In a message dated 10/2/2008 2:46:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
george.herbert(a)gmail.com writes:
Even the most severe opponents did not seriously claim that the admins
who "drove him away" (indef blocked him and his employees repeatedly)
were involved in the deception or conflict of interest issue with
Weiss.>>
------------------
Ha ha silly.
All conflicts begin at the bottom. It's unusual for an editor to conflict
with admins directly at the outset. I was not referring to those admins who
got swept up in this *without knowing* that the other side was blatantly
masquerading and using undue influence. I was referring to what we know now, that
the other side of this conflict had what-is-the-legal-term-for-it "unclean
hands".
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 10/2/2008 6:31:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com writes:
The flattering picture of media power in the hands of WP (we didn't run
Byrne's line on short selling, so it was ignored by the Wall Street Journal and
New York Times?) deserves a short response. As in: "Come on!" We're the unique
reliable source, now?>>
----------
Doesn't it seem like there's a bit of a distinction between
"we didn't run his line" compared to
"he was called a raving lunatic, a psychopathic hoodlum, and driven from WP
on a rail by a group we now know were equally partial and acting in bad faith"
Just a small difference from what you stated, to what actually occurred.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 10/2/2008 7:13:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
He's still hired people to work for his company with the
sole purpose of having them publicly attack and slander his perceived
enemies, including actively trying to infect their computers with
viruses. He still claimed that a "sith lord" was orchestrating massive
naked short selling campaigns to destroy his company.>>
------------------
Funny. I don't know if that's true, but it does remind me that Basia
Piasecka Johnson, now worth 2.6 billion (per Forbes) accused her lawyer of working
for the KGB and that members of the families of her stepchildren were KGB
associates. Also that to the Solidarity movement in Poland, she was more
important than the Pope.
So hey you can be insane and rich I suppose. Or maybe just paranoid.
HOW do you KNOW that a Sith Lord wasn't behind this?
By the way, when you yourself are being publicly attacked and slandered, I
think it's only fair that you can do the same back. A certain "journalist"
has a very odd way of writing about "naked shorting crybabies", without very
little fact and a lot of mud-slinging. Doesn't really sound very professional
to me, but hey. I'm old school, where financial journalists keep their
opinions out of their articles and just report the facts without comment. I'm
kooky that way!
Will Johnson
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
"Harm" is now irrevocable? If so then we've been talking cross each others
for years.
In a message dated 10/2/2008 9:50:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net writes:
To
"harm" someone, however, is to cause them unnecessary and irrevocable
damage.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 10/2/2008 7:21:42 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
In neither of those cases are we *doing* harm. Harm to the people has
been done, certainly, but we come late to the party.
As it should be.>>
Would you apply that logic to Ben Ownby ?
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 10/2/2008 7:13:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
Yeah, because Wikipedia works much better when it can behave more
sociopathically.>>
---------------
Or others would call this "normative".
Doctors use "do no harm". Writers do not use this.
It is the norm in writing biographies, that you in fact include things which
could "harm" the person in some way.
For example, right now I'm reading the book on the Johnson&Johnson will
contest. In that book, they go into details about events that transpired in the
newspapers 20 years earlier. I'm sure everyone at the time had forgotten
these things. They were front-page news when they occurred.
So the author is "dredging up" if you will, things forgotten, and the fact
that anew people are reading or remembering these old negative events could
"harm" the person in today's world where most people don't know it.
If a modern biographer covered those details up simply because people had
"forgotten" them, they would be laughed out of the club. It is simply not the
way writers write. Hagiographers, now that's a different story.
Remembering that "investigative journalists" include confrontation and
shock, biographers merely repeat and present. In addition investigative
journalists tend to only present a tiny slice of a person's life, biographers try to
present the entire life. They are not the same thing.
That doesn't mean that biographers cause no harm. Because they do. And we
need to follow the norms of that occupation, not the norms of some other
occupation.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 10/2/2008 7:12:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com writes:
It would be intolerable for the project to willfully
harm innocent people by operating in this manner.>>
----------------------------
Hmmmm it seems we often throw out extreme examples. We don't do this.
If someone does something, they aren't innocent of doing that.
Who are these innocents that we could be harming by reporting on them?
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
"Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" wrote
> I will be dismayed if anyone still believes that the
> potential harm that our articles may cause to their living subjects by, for
> example, invading the privacy of borderline-notable living people,
> is something that should receive no attention in making our content
> decisions.
Ah, well, there are some millions of such people online, at a rough guess. And there are some who are Wikipedians. so dismay would be the order of the day. As it has been for three years or so ...
Just amounts to a substantiation of the need for WP:BLP. But let's look also at notability and the issue of deletion processes. Not really an easy one - I'd be more inclusive of living academics, less so in popular culture and sport.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam