nob", meaning "heads" or "person of nobility".

He didn't offer a 'position' at all.

- The effects of his edit are open to interpretation, particularly in relation to a part of defamation law called "innuendo". Let's just say that I offered him an opportunity to withdraw his post, but, er, he hasn't taken that opportunity.

No 'council' would spend a second looking at it that way (even ones taking the money you don't have),

- You're confusing "counsel", meaning a legal adviser, normally in the UK referring to a barrister, with "council", a body, usually elected, having the function or purpose of reaching decisions of some sort of other. As regards the finance, as a former legal practitioner myself, what on earth makes you think that I can't call in a few favours? Get real!

though they might be interested in following up the various leads. And neither did Arbcom offer a postion, despite Anna calling it "gossip" (though I doubt she properly read it somehow).

- ArbCom should have been more careful; but they weren't, because they thought they could ride roughshod over me due to their perceiving me as weak. Well, hot dog, they should have foreseen perhaps, that I might not remain so forever! I'm in daily contact with my solicitor, and am going up to Liverpool for a case conference in a week or so. After that is when the excrement hits the rotating air-conditioning device in a very real and meaningful sense.

This post has been edited by Encyclopedist:

[RMHED]

Let me make this quite clear: I have no criminal convictions in relation to child pornography or anything like it. I cannot comment on Peter Damien's post in relation to that, because that is currently with my counsel for consideration. He's unlucky in that (a) he lives in the same legal jurisdiction as myself, (b) has made no attempt to retain his anonymity, and © has assets within that jurisdiction. I know a weak position when I see it.

There is a different argument as to how some *other* fruitcakes might want to denigrate someone whom they think is me (IRL), and that, too, is outside the scope of this discussion board. Let's just say that it won't happen again.

You clearly don't even remember what Peter said, you nob.

- Oh yes I do, and since it's still recorded here, I can still refer to it, as can my legal advisers, although obviously there is now an offline copy forming part of the case papers. And I think you mean "knob", meaning "incompetent", rather than "nob", meaning "heads" or "person of nobility".

He didn't offer a 'position' at all.

- The effects of his edit are open to interpretation, particularly in relation to a part of defamation law called "innuendo". Let's just say that I offered him an opportunity to withdraw his post, but, er, he hasn't taken that opportunity.

No 'council' would spend a second looking at it that way (even ones taking the money you don't have),

- You're confusing "counsel", meaning a legal adviser, normally in the UK referring to a barrister, with "council", a body, usually elected, having the function or purpose of reaching decisions of some sort of other. As regards the finance, as a former legal practitioner myself, what on earth makes you think that I can't call in a few favours? Get real!

though they might be interested in following up the various leads. And neither did Arbcom offer a postion, despite Anna calling it "gossip" (though I doubt she properly read it somehow).

- ArbCom should have been more careful; but they weren't, because they thought they could ride roughshod over me due to their perceiving me as weak. Well, hot dog, they should have foreseen perhaps, that I might not remain so forever! I'm in daily contact with my solicitor, and am going up to Liverpool for a case conference in a week or so. After that is when the excrement hits the rotating air-conditioning device in a very real and meaningful sense.

Phil/Rod, I do rather admire your capacity for bluster and bullshit, I can see why you felt so at home on Wikipedia.