It wasn't just a guessing game. Obviously, the information was sent via private mail to a number of members of the list, who now wink at each other as they preach about the sacredness of the embargo. Paul On Aug 26, 2006, at 12:22 PM, graywolf wrote:
> But, keeping quite about it also means not mentioning it at all. Making > it a guessing game violates that promise to my way of thinking. Which > reminds me of an old joke. > > The warden is instructing newly hired guards, "If you see two inmates > talking, break it up. If there are more than two, don't worry about it > because at least one of them is reporting to me." > > -- > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > > Adam Maas wrote: >> It's more than that Paul. If you have a source which gives you info on >> the condition you keep quiet about it, you should, or next time that >> source won't tell you. It's more tha personal ethics, it's a matter of >> not burning someone who did you a favour. You may not have signed the >> NDA, but the source probably did, so they're teh ones who will get >> into >> trouble. >> >> Like others, I have access to the information in question. I'm not >> going >> to divulge it as I don't want my source to get into trouble. Until >> know >> I've avoided letting on that I knew about it, having stuck to pointing >> out what it couldn't be based on Aaron's posts. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >>> That's true as a matter of personal ethic, but it's not legally >>> binding. Having worked in the automotive press for many years, I know >>> writers have to sign for embargoed information. That's legally >>> binding. >>> The embargos don't permit the communication of the material to >>> anyone, >>> even on a one-to-one basis. So the embargo has essentially been >>> violated already at some point in the chain, probably by the person >>> who >>> told Aaron. Because I doubt that Aaron had to sign for the >>> information, >>> although someone did at some point in the chain. Now it's just >>> spreading a rumor. But I find the coy: We know but we can't tell you >>> messages here to be very juvenile. >>> Paul >>> On Aug 26, 2006, at 7:29 AM, John Forbes wrote: >>> >>> >>>> He is embargoed if he was given information on condition that he >>>> keep >>>> quiet about it. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 04:41:58 +0100, Paul Stenquist >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> By the way, anyone who has knowledge of the K10 camera and who is >>>>> not >>>>> a camera dealer or a journalist is in no way obligated to observe >>>>> an >>>>> embargo on information. >>>>> Paul >>>>> On Aug 25, 2006, at 11:33 PM, David Savage wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I ain't playing your guessing game this time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/26/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
