--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], taskcentered <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > Judy, > > > > We didn't start the rumor, but did report. We picked up > > the news from an anonymous submitter to the blog and then > > read Doug Hamilton's posting on FFL. > > > > We later retracted the story because we couldn't confirm > > it through authorities. > > > > We clearly made a mistake in publishing our post. We > > believed we had two sources, but without names and details > > and official confirmation we should not have posted the story. > > > > It's a mistake we will not make again. > > Tell us again about the time MMY was rumored > to be sending small groups of fanatical true > believers off to isolated camps in the jungle > to await the nuclear holocaust, John.
In other words, John can admit to making a mistake by posting his (seemingly false) rumor, but Judy cannot. Instead, when called on posting a seemingly equally false rumor, she re-attacks, and redoubles her efforts to discredit John. That said, Gina's post on TM-Free hardly con- stitutes a "retraction," John. It's a Judy- style "retraction," saying in essence, "Ooops, we may have screwed up by publishing this bad stuff, but here is some *other* bad stuff you should know about the group we're dedicated to writing bad stuff about." To wit: Follow Up on Rumored MUM Suicide January 2007 Posted by Gina at 1/20/2007 01:42:00 AM My good friend in Fairfield checked with TM "village criers." There is no word about a recent suicide on MUM campus. She said they calmly responded, "THAT one is just a rumor." They continued with their cafe' dinner. Suicides and other tragic stories of medical & financial neglect are common features of TM Organization life. Then she offered, "But do you want to know about our community suicides of the last year or two? .. one woman put her head in an oven, another man hanged himself in his basement, and someone jumped in front of a moving train. It's all so sad." Hint: I think it's nice to claim that you published a "retraction," but other than this post to FFL, I don't see one. So far there have been two different stories pre- sented here on FFL -- one claiming informa- tion from the Sheriff's office that such an event did take place, and others suggest- ing that it didn't. I suggest that we all wait to see which is which and then those who were mistaken can say so clearly, not with a cheap-shot "Yeah, I might have been wrong about that first smut I posted, but here's some more smut for you." That's a trick you *learned* from Judy, John. If you don't want to be considered to be just like her, you'll do a better job with your next retraction, or avoid having to make one. For a blog that claims to be "99 and 44/100ths TM-free," that 56th of a percent is looking more than a little obsessive.
