From: terry@thisbe.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert)
Subject: Re: Exercising Caution When Making Attributions (was Re: ... Boycott)
Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:20:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.141452.6937@news.acns.nwu.edu> learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk) writes:
>In the last several years, I have noticed that the failing of Usenet has 
>moved to a much more elementary plane. There are very simple reading and 
>comprehension problems in this population, including, I am sorry to say, in 
>Terry Lambert's understandings of the thread in which (s)he is participating.
[ ... ]
>Have you now, carelessly, atributed the entire boycott recommendation to
>be my idea? I certainly hope not as I never suggested that, nor do I
>support a concerted (some might call it a conspiratorial) effort. But it
>sure looks as though you have attributed the boycott concept to me.
[ ... ]
>But it seems you have done even worse, you have left the impression that
>I am pro-boycott, indeed there is lots of reason to understand, from your
>article, that I initiated this entire thread.
[ ... ]
>Thank you for your kindness, but I did not state any concerns. I questioned 
>the logic of an article (and mildly flamed the author.)
[ ... ]
>Once more, Terry, just what "idea" are you attributing here?
[ ... ]
>There, now "ya done gone and dunnit!"
>
>You have actually attributed to me something which is not my idea, I
>never proposed this boycott. I do not support the idea either, in the
>sense in which it has been presented to the net by others.
[ ... ]
>Apparently you'd have done much better had you read the original articles in 
>the thread. At least you'd have understood what was being said without 
>misattributing ideas. You could never have replied as you have had you read 
>my article.
>
>If you don't have time to do it right the first time, when will you have the 
>time? Once you're caught with errors as you have posted in this thread???
>
>I expect a public retraction, Terry.

	Bill is quite correct.  Due to his inability to correctly attribute
quotes within his followup posting, he appeared to be the individual under
fire.

	I was incorrect in leaping to defend his intellectual right to
have ideas, and my right to not have to read a 600 article flame storm
on the topic of the lack of "nettiquite" involved in posting inappropriate
material to groups (for example, 600 article flame storms on "nettiquite"
to gnu.misc.discuss, comp.org.eff.talk, comp.unix.bsd, comp.os.mach, and
news.groups).

	I am somewhat chagrined at the tone of his public posting here,
given his rather less caustic email to myself, but it fits with what he
has stated as an intent to "stir up the shit", as it were.

	I must say that I gave only a cursor overview to all but the first
several postings, and, as I stated, picked out the particular article to
which I replied when I reached my threshold.  I shall certainly try to
avoid replying to articles with misleading or incomplete attributions in
the future.

	Nevertheless, despite his "stream of conciousness" reply, which I
suppose is to demonstrate the path he took in his arrival at a state of
frenzy, I hereby formally retract my attribution to him of his incorrectly
attributed statements.

	Since this is a followup of his demand for retraction, which appears
to be a followup of my article, this will hopefully receive the same level
of distribution, as I must assume he has not editted his references yet
again, this time perhaps including the "Newsgroups:" line.


					Terry Lambert
					terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
					terry@icarus.weber.edu

---
Disclaimer:  Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of
my present or previous employers.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2862 comp.org.eff.talk:5618 comp.unix.bsd:4981 comp.os.mach:1131