Re: KFPR

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

habanero@delphi.com writes ...
> 
> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> writes:
>
> > Jeff Blakeney writes ...
> >>
> >>      THAT STATEMENT WAS PUBLICLY RETRACTED AS BEING FALSE!
> >>
> >
> >     Not so.
> >
> 
> 'Tis so. I say it again, I retract my original statement.
> 
> 
> >
>>>
     If you accept the followups under a new email reference, there was some
question about whether or not some attempt had been made to get a permission.
This does not "retract" anything about the originally expressed sentiments.
<<<
> 
> If you say so, however, you convieniently neglected to repost the explicit
> retraction. Greg Buchner asked you previously whether you were a
> hypocrite or an idiot. I believe you have just cast your own vote for
> the latter. Congrats.
> 
> 
> >
> 
> Eric  <chippys@earthlink.net>
>       <habanero@delphi.com>


     It looks like you are getting all upset over nothing.

     Both of the retraction statements (and, evidently, the latest "say it
again" retraction) refer to the first part of your 5 August posting. This is
where you say:

>>
Um, I've been quoted in the lamp and have never been asked for permission.
<<

     The passage you quote from my discussion with Jeff B. agrees that you may
well have retracted the above statement. Had you not, for some weird reason,
suddenly switched email ID's, the agreement would have been more positive.

     Now, you are bothered because quotes of your original posting did not
mention that you had retracted the first statement/ sentence in the posting.
Unfortunately, while it was possible to be reasonably confident of the original,
it was not possible to be confident about modifications by some poster from a
bounce-around mailer.

     There was some reluctance to apply modifications to your original posting.
Still, I'll agree that the possibility of a retraction should have been
mentioned and --> apologize <-- for not doing this.


     The simple truth is that whether or not you had been asked for permission
has no bearing on the discussion about motivations for attacking Dr. Tom's
report. Your original posting was a useful illustration because you, a typical
forum participant, _believed_ you had not been asked for permission and then
said ...

>>
However, I feel that posting in a public forum gives implicit permission.
<<


     So, if your associates on the forum now want to hang you for some minor
error in a Csa2 posting which (since retracted) said you were not asked for
permission to be quoted in some 'zine, you can tell them that Rubywand says they
are swatting at gnats and that they are wrong to feel this way.

     No! The reason they should want to hang you is for your freely given,
common sense opinion about implicit permission to quote public statements :)




Rubywand