(a) Anna discouraging researchers from talking with Michael
...
...I specifically remember hearing about the policy at a meeting in a top-down fashion...it seems that not everyone remembers this policy...I must have been interpreting something this way because I remember contesting it.
...
...I also had a conversation with Anna Salamon where she said our main disagreement was about whether bad faith should be talked about...
Just a note on my own mental state, reading the above:
Given the rather large number of misinterpretations and misrememberings and confusions-of-meaning in this and the previous post, along with Jessica quite badly mischaracterizing what I said twice in a row in a comment thread above, my status on any Jessica-summary (as opposed to directly quoted words) is “that’s probably not what the other person meant, nor what others listening to that person would have interpreted that person to mean.”
By “probably” I literally mean strictly probably, i.e. a greater than 50% chance of misinterpretation, in part because the set of things-Jessica-is-choosing-to-summarize is skewed toward those she found unusually surprising or objectionable.
If I were in Jessica’s shoes, I would by this point be replacing statements like “I had a conversation with Anna Salamon where she said X” with “I had a conversation with Anna Salamon where she said things which I interpreted to mean X” as a matter of general policy, so as not to be misleading-in-expectation to readers.
Just a note on my own mental state, reading the above:
Given the rather large number of misinterpretations and misrememberings and confusions-of-meaning in this and the previous post, along with Jessica quite badly mischaracterizing what I said twice in a row in a comment thread above, my status on any Jessica-summary (as opposed to directly quoted words) is “that’s probably not what the other person meant, nor what others listening to that person would have interpreted that person to mean.”
By “probably” I literally mean strictly probably, i.e. a greater than 50% chance of misinterpretation, in part because the set of things-Jessica-is-choosing-to-summarize is skewed toward those she found unusually surprising or objectionable.
If I were in Jessica’s shoes, I would by this point be replacing statements like “I had a conversation with Anna Salamon where she said X” with “I had a conversation with Anna Salamon where she said things which I interpreted to mean X” as a matter of general policy, so as not to be misleading-in-expectation to readers.