The response from the ethics committee was akin to:
"What time is it?"
"Day time, now don't bother me."
Notwithstanding the criminal conspiracy aspect of the Enron thing, the appearance of a resolution without information only leaves dissatisfaction and invites further investigation.
In that way, this reminds me of that.
In what way might I have actually defamed anyone?
And, in what capacity am I being advised? Are you representing AAW and/or the BOD and/or the ethics committee, and/or any specific members thereof?
Does this advise come as a friendly suggestion or veiled threat?
What "information" you are seeking is a mystery. Complaints alleging serious ethical violations, which normally result in sanctions being imposed upon those found guilty, must be based upon actual facts submitted and established by competent proof; they are not devices to obtain facts which go by the rubric of "fishing expeditions", and can, in certain circumstances, be deemed unethical in their own right.
The complaint alleged violations of AAW ethics principals. The Committee determined that no
ethical violations occurred based upon the Complaint and proof that was submitted. Simply put, the complainants failed to submit competent proof of their allegations, which were, after all, based upon hearsay taken from internet chatroom rhetoric rather than being based upon actual facts "testified" to by persons with actual knowledge of the events. Moreover, most of the allegations, at best, concerned alleged failures to follow one procedural rule or another, rather than actions taken in actual bad faith with evil intent. The complaint was, therefore, properly dismissed with the short statement that no bad faith or unethical conduct was proven on the part of the six Board members who were the targets of the document.
If you'd like to play investigator, feel free to do so. But you really should start with the actual people involved, if, that is, you can get any of them to talk to you. That means directly, one-on-one, not posting messages in some chatroom.
Now, let's make sure this is perfectly clear, I represent neither the AAW nor its Board of Directors nor any AAW member. Moreover, I am not advising you, Mr. Guadiane, in any way, shape or form, on any subject or issue whatsoever. I used nothing more than a common figure of speech which you, characteristically, have misinterpreted. It was neither friendly advice nor a threat, veiled or otherwise, but rather a mere observation.
If you'd like more information about defamation in the Internet Age, consult with an attorney who can explain it and its many forms to you. I did not say you defamed anyone. However, someone who loves to parse words as much as you do, might take your ENRON reference the wrong way. Do not, however, let anything I might have to say deter you from your chosen path.