--- In [email protected], "seventhray1" <lurkernomore20002000@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote: > > > > > Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we > > > know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by > > > him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). > > Yea, it's a pretty low inference to make.
It was a question, Steve (three questions, actually). But it is from > the same playbook that states that if someone writes > something and then attributes it to someone else, by signing > another persons name to it, then that person, to whom it was > attributed is within their rights to ask that this not be > done again, but not to claim that they are being > misrepresented. You forgot to add "without supporting the claim." Of course they have a right to make the claim. But either they support the claim, or they refrain from complaining when its credibility is challenged. Curtis, incidentally, repeatedly and quite deliberately misrepresented the objections to his behavior in this matter. > Keep in mind that the misappropriation may remain > forever on the internet unless it is deleted. Not sure what "misappropriation" is supposed to mean here, but all the objections to and controversy about it *also* remain forever on the Internet unless they are deleted. > You would think that, apart from stating something is an > obvious parody, that the party who made the > misrepresentation would apologize and make a retraction > of some sort. Even if that party doesn't believe they misrepresented anything? > Instead the misrepresented party is asked to prove that > they were misrepresented, Of course they are. > and then be judged as to whether or > not they were misrepresented by others who have shown > themselves to be hostile to this person in the past. I don't believe that only hostile persons were asked to judge. These were all public posts, and anybody could make whatever judgment they wished. > You wonder what the #1 point stated above could possibly > morph into. You don't even know what that point was, Steve. HINT: It isn't stated in what you quote above. BTW, Curtis hasn't provided an answer to any of the three questions I asked.
