On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Counterargument: Sprocklem is probably not actively reading the lists. > I'd explictly attempted to draw eir attention to my intent, but e seemed > to be offline. Thus, it's entirely possible that a) Sprocklem was > unaware of the intent, b) Sprocklem would/will see my message, and move > onto yours, within the 4 day limit.
Possible. Not sure how likely, considering eir most recent message is all the way back from September 13 (although I don't know how much e's been lurking). Certainly it's unlikely 90 versus 96 hours would make much difference. > Another counterargument: G. posted a message to Agora within the 4 day > limit, but not between when you posted the intent and when you tried to > resolve it. It's entirely possible e only started actively reading Agora > as a result of the recent flood of messages. E responded to my original intent. > And of course, this stuff happened within 4 days /because/ 4 days is the > commonly accepted limit; I attempted my counterscam before the 4 day > limit, thus prompting people to read Agora within that limit, precisely > because I thought that's what the limit was. I don't think timing of attempted timing scams is particularly relevant to general notice processes.
