Re: KFPR

[<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>]

> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> writes:
>     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.

I have mystical powers, I can use them to post from more than one account. :o)


>     It looks like you are getting all upset over nothing.

I am not upset at all, in fact, I am a very patient person. My congrats were
merely
"illustrative" of annoyance at "half truth". I pop through periodically and have
 taken
note that you are very bright and knowledgeable of the Apple II. It is no crime
to be
wrong. One can be wrong and still be respected, provided one's mind is open to
the fact. Asserting "half truths" just to be "right" annoys me. A character flaw
perhaps, but there you go ;o).


>     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.

Yes that statement has been unconditionally retracted. The reason for switching
is not weird, it is practical. I do not have access to delphi from work. I
cannot use
my work email address due to the nature of the SPAM that comes through. SPAM
of the XXX variety arriving on a daily basis has the potential to terminate my
contract. The news server at work is read only, posting is not possible.
Therefore,
anonymous remailer is the only practical solution (from work).

>     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.

I will accept your explanation at face value. As before, I am sorry for the
confusion,
mystical powers sometimes impede communication. :o)

>     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.

Cool :o) Accepted, thanks :o)


>     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 :)

I thought Dr. Tom's report was a troll, not a report. I still think it was a
troll, and a very
effective one by the number and length's of threads. :o)   Dr. Tom (Charles)
knows
he is not popular in that group. He (and you, I think) knew his "report" would
cause
a stir. Hence, I think it was a troll. I would need evidence to the contrary to
change
my mind.

No one, to my knowledge is trying to hang me, your thoughts here are not clear
to me.

As to implicit permission, you probably recall that I have retracted that
because
I need to do some research. Stay tuned, it is POSSIBLE I may actually do the
research :o).        I wouldn't hold my breath though, in case I don't :o)

This is my last post on this topic. We now return you to something else :o)
--
Eric  <chippys@earthlink.net>
      <habanero@delphi.com>