it's possible and reasonable for *you* to have enough evidence to come to a conclusion while *I* do not, is it not? I mean, what got me into this conversation was reading mjg59's blog post and liking the progress I saw in them. I had not yet read the filings he linked to. I think I'd already read kuhn's post, and sfc/fsfe's joint announcement. but those are *all* the same side. I, out of principle and policy, resist making up my mind before listening to opposing sides. maybe you don't. or maybe you do have other information. what you suggest of me, for my cautious approach to making judgments and my care to avoid jumping to conclusions, sounds unfair to me. but, again, you're entitled to your opinion, to your quick or careful judgments, and even to jumping to conclusions if you so wish, and also to express them all. just please don't put pressure on me to condemn (or to absolve, for that matter) before *I* have enough evidence to meet my standards. that pressure is what leads to witch hunts and mob lynching, and I wish no part in that. (I'm not claiming that this is what this case is, BTW, but it's too soon for me to rule even that out)