she is right about the rating (not about the forcing private information to be public)
Where did I force "private information to be public"?
e pushing it to the point that the public will have a valid interest in my dumping our PM discussions into this thread as evidence of what is really going on here. That may compromise an investigation which is as yet in its early stages. The damage would be limited (even if probably irreparable), because I was sufficiently prudent to only entrust to you a limited amount of information; and I need to weigh that against permitting you to sow discord in public and rake Lauda over the coals for something which you yourself know aboutwhich you know she cant talk about, for the reasons that I stated to you. In effect, you are knowingly obstructing justice for the sake of your desire to Win An Internet Argument. You despicable, spoiled brat, seizing the advantage when you have sufficient information to reasonably infer that Lauda cannot defend herself here without violating my trust and harming the forum!
Which was in response to:
Statistical evidence of success (and/or withholding knowledge) =/= arguing from authority. It's again one of those times, one we had last month. The rating on Kalemder will stand. Don't waste time arguing this, move on to other parts of this situation. Thanks.
It's been 4+ months since the referenced events, what's the rush to tag him now and not wait until you're ready to un-withhold the knowledge?