Nathan wrote: > Honestly, I don't see how you could expect a better set of answers > given your approach. You're not a prosecutor, and you have no right to > interrogate him about whatever "improprieties" you and your supposedly > like-minded (but anonymous and uncounted) associates perceive. You're > also not a shareholder, an auditor, or in any other fashion entitled > to receive polite replies to snide implications of corruption.
You're perfectly correct. Or at least what you write sounds good. I can only ask questions and hope that they get answered (I said this in some reply of mine). If they're not answered, oh well. At least the questions are out there. In this case, Achal's responses seem to have highlighted some of the concerns that people are having (I also said this in some reply of mine). You, like David, seem to be focusing more on my tone (or perceived tone) than the underlying questions being asked, but perhaps that's a predictable (albeit unfortunate) response. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
