-snip-
I dont think there is any argument to say that there is not consensus that lauda should be anywhere near DT based on the very high number of high ranking, trustworthy people that have explicitly excluded lauda from their trust lists. (Plus the number of lesser known people that have also explicitly excluded lauda).
Right, now excluded all those that I have rightfully negged from this list and you're down to what, maybe 10% of the original size? I dont think there is any argument to say that there is not consensus that lauda should be anywhere near DT based on the very high number of high ranking, trustworthy people that have explicitly excluded lauda from their trust lists. (Plus the number of lesser known people that have also explicitly excluded lauda).
I dont think there is any argument to say that there is not consensus that lauda should be anywhere near DT based on the very high number of high ranking, trustworthy people that have explicitly excluded lauda from their trust lists. (Plus the number of lesser known people that have also explicitly excluded lauda).
If enough DT1 members exclude Lauda then Lauda won't be in DT1 or even DT2. Your clumsy attempt to redefine consensus on whether someone "should be anywhere near DT" has been duly noted but luckily that's not how it works.Well you have accused them. Clearly that means any complaints are invalid because your decisions and judgement are infallible are they? Life would be so much easier if you could just defame anyone who accuses you of anything amirite?