X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=notes%2Fmemoir-signal-review.md;fp=notes%2Fmemoir-signal-review.md;h=a8300500b011e99b9ea8cec01455d7edc7b6f152;hp=2200e713f57b9664d52fe242d8dba8908a4c9b2f;hb=3e5b2f1dd5b2bbcd229530c262bb119199f9eb0d;hpb=4b1a1ed096d3b9e6824ed1c9a0c185bf855113d9

diff --git a/notes/memoir-signal-review.md b/notes/memoir-signal-review.md
index 2200e71..a830050 100644
--- a/notes/memoir-signal-review.md
+++ b/notes/memoir-signal-review.md
@@ -130,7 +130,23 @@ Kelsey Piper wrote me a REALLY IMPRESSIVE email about why she thinks you're a ba
 
 Had been meaning to send you detailed email about slander but didn't get around to writing it; REACH story got more interesting (Kelsey says an undisclosed someone credibly threatened to sue (!) over the panel report about you, which will delay its release for the one-year statute of limitations, which is short-term good news (not published) but longer-term bad news (the report muyst be a hit piece if you secret ally is trying to hush it), sorry
 
-[my comment: Kelsey said that _someone_ threatened to sue about the report about Michael, and I didn't infer that it was Michael itself?! Jeez, I'm dumb]
+[my comment: Kelsey said that _someone_ threatened to sue about the report about Michael, and I didn't infer that it was Michael itself?! Jeez, I'm dumb
+
+Kelsey's further comments on 28 November 2020 (comment thread on https://www.facebook.com/zmdavis/posts/10158484261660199 ):
+
+> I can confirm that REACH investigated complaints by REACH attendees about Vassar's behavior. The panel wrote up a summary of their conclusions, which included that they felt Vassar should not be welcome at REACH for the time being. The summary was not meant for publication with Vassar's name attached. REACH policy at the time was for investigations to be published with enough information that the person could be uniquely identified in the community "Michael V/A" but not with any information that'd make them Googleable. When the document was shared with Vassar for comment, Vassar threatened the REACH panelists with litigation for "defamation". He did not claim that any specific content of the document was false. The panelists included some people who would be very adversely affected by ongoing defamation litigation, so they made the decision to not publish, and the panelists stepped down.
+
+> At the same time as I was consulting with lawyers trying to figure out some way to publish the REACH document in some fashion so the liability would be solely on me and other people willing to deal with it, Zack and other Vassar-defenders were barraging me with assurances that Vassar was not engaged in reputation management within the rationalist community and had stopped trying to protect opinion of him within the rationalist community. To this day none of them have acknowledged that this was blatantly lying.
+
+my reply—
+
+Kelsey, hi. At the time I was defending Vassar to you (in our 25 July 2019 email conversation), I actually didn't know that Vassar had threatened to sue in response to the REACH report! That conversation definitely wouldn't have happened the way it did if I had known that piece of information at the time!
+
+I certainly agree that threatening a lawsuit is definitely an instance of reputation-management.
+
+If you actively want to go over the Discord/email log, I could go in to more detail about why I said what I said given what I knew at the time? I can apologize for and retract specific sentences I said that were wrong, but I can't agree with the characterization of my behavior as "blatantly lying."
+
+]
 
 oh, I had angrily testified to the panel on your behalf (which would be a bad idea if it were plice, but I figured my political advocacy couldn't hurt): "Michael is great; this is a skapegoating process, not a justice process, &c."