On 2011-05-12 12:30, R.E. Byrnes wrote:
Has something to do with someone else having shown him something in confidence before he published it, and conventional notions about "ethics" taking over from there

On 2011-05-12 14:23, Artie Fufkin wrote:
If you can't speak well of the dead, don't speak of them at all.

On 2011-05-12 16:10, ASW wrote:

Quote:

On 2011-05-12 12:30, R.E. Byrnes wrote:
Has something to do with someone else having shown him something in confidence before he published it, and conventional notions about "ethics" taking over from there

Fixed that for you.

:)

On 2011-05-12 18:45, Turk wrote:

Quote:

On 2011-05-12 16:10, ASW wrote:

Quote:

On 2011-05-12 12:30, R.E. Byrnes wrote:
Has something to do with someone else having shown him something in confidence before he published it, and conventional notions about "ethics" taking over from there

Fixed that for you.

:)

Andrew,

First off, my issue, as set forth in this post, is not what Marlo may or may not have done or said. (Those issues and the facts and opinions regarding the same has been hammered to death in many many prior posts.) Rather, my issue is the manner in which you inserted your opinion into the mix, and, in doing so, how you, intentionally or unintentionally, attempted to ascribe attribution for your remarks to Mr. Byrnes.

With all due respect, perhaps a better way for you to have "fixed this" for R.E. Byrnes would have been to have not manipulated his quote in the first place to reflect your editorializing but, instead to have:

1) First provided Mr. Byrnes' quoted remark using the Café's "quote" feature, and,

2) Then just come right out and stated your premise (perhaps with with words to the effect that: "Perhaps, for clarification, a better, and in my opinion, a more accurate perspective of what the issue is, might be 'Has something to do with someone else having shown him something in confidence before he published it, and conventional notions about "ethics" taking over from there'".

In that way, the reader would be clear as to what Mr. Byrnes' comments actually were and to now also be able to understand the manner in which you felt his statement did not accurately reflect the facts as you understand them to be.

Your use of the phrase "Fixed that for you" and your use of the emoticon does little to alert a subsequent reader as to what Mr. Byrnes' original quote actually was and in what way you had "fixed it" for him. Quite frankly, upon reading your post, I had naively first attributed good motives to you in that I had (incorrectly) surmised that you had merely corrected a typo, or taken out a duplicate use of a word,…or some other innocuous form of stylistic correction. However, curious as to what you had actually "fixed" for him, I took the time to go back, look up and read his original quote.

Upon reading Mr. Byrnes' actual quote, I was shocked to learn that the two quotes (i.e., yours and his) could not have been more dissimilar in nature and content and that you had, in fact, actually misstated what you had actually done in your post. You had not "fixed it" for Mr. Byrnes. Rather, by you attributing your remarks even tangentially to Mr. Byrnes, you had seriously misrepresented both Mr. Byrnes' actual comment and you had seamlessly interjected your own opinion as his own. In effect, under the attempted guise of humor, you had substituted and interjected your editorial opinion for his...and done so ostensibly under his name.

To modify another person's quoted remarks as you did (particularly by way and use of the Café's "quote" feature), even under the most innocuous of motives would and did cause confusion as to what Mr. Byrnes actually stated and/or believed. As such, I would respectfully suggest that such technique and device by you violates accepted standards of journalism and publication style.

Not cool.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your actual motives in the aforesaid, a person can chalk your comments up to a feeble attempt at humor gone awry. But, that said, still not cool in that a third person could read your post and ascribe comments and opinion to Mr. Byrnes that are clearly not his own. This is the way that misinformation can be disseminated and reputations can be damaged.

Finally, this post does not attempt to address the issue of any perceived pomposity or arrogance that your unsolicited "fixing of things for Mr Brynes" might evoke. Those issues are best left for another day.


The foregoing is all IMHO; the reader's mileage may vary...and probably does.

Best regards,

Mike