--- In [email protected], "peterklutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "peterklutz" <peterklutz@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > Nyah. Usenet groups are considered impossible to verify, so you > > > > > can't use them as > > > > > > primary/secondary sources. > > > > > > > > > > You could certainly use alt.m.t posts from Andrew > > > > > as a primary source to show that he lied *in those > > > > > posts*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. Unless he quoted those posts on his own website without > > > comment, there's no proof > > > > that he wrote them. At best, you could make a case that his quoting > > > my RESPONSE to him > > > > implied that those were his own words, but wikipedia's been burned > > > too many times to allow > > > > including usenet stuff unless it explicitly appears on Skolnick's > > > website. > > > > > > > > > > Is there a difference in using a printed or electronic source? > > > > > > No. Both are valid. > > > > > > If Skolnick "publishes" stuff under a logon name people know is his > > > the proof of burden rest on him (or the sys admins of the site he > > > publishes on) if he decides to disavow individual postings made under > > > that name as the work of an impostor (the sys admins can easily do > > > this by checking the IP of the poster). > > > > > > Actually, it just might be quite entertaining to see the guy talk > > > himself out of that corner :-) > > > > > > More important, however, is the fact that being and acting in the > > > capacity of journalist, Andrew Skolnick is de facto bound by a set of > > > minimum ethical requirements it is not in his interest that people > > > think he has violated. > > > > > > http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?id=387 > > > http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp > > > > > > I suppose the guy also can be sued :-) > > > > > > > Regardless, its hardly a big issue. I posted both Andrew's newsgroup > quotes to the talk > > section. The mediator's response was: "I guess we can close the case > then." > > > > Of course, this didn't comment on Andrew's remarks directly at all, > which was quite > > politically astute of the guy, IMHO. > > > > It's just of the script. > > Does anyone think that a beautiful idea like wikipedia could withstand > Freemasonry / NWO infiltration longer than ten seconds? > > Seriously? >
Ummmm....
