Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on November 12, 2014, 11:29:52 PM

Are you really Patrick Murck? Or do you have some sort of white knight fantasy where you ride in on a pony and save him from distress? I don't get it.

I don't get it either. It's perfectly possible to criticise Phin's actions without cheerleading Patrick. Criticisms of Phin's actions are also more likely to be taken seriously if the dialogue doesn't get side-tracked into personal insults about Phin's weight or personal grooming habits.

Regardless, both sides posting the same thing repeatedly isn't going to be at all productive and it's not going to sway any opinions.

Quote from: TKeenan on November 12, 2014, 11:45:46 PM

Quote from: Gleb Gamow on November 12, 2014, 11:34:52 PM

That make you happy now?

Nope. When are we going to get our retraction and unequivocal, unmitigated apology delivered in writing to the honorable Mr. Murck? I'd be much happier then.

Who is "we"? Has Patrick asked for an apology and retraction? When asked for, the usual procedure is for the retraction and apology to be published in the same media which carried the original statements and not for it to be given privately. I suspect Phin would have mentioned it if he'd received any communication in this regard.

And seriously, your repeated use of the word "honorable" makes you come across as a complete tosser. Bitcoin Foundation, its leadership and its role have been contentious since its formation. Patrick doesn't need to be an "honorable" person in order to be innocent of the particular claim made against him and you trying to portray him as some kind of patron saint of Bitcoin damages your own credibility as well as his. His role in previous Bitcoin dramas upset a lot of people and was even regarded by some as dishonourable. Being revisionist doesn't exactly help your - or Patrick's -cause.