Folks undoubtedly would have. Or, for that matter, he could have just let the question hang. But he did, unfortunately, choose the route of dishonesty.

Sal


On May 22, 2006, at 11:49 AM, authfriend wrote:

--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> OK, I see what you mean about not being proud--of the *post,* right?

Yes, not proud of the post.  And it took him only
about two minutes to decide to delete it.  (Or maybe
less, if he had to go look up the procedure first).

> I thought you meant not being proud of the deletion.

Well, obviously he was embarrassed by the whole
sequence.

> Either way, it was followed by a lie.  Hard to believe Bob didn't
> realize that any deletion could be traced.

I kinda doubt he would have lied if he had realized
the deletion could be traced (and would be traced,
and the trace made public).

I feel a little bad about the whole thing because
I was the one who announced that it had been
deleted; I had gone back to check the context and
found it was gone.  If I hadn't done that, he
wouldn't have been put in the position of feeling
he had to lie.  (Again, NOT excusing him; he could
have just said, "Yes, I realized it was inappropriate
after I sent it, so I deleted it, but it had already
gone out."  And folks would, I hope, have respected
him for that.)

Reply via email to