> The Defendants accept that they have never had any evidence to support the allegations apart from the two unverified claims published in coordination with the Open Letter. They were never in a position to make any informed judgement on the truth of the allegations, and did not seek clarification on any of the allegations from the Claimant.
He won £5,000 plus costs.
[edit - the defendants here appear to be signatories of the open letter]
It's interesting looking at the messages of recent commits of people removing their names:
- Upon reflection, I don't think this letter was the right approach for this situation. Although I cannot retract my initial decision to sign it, I would appreciate having my signature removed from the document.
- We had good intentions and reasons for concern, but there was no due process, and the consequences of that can be awful. Please accept my withdrawal.
- The goal of providing safe spaces is laudable and necessary, but I expected to see further process outcomes from this effort. Perhaps some sort of SIP or scalarum iustitiae processus.
- I no longer believe the way this letter was the right way of dealing with the situation. And while I cannot undo signing it, I would like to request removing my signature.
That's a bizarre coincidence. For the past few days I've run across a bunch of accounts of people taking more creatine than suggested (10-20g a day). They seem to all talk about how it makes them work better during sleep deprivation. So the answer seems like it helps.
Also the working on PRs workflow seems broken - the local branch doesn't have the changes that are on the PR so I can't pick it up and continue working on it.
Why do you fucking think? Because it's tasty. You can disagree with the ethics of how we make animals suffer because they taste nice and still think they taste nice.
The only time I've seen this feature be used is when my grandma accidentally turns it on in the family groupchat - I just don't wanna hang out with my friends in WhatsApp
> The Defendants accept that they have never had any evidence to support the allegations apart from the two unverified claims published in coordination with the Open Letter. They were never in a position to make any informed judgement on the truth of the allegations, and did not seek clarification on any of the allegations from the Claimant.
He won £5,000 plus costs.
[edit - the defendants here appear to be signatories of the open letter]