@throwaway151 I recommend editing this post to include a link to this comment in its body (and maybe change the title). At this point it seems like it’s Torres’ word against Cremer’s and I see no reason to default to Torres’ side/interpretation given this. For people who won’t read the comments that carefully this seems important, especially since this post looks quiet enough now that it’s unlikely this comment will be upvoted to the top comment above one that has karma in the triple digits.
At this point, this looks like it was a motivated attack on Cremer and Kemp because of a vendetta against Torres—which wasn’t obvious until the “anonymous” author decided to post a litany of his multi-year documentation of all the things he’s upset at Emile about.
So yes, I think that changing the post to include this new revelation—one which should have been investigated before posting—clearly and at the top of the post, is a minimal necessary step, and I think that the Moderation team should probably step in if it doesn’t happen.
ETA: Glad to see that this was done, albeit minimally and partially. It needs to be clearer, since it is fundamentally disputing the claims made, which the author admits he did not investigate before writing the post.
@throwaway151 I recommend editing this post to include a link to this comment in its body (and maybe change the title). At this point it seems like it’s Torres’ word against Cremer’s and I see no reason to default to Torres’ side/interpretation given this. For people who won’t read the comments that carefully this seems important,
especially since this post looks quiet enough now that it’s unlikely this comment will be upvoted to the top comment above one that has karma in the triple digits.On the last point, I stand corrected.
At this point, this looks like it was a motivated attack on Cremer and Kemp because of a vendetta against Torres—which wasn’t obvious until the “anonymous” author decided to post a litany of his multi-year documentation of all the things he’s upset at Emile about.
So yes, I think that changing the post to include this new revelation—one which should have been investigated before posting—clearly and at the top of the post, is a minimal necessary step, and I think that the Moderation team should probably step in if it doesn’t happen.
ETA: Glad to see that this was done, albeit minimally and partially. It needs to be clearer, since it is fundamentally disputing the claims made, which the author admits he did not investigate before writing the post.