On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote: > Ken and all, > > Ken Stubbs wrote: > >> hello stef: >> >> i would please request that you take a second look at my message (which >> was sent out to all the lists i could think of) which i have put >> directly below in quotes: >> >> "Gordon & All: >> >> LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ABOUT THIS !!! >> >> THIS ANANYMOUS ALLEGATION IS A BLATANT LIE ! >> >> i also believe it is incredibly irresponsible and unprofessional for you >> Gordon to publish unfounded anonymous garbage like this to the lists." >> >> as you can CLEARLY see stef, i never called gordon a liar at all. i did >> exactly what he asked me to do and that was to respond to his request and >> label "this ananymous allegation a lie". > > No Ken you did not directly call Gordon a liar, but the next thing to it. > You refereed to his post as "Garbage", which is a derogatory term that > indirectly implies that Gordon is lying. Read it a little closer Jeff. The exact statement is "...for you Gordon to publish *unfounded anonymous garbage*". He did not refer to the post itself as garbage, but the rumor contained within. >> i did criticize him for posting it without verification or even an attempt >> at direct verification... for the follow reason: > > How do you know it was not verified? > Because Gordon himself asked for verification. That would imply, among some people, that the rumor was unverified. >> >> >> gordon holds himself out to be a professional journalist. no journalist >> would ever circulate this kind of rumor without attempting to >> verify,verify,verify. (unless you want to classify gordon with hedda hopper >> & louella parsons). > > Yet another slur... :( > No, not a slur. A slur would be to call Gordon a 'goddamn mick limey bastard' or something like that. Ken just wanted to say that he found Gordon's conduct 'unprofessional'. >> >> >> he made no attempt to contact me to ask for verification either. he has my >> e-mail address, knows who and my position in CORE and has communicated with >> me before so he can't plead ignorance. > > This (Rumor?), as you refer to it, has already been at least third soruced. > And from our internal contacts it is now forth sourced. So it is likely to > at least be mostly accurate!!! > Well, since your internal sources are double agents under the pay of PAB, then its obvious they were lying. Its common knowledge that the investigative division of INEG was compromised months ago. Remember, 'never trust a Czech woman in a mink coat' - tsk tsk tsk. >> >> >> one last point... >> let me ask you stef... how can i be any more UNEQUIVOCAL in my response. he >> sent the e-mail out at 2:30 am and i responded at approx 8:am to every >> maillist in sight within 10 minutes of reading it. >> >> hoping that the future finds us with the opportunity to resolve what Mr. >> Kidder refers to as a "bipolar dilema" and find the middle way between each >> other's respective "rights". >> >> ken >> -- Alex Kamantauskas Tugger Networks __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
