Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

2
  • 11
    I can think of at least two completely different scenarios that could have driven the perceived urgency and doubling down behind the decision because they cannot reveal them. There may be others. In either case I'm okay with the fact that they can neither tell us the full scenario nor backtrack on it the way we would like to see. What they can do is do some legwork to rescind the public defamation by acknowledging that the urgency did not stem from the hitherto publicly accused side, then go out of their way to make amends in other ways.
    – Caleb
    Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 10:37
  • 5
    @Caleb I hadn't thought about that aspect of it at all! I'd like to know your speculations (in general terms, of course, not mentioning anything that might be sub judice). I can only think of one scenario, but then, I've never been very streetwise! By the way, I'm trans (or TOCOTOX, "too complicated to explain", as someone used to call this sort of thing on the Usenet newsgroup soc.bi, a long time ago), and I'm not a Christian, but I thought your statement Brothers, I must go… the single best thing I've read on this whole sorry business. Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 2:06