Ken Arromdee wrote:
He obviously is claiming that things which we say are
true, aren't. Even
the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of
by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay attention
Proclamations by Jimmy, not by anyone else.
Is it clear that the proclamations from him don't necessarily represent our
opinion and should not be taken as such (particularly by reporters)?
Yes it actually was. The context in which the *interpretations*
of the historical events by Jimbo which got up Mr. Sanger's nose
were expressed, was clearly one in which Jimbo was speaking in
a personal faculty, and not as a representative of the foundation,
and in my view fell squarely on freedom of opinion.
There are issues of fact which support a different interpretation
than the one Jimbo appears to uphold, but in the final analysis
it all hinges on what ones definition of the term "co-founder" is,
and is it something formal that is inalienable; call somebody a
co-founder once and you can't correct the record later. A favorable
gloss on the interpretation Jimbo holds is that the early mentions
of Mr. Sanger as a co-founder were symbolic and as a courtesy and
as such not to be taken as a comment on his role in terms of