On Nov 1, 2007, at 21:14, James Carlson wrote: > Simon Phipps writes: >> I don't think accusing a legal fiction gets us anywhere. It lets the >> actual offenders off the hook without allowing the anger to >> dissipate. Ultimately all decisions are the responsibility of an >> actual person. I'll repeat here what I said on osol-discuss: > > Amusingly, when the original poster *did* in fact name names in > response to your request, he was rather quickly reprimanded by another > contributor for using someone's name in that fashion.
It was his manner that led to the reprimand. He doesn't know what he alleged for a fact (and neither do I which is why I am saying nothing, although I think I have a pretty short list of candidates...) and he alleged it in an over-direct way. Had he made a clear, factual and supported statement I can't see why he would have had any problems. > > I doubt anyone can win here. > > Changing it from "Sun" to "Sun executives" might help a bit, but I > doubt we can grind those words to a fine enough point that nobody is > upset with the accusation. I think the OGB /has/ to get to the point where it's naming names rather than just accusing "da Man". Otherwise we face a never-ending cycle of bad blood and suspicion. Of course, if it turns out the individuals involved are indeed acting in bad faith that may happen anyway. S.
