Re: Walnut Creek letter

---------

Mike Meyer (mwm@contessa.phone.net)
Fri, 6 Jan 95 13:08:18 PST

> Most respondents said they liked it as is. Almost all change suggestions came
> from the small minority of respondents who elected not to sign, and thereby (in
> my view) disqualified themselves from editorial participation.

This last is only true insofar as you do not place words in the mouths
of the substantial minority who disagree with your view. If you say
something that suggest (either implicitly or explicitly) a unamious
opinion, you're no longer on solid ethical grounds.

In particular:

> Walnut Creek recently sent a notice to the faq-maintainers list announcing
[...]

> This note is a formal assertion of our rights at law. While a substantial
> minority of us are angry enough to sue over the present situation, the list
> as a whole hopes that negotiation will allow a repair of our relations with

This is ambiguous. You should clarify that by "the list" you mean the
undersigned. You've left open the possibility of interpreting "the
list" to mean the faq-maintainers list.

<mike

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]

---------

faq-admin@landfield.com

© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved